1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 9, Number 21
[ Page 6031 ]
The House met at 2:03 p.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I am delighted to welcome some people to our legislative chamber from the province of Alberta -- our immediate neighbours on the other side of the Rockies -- and would like us all to give them a very warm western howdy and welcome. As an Albertan -- I was born in Edmonton, my father in Calgary and my mother in Lethbridge -- as is half of British Columbia, I would like us to give a very warm welcome to the Premier of Alberta, the Hon. Ralph Klein. With Premier Klein is the Deputy Premier, Mr. Peter Elzinga. Also in the gallery is the Premier's executive director -- who was with him in Calgary, I remember a few years ago -- Rod Love. Also in attendance is Mr. Lloyd McDonald.
I'm looking forward to enjoying the hospitality of Premier Klein next week when the western Premiers meet. The last time I was hosted by Premier Klein he was the mayor of Calgary and I was the mayor of Vancouver. We had lunch after a meeting of the big city mayors' caucus. People across Canada said we were going to the Petroleum Club East for lunch. We walked out of city hall, down the sidewalk, into a back alley and into the back of the St. Louis Hotel. There was sawdust on the ground and there were pickled eggs. It was a great event, and I'm really looking forward to the hospitality that we're going to enjoy next week at the Western Premiers' Conference in Canmore.
So welcome to our guests from Alberta.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to have everyone welcome Mr. Sid Parker, NDP MP for Kootenay East, who is in the precincts demonstrating against the government.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Michelle Currie from North Vancouver-Seymour, who is in the gallery today.
H. De Jong: Even though my mother wasn't born in Alberta, I'd still like to introduce a number of people. In the gallery today is my wife Ann. She is accompanied by our oldest daughter, Joan, and her husband Tom -- Joan and Tom Le Mahieu -- with their son David John. I ask the House to please give them a hearty welcome. Incidentally, they're from Visalia, California.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House His Excellency Antoin MacUnslaidh, the Ambassador of Ireland to Canada, who's visiting British Columbia for the first time. I would ask all members to make him welcome.
W. Hartley: Visiting the Legislature today is a group from Garibaldi Secondary School in Maple Ridge: Mr. Hausknecht, some 50 students and several adults. May the House wish them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: This morning B.C. Transit, Victoria, was presented with North America's most prestigious transit safety award: the Elizabeth Dole Silver Award, presented by the American Public Transit Association, recognizing excellence in traffic and passenger safety. B.C. Transit, Victoria, has an outstanding safety record and is also a repeat winner of this major award. Last week four B.C. transit drivers from Victoria were inducted into the Canadian Association of Fleet Supervisors' Million Mile Club for driving over one million miles accident-free. In transit, this represents 20 years of accident-free driving in city traffic -- quite an enviable accomplishment.
Joining us in the House today are B.C. Transit, Victoria, Million Mile Club members: Russ Elliot, Neil Harrison, Wilf Proceviat, Frank Obee and Chris Clement, chair of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission. Congratulations to them on behalf of all members of the House, I'm sure, and I'd ask all members to make them welcome.
P. Dueck: Visiting us today are approximately 50 grade 11 students and their teacher, Mr. Bartsch. They are here to visit the Legislature and also tour the building. They are from the Mennonite Educational Institute, a private school with enrolment from all over the province and even from out of province. They are also known to have produced some very effective basketball players. As a matter of fact, they've won their share of championships in the province. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Streifel: One of the pleasures that the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and I share is the catchment area for Garibaldi Secondary School. I think it would be appropriate to connect with the introduction and welcome by the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows to Mr. Hausknecht and the Garibaldi students. Both of my daughters have attended Garibaldi; one will be graduating this June, and the other graduated two years ago. It's an excellent school. Will members make them welcome.
REPORT ON STATE OF B.C. ENVIRONMENT
Hon. J. Cashore: It's with great pleasure that I table the first ever State of the Environment Report for British Columbia. A state-of-the-environment report has never before been prepared for our province, and I believe that this comprehensive document will set a new standard for environmental reporting in this country. The report provides a statement of conditions and trends for the air, water and land in British Columbia.
[ Page 6032 ]
By using well-defined and commonly accepted environmental indicators, this report will assist us in measuring our collective environmental efforts and will add some long-needed precision to the concept of sustainability. The report is a product of thousands of hours of work and deliberation by scientists, academics, and provincial and federal government officials. In particular, I want to thank the federal government for its significant participation. I would also like to thank the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for helping to shape this very important document.
The state-of-the-environment report has three main messages. First, in many respects B.C.'s environment is in good shape, and we have made significant progress in resolving many problems from the past. Second, there is still lots of room for improvement; many longstanding problems remain unresolved, and new problem areas continue to be discovered. Third, British Columbia is linked environmentally to the rest of the world. Environmental problems do not respect political boundaries.
Specifically, the report notes encouraging trends in dioxin levels in sea birds, a reduced presence of PCBs in marine life, the number of new environmentally protected areas and the fact that over 50 percent of the households in B.C. now use curbside recycling. The overall level of industrial compliance with environmental legislation in B.C. is now very high. These are just a sample of some of the very encouraging signs.
However, we must also look at the negative side of the ledger. For example: British Columbians now use about 20 percent more energy per person than the average Canadian; over 700 species of plants and animals are near endangered levels; since the mid 1980s we have seen an ongoing decline in steelhead populations; and the steady encroachment of urban development threatens many sensitive wildlife habitat areas across the province.
Overall, it needs to be stressed that B.C.'s environment is in fairly good shape, a state that we obviously want to keep it in for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. In the last year and a half this government has made environmental protection one of our central priorities. We have made an excellent start, with the toughest pulp mill pollution laws in North America, tough new regulations to control CFC emissions, increased resources to administer our tough enforcement policies and an impressive list of major new protected areas for our province. These are but a few examples of our government's commitment to protecting one of the most beautiful areas in the entire world.
In closing, I would like to say that these important first steps should not be confused with definitive last words. The state-of-the-environment report is a mere snapshot in time, and while it sheds a great deal of light on a number of areas, it also reveals the little we know in many other areas. As Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, I can assure you that our government is committed to remaining environmentally vigilant, and this first in a series of state-of-the-environment reports will give us the much-needed information we have been seeking.
[2:15]
J. Tyabji: I'd like to start my response by congratulating the government on the state-of-the-environment report. I think it's about time we had an assessment of British Columbia's environment. I'd also like to say that I think it's important for the Minister of Environment to outline that not only is this current snapshot critical, but what we do with it is even more important. We know that there is a wide divergence of views as to implementation of the policies and procedures with which we address the concerns in the report.
Hon. G. Clark: Come on over, Judi. [Laughter.]
J. Tyabji: It's unfortunate the Minister of Finance can't control himself right now. I guess the environment is a topic of levity for the government.
What we see from the snapshot in front of us is that waste management continues to be a problem. It's not enough to say 50 percent of the households use curbside recycling. Based on the statistics available right now, we know that the volume of waste being recycled today, as opposed to 1990, has gone down. In actual fact, the target of 50 percent reduction of waste going to the landfill by 2000 has become further from being reached today than it was a couple of years ago, because people collectively have lost a lot of faith in the process. A lot of people who started recycling are feeling that perhaps their efforts aren't as worthwhile as they could be. I would encourage the government to revisit their procedures and processes of waste management through legislation.
If we look at this snapshot, we also see that water is a potential problem in terms of quantity in the south. That continues to decline, and brings into focus potential for bulk water exports in the south. The Lake Koocanusa problem -- which will be brought up by the critic for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources later -- is an issue the government has to address.
It's not enough to feel comfortable about a state-of-the-environment report as it's presented. Where we as a province are going with the environment is absolutely critical. When we talk about species depletion and the potential extinction of species, that's where some issues like Clayoquot Sound come into play. This government cannot just feel a sense of comfort in a state-of-the-environment report being tabled. What is done with it is critical. That's where we need the collective input of the people of the province, to ensure that there's not only an awareness of where we are but some comfort with where we're going and where the government is going. Right now I don't think there is a great deal of comfort with regard to the government's movement on some of the things like air quality in the lower mainland; initiatives for continued monitoring of some of the elements that are contributing to stratospheric ozone depletion, as we see in this report; and some of the regulations that could have been brought in a year and a half ago to prevent
[ Page 6033 ]
the kind of downward trends we are seeing in terms of B.C.'s contribution to the consumption of things that are causing global degradation of the environment. These are the kinds of things where it's very easy to feel comforted by a report that brings us some very necessary data.
There's no question that we needed a state-of-the-environment report. I congratulate the government in getting it before us. That is just the first step, however, in a very, very long journey to environmental responsibility that will take this data and bring it forward with a strategic plan taking into account the future resources of B.C. and what we have to offer the next generation in terms of our air, water and land strategy.
C. Serwa: It's certainly nice to see what a difference a year and a half makes in government. I've always maintained -- while I was on the government side and now that I'm on the opposition side -- that environmental issues are apolitical issues. They're the responsibility of each and every one of us wherever we sit in this Legislature.
I compliment the minister on the tabling of his environment report. I'm particularly pleased that the thousands of hours of work and deliberation by scientists, academics, and provincial and federal government officials have indicated that the state of the environment in British Columbia is actually very good in comparison to many other jurisdictions. I'm particularly proud of that fact. It's certainly significant and it's a challenge for the government and the minister to continue on in that particular direction. The assessment and evaluation is something that is incredibly important. Done on an annual basis, it will give all of the people in the province a chance to evaluate the initiatives government has taken and the responses to those initiatives.
I'm pleased, too, that the toughest pulp mill emission levels were brought in when I was the Minister of Environment. The reality is that we're now seeing positive signs as a result, with the lower levels of dioxins in the fish in the Fraser River system as well as in the bottom fish in the Fraser River estuary. Those things worked well: air quality, the clean air strategy, contaminated sites, hazardous waste storage, and recycling tires and batteries. I'm waiting for the current government's announcement of the expanded bottle deposit system that the minister is well aware of and that the government has committed to bring in but has not done so in the past year and a half.
All in all, I compliment the minister on this particular initiative. The one area that I wish had been emphasized to a greater degree is not on the brown side of the environment but, rather, on the green side. I hope that the minister will be able to convince his caucus colleagues that all the work we do on the brown side is in fact for the green side and that we have to pay greater attention to fish and wildlife resources -- in fact, to all of the ecology in this splendid province.
RURAL HEALTH TRANSPORTATION ACT
R. Neufeld presented a bill intituled Rural Health Transportation Act.
R. Neufeld: This bill establishes a travel care fund to collect travel bonus points from public sector employees, including groups such as elected representatives and education, hospital and municipal employees; and employees of Crown corporations. It would allow the value of these points and any other available donations to be paid out to help defray the travel and accommodation costs of northern and rural residents who must leave their communities to obtain emergency and specialist care not available in those communities.
The fund would be administered by a five-person board, of whom at least three members would be residents of northern British Columbia. Directors would be chosen for a three-year term by the select standing committee responsible for health care issues.
The bill also provides protection for public employees and others who might be deemed to be in violation of ethical standards for technically accepting travel bonus points in the course of travelling on public business. It also provides that the fund may negotiate discounts for rural and northern residents with airlines and transportation, hotel and hospitality firms for health-care-related travel and accommodation.
The purpose of the bill is to equalize costs for citizens who need to access the health care system, without adding costs to the taxpayer, by capturing a non-utilized value.
Bill M218 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.
CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to present the Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act to the House today. It will significantly enhance protection for B.C. consumers. These amendments will directly affect three significant areas of consumer transactions: motor dealer transactions; consumers of new, used and leased goods; and door-to-door sales. In addition, the new legislation will benefit business by giving them significantly improved accountability in the area of credit reports. Business will now have the right to know the source of the information in their file and the right to ensure that the information is complete and accurate.
These amendments to four acts -- the Motor Dealer Act, the Sale of Goods Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the Credit Reporting Act -- will benefit business and consumers, as they provide: first, a compensation
[ Page 6034 ]
fund for customers who suffer a loss due to a motor dealership insolvency or fraud; second, protection for consumers who lease or purchase used goods; third, secured creditor status for consumers who pay for goods in advance; and, fourth, the regulation of door-to-door sellers, through licensing.
Consumer Awareness Week recently recognized and promoted consumer protection and information in B.C. and across the country. It is, therefore, timely that this legislation be introduced in the House at this time. I welcome these changes and the effect they will have on increasing and protecting consumer rights in British Columbia.
Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 21 be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 21 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.
EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from the His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 16, the Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1993. This bill contains two amendments to the Employee Investment Act and one related amendment to the Income Tax Act. The amendments are technical in nature and are aimed at making many employee investment plans easier to administer. The amendments to the Employee Investment Act will allow the employee venture capital corporations to use more efficient administration procedures for share issuances and earnings capitalization. The proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act will simplify how the employee investment tax credits are claimed by investors in employee share-ownership plans and employee venture capital corporations. Hon. speaker, I move that Bill 16 be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 16 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.
FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fire Services Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This proposed legislation clarifies and strengthens the authority of the fire commissioner to appoint local assistants to carry out the commissioner's responsibilities in communities throughout the province. The mandate of the office of the fire commissioner is to reduce injuries, loss of life and property damage resulting from fire. As part of the overall initiative to modernize all of the statute administered by this ministry, this legislation will also streamline fire-reporting requirements for greater efficiency and improved communication and response. I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 11 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.
MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (NO. 2) AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The proposed legislation contains provisions designed to meet some specific needs in the communities of Sydney, Nanaimo regional district, Invermere, the Fraser-Cheam regional district and Burnaby.
For Sidney, this legislation will validate leases, licences and agreements related to the Sidney port development. For the Nanaimo regional district, this legislation will validate the agreement transferring Bevan Park to the city of Nanaimo. For Invermere, this legislation will validate a 1981 industrial development agreement and a loan between the province and Invermere. This legislation will allow the Fraser-Cheam regional district to enter into an agreement with the federal government and take ownership of the airport at Hope. This legislation will enable Burnaby to provide some health and social services outside its boundaries, specifically to Jericho Hill students temporarily living in Vancouver.
I move that the bill be read a first time now.
[2:30]
Bill 12 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.
LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN VANCOUVER SCHOOLS
F. Gingell: My question is to the Premier. A meeting scheduled for last Saturday between Vancouver NDP MLAs -- including yourself -- the Vancouver School Board and teachers was cancelled because, according to the member for Vancouver-Kensington, you were all too busy. Did you in fact cancel the meeting because you have no answer for the people of Vancouver as to why the district is, as of today, on strike, leaving 54,000 students out of school?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it is important to realize that 50 school districts have now concluded their agreements. Forty of those were concluded without any work stoppages. Ten others have had some form of job action -- a lockout or a strike. Some of them happened
[ Page 6035 ]
in other areas of the province. My concern is for all students in this province of ours, not just those in a high-profile area like Vancouver. I wish the members had shown as much interest in the students who have been inconvenienced in North Island, Alberni and other parts of this province.
The government asked that the parties get together with a mediator over the weekend. They chose not to. A special mediator is standing by now, waiting to sit down with the parties and, for the sake of our children, negotiate in good faith and come to a settlement, like the other school districts.
F. Gingell: The opposition parties on this side of the House have all been concerned about this situation. During the debate on the labour code, the opposition fought tooth and nail against the removal of the essential-service designation from education. With disputes arising all over the province, we now see the fruits of your government's mishandling of the labour code. Will the Premier please instruct his Labour minister, as permitted under section 72 of the Labour Relations Code, to immediately designate education as an essential service?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has only read one-half of section 72. Section 72(1) authorizes the Labour Relations Board, on an application by any board, to bring forward an application seeking designation. There is currently an application before the Labour Relations Board seeking an essential-services designation. Hearings with regard to that application have begun. It would obviously be presumptuous of the government to frustrate the hearing process, which the school board in Vancouver has not asked for, by intervening at this stage.
However, hon. Speaker, this government has acted and is prepared to act. We met on Friday with the BCTF and with the trustees' association. We made it clear to both parties that there is no more money. We have indicated to both parties that mediation services from the ministry are available. I am pleased to advise the hon. member that I have requested the mediator involved in the dispute to come to Victoria tomorrow, so we can provide that individual with a fresh set of instructions to make sure the frustration that parents, teachers and this government feel is put to an end.
LABOUR DISRUPTION IN VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT
J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Vancouver Island North School District was hit by a strike on April 5. A special investigator reported that grade 12 may be an essential service. On April 26 the minister referred that matter to the Labour Relations Board for a final decision. As of today, the strike is still going on and we have no decision. I ask the minister: when can we expect this essential decision?
Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, there are specific time references placed in the legislation with regard to these kinds of expedited applications, and he should simply refer to the legislation. Our interest at this time, if I may reiterate, is making clear, first of all, to the teachers that there is no more money; secondly, that we are prepared to offer mediation services; and thirdly, to use all the devices in our resources available to us under Bill 84 to bring forward a quick and expeditious resolution so that students can get back to learning, teachers can get back to teaching and trustees can continue to administer the system in a reasonable and sensible way.
J. Dalton: Again to the Labour minister. I hardly think that five weeks in a strike is acceptable to anyone. The minister, during the debate on the labour code, stated that a long-term dispute involving education may have an impact on the welfare of the province. My question to the minister is: does a dispute of five weeks, going into the sixth week, not have a disruptive effect on both the students and the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, clearly a dispute that has gone on for some time has a disruptive effect on the education children are receiving. That is precisely why there is an application before the Labour Relations Board, brought forward as it should be under law by the trustees, seeking a designation. We will allow that application to be heard. As the hon. member knows, this minister allowed that application to proceed under section 72(1). We're taking action with regard to that dispute.
Secondly, we have asked the teachers and the trustees, as we did on Friday, to come to Victoria and meet with us so they can be informed about the frustration the government feels and the sympathy it has with both parents and children with regard to these types of disputes. That is why tomorrow we will be taking some additional action. That is why we've said it very clearly to the teachers, in an unprecedented way, that there is no more money. That is why we are prepared to offer additional mediation to bring these disputes to an end.
EDUCATION AS AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The BCTF is playing hardball because this government has sent out all of the wrong signals since day one. You allowed a retroactive 7 percent pay increase to teachers. You allowed school boards to run a deficit. You eliminated education as an essential service and you permitted month-long strikes. How far is the Premier prepared to go to pay off his debts to the BCTF? Will the Premier show some gumption today and re-establish education as an essential service?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it astounding that the third party, which created the legislation that allowed teachers to organize, to form unions and then be able to be in a strike situation, is now demanding action for the legislation that they put in place a few years ago. They were either naive or some other even more unfortunate term to have put that legislation in place without realizing that the consequence of collective bargaining
[ Page 6036 ]
is strikes and lockouts in a small number of disputes in our system.
Secondly, the previous government, which was spending at a rate of 12 percent and 13 percent a year and had settlements of 7 percent on the table for those teachers, now stands up and questions this government when it says there is no more money and that the settlement pattern that has been set at under 2 percent is our expectation. I think it takes a lot of gall for the third party to stand up and ask questions like that under the legislation that they created and the settlement patterns of 7 percent that they introduced, spending way beyond what the taxpayer could afford.
Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplementary.
J. Weisgerber: That was a pathetic attempt by the Premier -- really, one of the poorer attempts that I've seen from this Premier.
Surely even this Premier understands the difference between labour legislation and Bill 20, which gave teachers the right to organize. Bill 20 allowed organization, but there was legislation in place that detailed education as an essential service. No one has the right to deny children the right to education. Will the Premier deal with this issue and re-establish education as an essential service, as it was under the previous government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't know why the Leader of the Third Party is so defensive about the paternity of the legislation that they put in place. Why don't they just acknowledge that they created the legislation? They created local bargaining; they created the climate for these large settlements that we're now overcoming; they created the climate that has led to people expecting more than the taxpayers can afford, and we have made it very clear that the taxpayers cannot afford to put any more money into education. The most generous provision of any budget in Canada has gone into this budget for education, but there is no more money. Sit down and negotiate and get our children back into the classroom.
J. Weisgerber: I don't believe that anyone who looks at the settlements your government made with the BCGEU and the health care workers believes that this government gives a darn about fiscal management. Nobody believes you're serious about imposing restraint. Will you take the opportunity you have and demonstrate to British Columbians that you care about this issue by implementing immediately provincewide teacher bargaining?
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't think in the history of this House we have seen a more pitiful, disgraceful and disgusting abdication of responsibility by a Premier. This government brought in labour legislation last fall. This government has the opportunity to make a change in education in this province. Will the Premier designate education as an essential service today and order his Minister of Labour to get his butt in gear and get these students back in school?
Deputy Speaker: Order! Hon. member, the expression "get his butt" in this context is obviously unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to please withdraw. Would the member please withdraw unconditionally.
G. Farrell-Collins: I unconditionally withdraw.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just ask the minister to get something....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat.
Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Speaker, never before, in the history of this House, have I seen so much fake indignation from the hon. member opposite. The hon. member heard very clearly. In order to try to prevent this dispute, we met with the BCTF and the trustees on Friday. They chose to take a course of action today. As a consequence, as I have said to the hon. member, we have, first of all, made it clear to the parties that there is no more money. Secondly, we've made it clear to the parties that we will offer mediation services. Thirdly, and most importantly, today I have asked Mr. Foley, who's the mediator involved in this dispute, to come to Victoria tomorrow so that we may provide him with a fresh set of instructions. The hon. member is suggesting that this government is not taking any action. We took action on Friday, we're taking action today and we will be taking additional action tomorrow. This government wants this dispute settled. We made that clear to the parties. We will definitely make sure that the frustration parents are expressing to us is expressed very clearly to the parties involved in this dispute.
[2:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me advise all hon. members that Committee A is, of course, sitting simultaneously, and it is dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 47: minister's office, $419,400 (continued).
A. Warnke: A point of order on a matter of procedure. Was what the minister just said not to
[ Page 6037 ]
precede calling Committee of Supply, before we proceed with the Health estimates in the House?
Hon. M. Sihota: There is no rule on the matter, but it is the practice of the House to advise members prior to calling Committee of Supply. Clearly I forgot to do that and tried to bring that matter to the attention of the Speaker. I'm mindful of the need to do that. I'm sure that there is no prejudice here, given the fact that the hon. member, through his House Leader, knows full well that Tourism is sitting in Committee A.
In any event, if it offends the member, I'm mindful of the point that he makes. I will certainly make that clear to the Speaker in future.
A. Warnke: It's just a matter of procedure. I did want to have that recorded here prior to moving further on any estimates.
L. Reid: I would like to address the minister's comments to a press release received over the weekend. It's entitled "Health Unions Continue Efforts to Win Review of Shaughnessy Decision," dated May 8. It appears to come from the British Columbia Nurses' Union, the Hospital Employees' Union and the Health Sciences Association. It says:
"The three health unions are continuing to push the provincial government to establish a task force to review the decision to close Shaughnessy Hospital. Following are draft terms of reference for such a task force submitted to the government by the unions....
"Shaughnessy Hospital task force -- proposed terms of reference: develop recommendations for community consultation in health care reform; identify duplication or overlap of services and make recommendations to improve consultation and cooperation within the region between hospitals and between hospitals and community-based services; suspend operations of the Shaughnessy transition team and impose a moratorium on layoff and displacement notices pending report of the task force; advise the minister on the future of the services offered at Shaughnessy Hospital; review the proposed dispersal of Shaughnessy Hospital services and provide recommendations on the appropriate location of special programs -- i.e. those with a broad regional base -- where such recommendations may include retention of services at Shaughnessy where appropriate, recommend changes to services or the way services are provided to ensure the highest quality of health care in the lower mainland consistent with available funds."
I enter that into debate because I think the issue is ongoing. It seems to me that the decision reached on April 27 by the extraordinary meeting of the Vancouver City Council asked that a moratorium be put in place and that a task force be struck to examine the considerations.
There is an article of May 3:
"I would like to make a modest proposal. The Minister of Health has said the closure of the recently updated Shaughnessy Hospital will save B.C. taxpayers $40 million. The VGH tower will cost $100 million to complete. This does not include the cost of building a new spinal cord unit to replace the state-of-the-art unit opened by this Minister of Health at Shaughnessy in January of this year. Why not cancel the completion of this tower until the taxpayers of B.C. can afford it? Further funds can be saved by amalgamating the administrations of Children's Hospital, Grace and Shaughnessy and using the beds and services already available."
The writer asks that that question be responded to directly. The date of that letter is May 3. The author of the letter is John Sehmer. He raises questions that a number of British Columbians have, and a number of Vancouverites continue to have, because they are awaiting the decision of the Vancouver City Council from April 27, to know if indeed this minister has stopped to consider any of the recent developments in the delivery of health care in this province.
Hon. E. Cull: We spent considerable time last week canvassing Shaughnessy Hospital; I'm not going to go over ground that we have already covered.
With respect to the request for a task force, which again has been covered in this House during question period, we have a task force that is looking at the reallocation of services. It involves both health care providers at Shaughnessy Hospital, the receiving hospital, and people from the University of British Columbia, as well as consumer groups and organizations. We would certainly welcome more participation if there are groups who have decided that they would like to become involved in the various committees that are looking at the different services.
There has been an interim report released. A final report is expected any day. The process of a task force is well developed and included in the decisions that are being made around the services of Shaughnessy Hospital.
L. Reid: With direct reference to the sexual assault service currently located at Shaughnessy Hospital, the emergency services task force report, which was very recently released, suggests that that service will be housed at the University Hospital at the University of British Columbia. That's a huge concern not only for myself as a woman but also for members of the official opposition. Your original discussion looked at Vancouver General or St. Paul's, for the very reason that it should be within close proximity of the downtown core of the city of Vancouver. Those services should, in fact, be located within the same proximity. That is not the intention of the most recent recommendation. Will you confirm today that one or the other -- St. Paul's or Vancouver General -- will indeed be taking the sexual assault service?
Hon. E. Cull: No, I won't confirm any decisions with respect to the relocation. To do so would be to undermine the process that is in place. We do have a process that involves people who have given many hours of their time over the last number of weeks to look at the best places to relocate all of the services at Shaughnessy Hospital. For me to make a premature announcement today, to say that I've decided without receiving their report, would be an insult to those people who have devoted their energy and talents to deciding these very difficult decisions.
[ Page 6038 ]
This was an item that was canvassed earlier, and I will repeat again my commitment to services for women who have been sexually assaulted. I don't believe that they should be at any one hospital. Indeed, I think that all hospitals should start to address the needs of women who have been sexually assaulted and make sure that their staff are trained and are able to respond to their particular concerns.
With respect to the sexual assault services program at Shaughnessy Hospital and the excellent reputation that it has, I will await the recommendations of the task force before making any further decisions.
L. Reid: I ask you to think very clearly about the consequences of having a program outside of downtown Vancouver. Certainly when the discussion was approached in terms of University Hospital, I'm not clear if you're aware that one-quarter of sexual assault victims do not have transportation at their disposal. They arrive at a treatment centre either by police escort or on their own. There is not sufficient bus service to the University of British Columbia. It only travels during peak hours. I appreciate you're saying you're not making a decision today -- but if that decision is reached, we are sincerely compromising the health and safety of women in this province. Certainly, to put it out at the University of British Columbia, well away from significant residential areas, compromises their safety. I would ask the minister to comment.
Hon. E. Cull: I agree that we need to have the services where the women need them. I have every faith in Dr. Penny Ballem -- the head of the Women's Health Centre at Shaughnessy site, who is overlooking this whole package of services related to women's health -- to make the right recommendations to the government, taking into consideration the concerns the member has raised.
V. Anderson: I would like to move on in just a moment to talk about mental health. Before I do, I can't resist making a comment. I appreciate the minister saying that she won't confirm any decisions in reference to reallocation until she has heard the reports. However, in this House she already indicated that the whole decision about closing Shaughnessy has already been made. I find difficulty with those two statements.
Regarding mental health, I wonder if the minister might elaborate a bit on the thrust in mental health programs at this point within the province and on some of the main considerations and changes that she has in mind for mental health within this particular budget.
Hon. E. Cull: There isn't any conflict between the statements the member referred to with respect to Shaughnessy Hospital. The task force's terms of reference are to deal with the reallocation of the services. That's what it has been established to do and we'll wait for its report to make our decisions.
With respect to mental health, we are continuing with the initiatives that we began last year when we made probably the single largest increase in funding to mental health in the history of this province. Funding last year grew by 25 percent, over $50 million of new funding to mental health services.
This year mental health continues to be our number one priority in family and community health services. The commitment the government has is to the implementation of the mental health initiative, a plan that was developed with mental health care providers and consumers over a period of time and is well supported by provider and consumer groups.
We will continue with our commitment to deinstitutionalization, but I have made it absolutely clear that we will ensure that the downsizing of Riverview Hospital keeps pace with our ability to provide services to those patients who will be relocated from Riverview to their home communities. If we need to slow it down we will indeed do so. That has been part of the planning considerations that are ongoing this year.
We are continuing to expand services in a wide variety of areas: to children, to seniors' groups and to people who have been the survivors of historical abuse and who require particular services. We are continuing to focus on consumer involvement in the development, planning and delivery of those services. In the last year we have created a mental health advisory council, composed of providers and consumers from around the province, to give us advice on how to best implement mental health services: what is the direction they should go in, how should they be delivered, etc. We have restructured the Riverview board to make it more of a provincial-wide board. We have established a family advisory council to provide a direct linkage to the families of mentally ill persons so we can provide support to family caregivers who have, in many cases, as great a need as mentally ill persons themselves have for the support of our mental health services.
We are continuing to focus on housing as a major need of mental health services. Probably the biggest need of the mentally ill is safe, decent, affordable housing. Last year we created over 400 semi-independent living units around the province in different communities. We're continuing with that thrust this year.
[3:00]
V. Anderson: I hear the minister but I'm wondering if she could be a little more specific as to some of the programs. On Friday I had the opportunity to attend a luncheon, put on by the B.C. Mental Health Communications Council, that tried to bring to the attention of the government and others the concerns that the people of the community have. The general impression, in fact the very specific impression, left at that luncheon was that the situation has not improved for the persons directly in need of this awareness. Their situation has indeed become more critical in the everyday life situation, with regard not only to housing but also areas like income and the ability to be independent. Could the minister respond in some more specific way about the programs that are being undertaken?
Hon. E. Cull: I'd be very happy to answer specific questions rather than stand up here and try to guess
[ Page 6039 ]
what you're particularly interested in. But let me give you a quick overview, because for anyone to say that we have not made some progress in the last year I find absolutely appalling. That statement cannot be made. I certainly recognize that there is still much to be done, because the former government's failure for the last decade to meet the needs of the mentally ill is not something that can be turned around overnight. But in the last year, with the significant increase in funding and the major emphasis on mental health as a priority issue, we have made progress.
Let me give you some examples of what has started to take place through the funding increases over the last year, which will continue to be enhanced and expanded in this year's budget. In the area of child and youth services, we've provided treatment and assessment services to an additional 5,000 children. So prior to the emphasis that our government has put on mental health, 5,000 fewer children were receiving services for serious mental disorders. We have initiated the residential historical abuse program and expanded the sexual abuse intervention program.
With respect to housing, which I mentioned a minute ago, we've developed 551 new self-contained living units for supported community living. We've developed 42 new spaces in seven staffed facilities. We've revamped and replaced 22 living spaces. We've increased the average wage for direct non-professional care staff in residential facilities from $7.90 an hour to $11.37 per hour. With respect to emergency response, we've provided services to an additional 2,000 people and their families, including homeless people with mental illnesses and those who are experiencing mental health emergencies. We've expanded services, again in the emergency area, to women who are survivors of violence.
With respect to services to the elderly, we've provided consultation, assessment and treatment to an additional 5,000 seniors with mental illness, their families and their caregivers. In terms of consumer, family and community involvement, we've provided an additional 500 consumers and family members with case management, rehabilitation, vocational training, respite care and peer support services. We've provided $2 million to the provincial aboriginal health committee for services to aboriginal people.
We have provided additional transition funding for the British Columbia mental health initiative. This means that we've provided funding for prior development and duplicate operating costs for the transfer of 65 patients from Riverview Hospital to community care arrangements -- which goes back to what I said a few minutes ago about not transferring people until the services have already been thought out and put in place. We've also invested in programs to prepare patients, families, staff and communities for the transfer and have funded planning information, quality assurance and program evaluation initiatives.
All of these are new initiatives begun by this government within the last year and a half. Again, I don't intend for a minute to suggest that these initiatives have fixed the problem with mental health services. They are a start in the right direction, but the problems will not be fixed or addressed until a government is willing to commit money to expand mental health services year after year after year. We started last year; we're continuing this year.
In terms of new funding that's available, we are providing an additional $22 million to mental health services this year. The funds, again, relate to the areas that I've just talked about: additional funding for children and youth; mental health services for adults and for the elderly; funds going into housing; funds going into improving conditions for the workers who provide those services, so that we're ensuring we're getting quality care and continuous care for individuals who are mentally ill. There are quite a variety of services that enhance what we did last year and make sure that not only do we maintain the services provided last year, but are able to build upon them -- and all of this, I might add, in a health budget that has a very modest 4 percent total increase in funding over last year. It's very clear that we have made mental health the number one priority of this government. I'm proud to say that we've done this, and we will continue to do so.
V. Anderson: I gather, with this very large extension in programs that the minister has just given us a shopping list of, that one has therefore increased considerably the number of staff, resources, offices and a variety of other things in order to undertake it. Could the minister indicate to us the increase in staff for this new thrust? What increase in office space and relevant resources has made this possible?
Hon. E. Cull: Essentially, that question gets at last year's estimates, not this year's, because the increase in staffing and office space was done last year. I don't have those figures here, because I'm dealing with 1993-94 figures. If the member is interested in hearing what we did with the money spent last year on office space, FTEs, grant-funded agencies and the like, I'm sure I can have my staff put it together for him.
V. Anderson: Just for clarification, then, if the $22 million that you just indicated is going into mental health is not going into staff, office or resource funding, what is it going into? What's happening to the $22 million?
Hon. E. Cull: The money is going into all of those initiatives. I'm just saying that right now we are six weeks into the new fiscal year and not all of the $22 million has been spent. Indeed, it has not even been determined how all of it will be allocated. At this point we have made allocations for the various areas -- child, youth, adult and elderly. We've made allocations for the various regions in the province. Determining where those dollars will go -- whether to hire another street worker in this community or to fund an agency to do some work in another area -- is part of a community process. We work through the union boards of health and the mental health communities and others in each community to determine how additional funding will be spent.
[ Page 6040 ]
Part of the $22 million that is additional to our budget in 1993-94 obviously goes for inflation, wages, increases in rent and other costs that are just a result of making sure that we can carry on this year doing everything we were doing last year. Part of the $22 million goes for enhancement, and the specifics of the enhancement are part of a community process that we have not yet completed. We used this last year. I think it was very successful. We went out to the communities and said: "Here's the additional funding. Let's sit down and sort out exactly what we need to do in each region and each community of the province to make sure that the dollars we have" -- which I've already said are not going to be able to solve the entire problem immediately -- "are working on those areas that are highest priority and that we have the most ability to make a dramatic impact on." We'll be working through the funding with the communities again this year in a process similar to the one we used last year.
V. Anderson: As I indicated in the meeting last Friday put on by the health community clinic network people, the health communications council, a major concern with people who have mental illnesses, many of which are ongoing over a long period of time and may be with them all of their lives, is personal income to buy food and rent housing. The message coming across loud and clear was that one of the major concerns is not more programs or more facilities but the opportunity to have the personal income that will give them the financial security to look after their lives themselves, which they cannot do under the present system.
So I ask, hon. minister, if we are allocating the funds in the right way and whether we shouldn't be allocating those funds to the individuals rather than to programs, so that they actually have the opportunity to have choice, to go make the decisions for themselves, to select their own housing, to be able to work in the community and to make independent decisions. Without question, they're saying at the moment that they do not have that freedom.
Hon. E. Cull: I mentioned a few minutes ago that we do have consumer advice built into our committee, so that consumers are in fact telling us from their point of view what is the priority. Clearly having an adequate income, having the resources to be able to make decisions for themselves, is a very important part of the support that these people need. The services that we can canvass today as part of the Health estimates are those that are part of the Ministry of Health budget, which are not income support. That, as you know full well, I think, being the critic for Social Services, comes under the GAIN Act. I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to question the Minister of Social Services when her estimates are up.
But the money that is allocated to the Ministry of Health is allocated for program support. That is our function in the complex of services and support that are available to citizens. We provide health care services; other ministries provide income services. We work closely with them, obviously, and we understand the need for there to be adequate income support for these people. In some cases, the way in which we identify criteria for establishing programs and put those programs together recognizes that consumers have to have maximum choice and that it's part of their health to be able to exercise that choice. It's been very much in that spirit that we've been funding semi-independent living units, because they are essentially apartment units in apartment buildings that anyone else might live in. You're not in a group home or a facility designated for the mentally ill; you're just a resident living in an apartment. You have some additional help: rent subsidies and staff support that allow you to deal with day-to-day living. Those kinds of considerations are built into our programs.
The other thing that is part of our commitment to empowering consumers is the money we have put into consumer enterprises. Last year we funded 20 different consumer-run enterprises, including clubhouses, job-finding services, artist co-ops and self-help groups for patients and families. Quite a variety of organizations are run by the consumers themselves and help them to be able to live a more independent life, to take some control over the things that the rest of us all take for granted.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that there's cooperation between the ministries. Sometimes the people out in the community aren't sure that there is, but I appreciate that there is the attempt to do that.
One area of cooperation that you might help us with is the handicapped designation for a person who has a mental illness. That designation is important to people in order to access the funding through Social Services that you were talking about. In the past, persons with mental illness have had great difficulty accessing the handicapped GAIN undertaking because of the available definitions. Has the minister discussed with the Minister of Social Services the definition that she would recommend so that people with mental illnesses will not be handicapped in the sense that they are not able to access the funds available? This is a crucial concern on their part.
[3:15]
Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate that often clients don't recognize the degree of cooperation that goes on between ministries; in fact, they may question whether the degree of cooperation is adequate. It's one of the things that the Minister of Social Services and I have been working to overcome in the last 18 months, because there are some very serious gaps between ministries, and between programs within ministries. We know that, and that's something I believe we can overcome with the right direction and the right dedication.
Yes, staff have been discussing this matter with the Ministry of Social Services. I understand full well that the definition of who is handicapped affects the GAIN rates. Again, because that is a decision made by the Ministry of Social Services, I urge you to canvass that with her when her estimates come up. Our staff are aware of the impact it has on people we serve through
[ Page 6041 ]
our programs, and many of these things do get into the grey areas between ministries. We are talking about them all the time.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that in the final analysis it perhaps comes under the Ministry of Social Services under our bureaucratic system. But I'm still concerned that the guidance as to a health definition should come from the Ministry of Health. People in the mental health division of her ministry have responsibility for the programs that serve people who have mental difficulties. Her ministry deals with them, and her people work with them closely on a health basis. It seems to me that it would be an abrogation of responsibility if the Minister of Health does not give guidelines and definitions to those in the ministry who have to deal with the needs of the people she's most knowledgeable about.
I would push the minister a little further for a definition of mental health people that would enable them to access resources from other parts of the government, not only from the Ministry of Social Services but also from the Ministries of Education and Labour. The definition that comes from Health will affect the people she serves when they deal with Social Services, Labour, Education and Municipal Affairs with regard to housing. Every other aspect of their life is, in a sense, determined by that definition. I would assume that the Minister of Health has the greatest resources to be able to deal with that.
Hon. E. Cull: As you've just listed so many ministries for me that might have some impact on all of this, you can see that it is not something the Ministry of Health decides on their own. We don't sit in a room in isolation and make up a definition of a handicapped person for another ministry's program. Indeed, this is something that requires the ministries to come together. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Social Services.
The Premier's council for the disabled has addressed the issue about what the definition of a handicapped person should be for GAIN purposes. We will continue to work on an interministry basis to revise and update that, to try to reflect the realities and the best information that all ministries have to bring to bear on this subject.
V. Anderson: I'm sorry to push this, but it is so fundamental to the people in the community, I want to push it further. I can't understand how the minister cannot take the major responsibility for advising and guiding other people and other ministries in this area. She is the one who works most closely with those who have a mental health condition. She is more aware than others of the implications of that over someone's life span.
What I'm trying to say is that the minister has been in that office for at least a year and a half. She says that this has been a priority. Therefore, I'm assuming that the minister has been giving advice to people in other ministries on the kinds of considerations and guidelines that must apply to people who have mental health problems. At this point I'm not asking what the other ministers are doing; I'm asking what guidelines and directions this minister is offering to other ministers, through her experience in her ministry.
Hon. E. Cull: We are continuing to work with the consumer organizations, the Premier's council for the disabled and other ministries on an interministry basis. I am not prepared to make announcements here on behalf of another minister.
P. Dueck: I find it difficult to be on this side of the House and face senior staff that were in the ministry prior to me being on this side, and there are times when I enjoy it more on this side than on that side. I have to say to the Minister of Health that she is very fortunate to have people like that on staff, and I'm certainly glad that you chose to keep them.
Being Minister of Health is a great responsibility. I think it's tremendously rewarding. It is tough. I think you have one of the most difficult portfolios, and I actually agree with some of the things you do. Every time I say that I feel a bit guilty, because my record is that when I agree with that side of the House, I'm generally wrong. By agreeing sometimes, I hope it's not always that way.
We only realize what kind of health care system we have when someone -- either ourselves, someone in our family or someone we know -- is down with an illness. That's when we realize how good our health system actually performs and actually is for the people. My mother passed away just a couple of weeks ago. She was 93 and she needed much attention in the last couple of years, first of all in the senior citizens' home in the long-term care and then in the hospital the last while. I can attest to the tremendous service that people get in the health care system in our hospitals.
I'm supposed to ask questions and criticize, but I think we also have to point out some of the things that happen in the health care field. I believe health is something you do not take politically. You are very apolitical, or should be. I tried to do this, as a matter of fact, to the point where I was criticized many times that my community didn't get what it ought to because I favoured some other community. I want to tell you that's not true -- I didn't favour it over another. I tried to keep an open mind, and when the money was available, I tried to steer it in the direction of whatever community needed it most.
Our health care system is something that we can be proud of, but I guess the one concern we all have is that we have to take care that we don't lose this tremendous asset that we have and enjoy. I would say that without doubt it's the best in Canada, or best in the western world. This province has been a leader in so many areas that I think we should take tremendous care.
I gave the minister a list of questions some weeks ago and reminded her again some time later. I wonder if she has the answers now, or would that follow up at a later date?
Hon. E. Cull: I want to thank the member for his remarks in opening. I share his view that sometimes it is easier sitting on the other side of the floor when you're
[ Page 6042 ]
making these kinds of decisions. It is often a job that is not only difficult -- you're absolutely right -- but it's one that calls for decisions to be made on a non-partisan basis. That does not always stand you well with some of your colleagues as you're trying to explain why you're making these decisions. So I appreciate your empathy on that.
With respect to the questions you gave me, you gave them to me on Thursday and again reminded me that I had these questions. I'd given them to my staff and they were going to prepare answers for today. In looking at the questions, I know that I know the answers to some of them, so you might want to go through them right now. Otherwise you can wait, and when we adjourn this afternoon I'll make sure that you get the written response. It was promised for today.
P. Dueck: Thank you very much. I'll wait and get them all at once; then we don't waste time in the House.
I believe the doctors' dispute could and should have been settled in a different way. It's unfortunate that it has gone on so long. I have to get it on the record that we've always had a cap. That's not the issue. I think the issue is that you got started on the wrong foot by putting it in the budget and saying: "This is the cap. Shall we discuss it now?" In previous years we always discussed it prior to budget time and came to some kind of agreement, and then we announced the amount to the physicians.
I feel badly about that, because I don't think it does anyone any good to have this argument going on and on. I'm getting calls and letters from people in the community complaining bitterly that this cannot be settled. If I can give a little advice, I think you should sit down with the BCMA and say: "I goofed. I should have done it another way." Try and compromise. Try and get to some resolution, rather than saying, "I will not," and them saying, "We won't," and on and on we go. I think you should humble yourself a little and say: "Perhaps I was wrong." Strength is good sometimes, but sometimes you achieve more by being a little more compromising in your stand and saying: "Can we settle it? Perhaps I was wrong in the attitude I took to begin with. Maybe we should have discussed it first before we put it in the budget."
I hope you can do that, because it's certainly not healthy for the patient. That's kind of a pun: healthy for the patient. It's certainly not good for any one of us. It's inefficient, and I'm sure a lot of things are happening in the doctors' offices that are not good, because they have their backs up. They're fighting, they're mad, and it should be settled -- the sooner, the better.
In my community, the MSA General Hospital has run very efficiently for many years, except for a short period of time with one administrator, but it's back on track again, and I think it's operating well. We've waited a long time for a new hospital. I initiated that some time ago and was highly criticized that I didn't care and that was why it didn't get off the ground. Well, I did care, and I thought that by this time the hospital would be ready to move in. It's on stream, but it's still not anywhere near the beginning of construction. Also, the health unit is small. I am criticized every time I go into my community that the reason they're not getting a new health unit is because I gave other communities the benefit and the preference and had my community wait longer. That's not true. I certainly brought out the point that we needed it, but it was always the money that we didn't have. It's so small that when more than two people come in, some of the nurses have to leave so they can accommodate those in the waiting room.
Could the minister please tell me that by this coming June the hospital and the health unit will begin construction?
Hon. E. Cull: I'd like to be able to make that announcement this afternoon. Last week when we were canvassing the specific requests of different constituencies, one of the members on your side did get an announcement out of me in the course of the debate. With respect to this particular hospital, we know that there needs to be a new facility for MSA. That was agreed to -- probably going back to your time, I would guess. We did talk about it last week in the estimates debate in terms of the timing. They have had planning funds approved; they are in the course of planning; and, as you know, having sat in this chair before me, when planning is concluded and you get to the point of knowing what you're going to do about the site -- the size, the configuration, the services and all the rest -- completion dollars do follow. We'll be making an appropriate announcement when we get to that stage of our planning preparation. We're just not there yet.
As you know, it does take some time to construct a facility from start to finish, and I'm hopeful that we will be able to conclude the planning and start the construction that we know is needed in that area before too much more time has elapsed.
[3:30]
P. Dueck: That's good news, except I still haven't got an answer on the timing. I know that it began when I was the minister, but it's been a long time. You've been in the chair a year and a half, and Jansen was in the chair after my leaving. So it's been a long time, and I would like to have a more concrete answer from you. I know you're not going to give it to me, but keep it in mind. And please give us the assurance that construction will begin soon, because as you know, it takes two or three years before construction is complete, and the area is growing at such a tremendous rate that again I'm afraid we're not going to be able to look after the people in our area.
The other thing I was going to bring up is the enormous size and cost of the health care system. One percent always sounds innocuous. What's 1 percent? If it's a small ministry it doesn't mean that much, but in health care, 1 percent is an enormous amount of money. You realize that. I realize that. Generally on this side, we say: "Why don't we spend more on whatever?" I'm saying it because I'm really concerned about the health care system surviving in pretty well the same form as it is today. If we don't take care, we're going to go down the road of New Zealand and Sweden. I've visited both of those countries, and I have a brother who has lived in New Zealand for years, and I tell you, it's a disaster.
[ Page 6043 ]
They waited until the very last minute, until the creditors said, "no more," and then they took action.
I would like to see this government take action now, and the action I'm proposing is, why not a user fee? I've been on this particular bandwagon now for many months -- for years, as a matter of fact. I know it's against the rules and regulations of the Canada Health Act, but we could lobby. I lobbied the Health minister -- I think it was Jake Epp at the time -- and basically anyone I talk to sort of agrees until it comes to going in that direction; then everyone is chicken that perhaps the people in their area, or the voters, will cry and scream. I think the time has come. If you put it to a vote and asked the people of the province whether they would be willing to pay a small user fee to protect the health care system, you would have an overwhelming response. They would say: "Absolutely."
We had a user fee some years ago, as you well know. We took it off in 1987 because the Canada Health Act did not allow a user fee. We had until May 1 or April 1, 1987, to eliminate that particular fee. We were the last province in Canada that still had it. We collected roughly $35 million a year. In itself, $35 million a year isn't that much -- we had no user fee in doctors' offices and a very nominal emergency and hospital fee -- but even then they had calculated that it was $35 million. When we eliminated the fee, I think we had something like $80 million or $85 million in the coffers of the federal government.
We had no choice at the time, but I continued to lobby. I'm saying to you again today that it will come, so help me. As sure as I'm standing here we're going to have a user fee in Canada. We'll have a user fee in the province. There's no question about it. The problem is, no one has the guts to do it. We're going to wait until someone says: "This is the end of the line." Then we'll put in a user fee. Why do we want to destroy the health care system by not doing something like that now? When we had a user fee in the hospitals, nobody complained. People who couldn't afford to pay weren't asked to pay it. They weren't taken to court. It was written off. People are quite happy to...people are still coming to the hospital cashier and asking how much they owe, and when the cashier says, "nothing," they say: "Really? Why?" They're quite willing to pay that small amount.
You say that it won't make any difference. When we removed the user fee, some hospital emergency departments increased by 35 percent. You couldn't get inside the door. It does make a difference. If this minister says it doesn't make a difference, then why bother with a $500 deductible in Pharmacare? Isn't that health care? If the $500 doesn't make any difference, then why are you doing it? You don't want to pay that extra cost. It's a runaway part of the ministry. I agree, but I'm saying we have to do something in all departments and all ministries. We've got to be a lot tougher and not just get extra fees and extra taxes. That's completely wrong. That's not the economics that I learned in school and also in my business life. It's easy to ask for extra taxes and fees and then kill those businesses that provide that extra money, the employment and the engine that drives the economy. You try to destroy that by charging too many taxes: we have a lot of those now. I think we have to de-list quite a few procedures -- which aren't really that necessary -- that we do in hospitals now. I'm going to touch on that one again.
It's not popular to say this in this building. It's not popular for a lot of people, but I'm telling you that I resent paying for abortions on demand. I know it's legal, and I know that they can have abortions -- I'm not going to argue that point -- but why should I, as a taxpayer, be obliged to pay for that procedure? There are many other procedures that should also be de-listed, but that is one of them. You should have a vote on that too. Why doesn't the government have a vote? I will guarantee there would be such an overwhelming number of people who would not say they are against abortion -- that's another issue -- but would say: "Not with my tax dollars, please." We're coming to the point in this province with the economy and the deficit where other people will tell us how we're going to spend our money and not the people and ministers sitting in the government today. It will not work.
We could collect user fees: I say a nominal amount of perhaps $10 a doctor's visit. Don't give the doctors the opportunity to take the $10 and then charge the fee they wish. You can still have a set amount for a visit: they collect the $10 or $15 from the individual and the balance from the government. It is coming sooner than we think. The Minister of Finance has probably talked about it already with his senior people, and I know it has been discussed in many circles. Other provinces are discussing it. Kim Campbell -- the very recent person who wants to take that top dog position -- is on and off and doesn't quite know where she's coming from.
I will say it loud and clear: I believe it's got to come. A nominal amount will not only bring in money -- perhaps $200 million in that way -- but it would cut back on use. I know you will say: "No way, the studies have been done. It doesn't make any difference." Look, try it. Studies have been done and it's not just the poor.... That's always the excuse given: the rich can afford it and the poor will not get service. I will tell you that all the people I know who have a few bucks are the first ones who won't spend $1, never mind $10. They are more conscious of spending bucks than anyone else, and they will go when it's free.
An Hon. Member: A description of your constituency.
P. Dueck: It's a description of me too. I will not spend money foolishly, as this government is doing with taxes. Some very foolish things have happened in the fair wage policy, the fixed-wage policy, and the settlements with the BCGEU. All kinds of foolish money has been spent and then taken in taxes. I think that is absolutely wrong. I hate to be so critical; it doesn't pertain to your ministry. I think you're running a pretty good show, but I'm giving you some advice which I hope you follow through with.
I would like to also mention that perhaps some punitive legislation gets put into place again and again
[ Page 6044 ]
thinking that it's the people of the province who really wish this legislation. I think we get taken up with legislation from time to time as ministers. It's brought forward, and we look at it and say, "it sounds like a good idea," without thinking it through -- not so much in your ministry at this time but throughout government. The reason I'm mentioning this to you is simply to.... You're a senior minister in the government, and I hope that you see this and don't stand idly by, that you're perhaps more rational than some of them and that you voice your opinion, because some of this legislation being proposed is not what the people want. It's something that a particular minister wants. I'm referring specifically to the adoption thing that's on the news again and again. You're sitting in cabinet. I hope that you have some influence in that area, because the people certainly don't want it, but one individual minister thinks it's great. Why don't you do what the people want? Why don't you act upon the people's wishes? Some of this punitive legislation is not necessary, and I would like to see you....
Interjection.
P. Dueck: It doesn't matter -- in estimates we can go pretty wide and handsome. So I would like to tell the member for Nanaimo that if he would quietly settle down and listen, he might learn something.
But again, my basic theme is: let's not wait. Since yours is the biggest ministry, just a small percentage is an enormous amount of money. We're now talking about $6.4 billion. We have three million people in British Columbia. We can't afford to go much further, and we have to watch it. These areas that I've just mentioned are areas that you could spend less and perhaps have people realize more and more....
I'll give you a little example. People say that a user fee has no impact. A friend of mine and his girlfriend went out for lunch some time ago. They went into this restaurant and the ma�tre d' said: "It's full right now. You're table is not quite ready. Would you like to sit in this area and have a drink?" My friend said: "No, we're in a hurry. I don't think we want a drink tonight." He said: "Tonight is Thursday night. It's on the house." He said: "Oh, okay." Now, that's a very silly example, but it's an example that if it's free, people will take advantage of it -- they always do. It doesn't matter whether the people have or haven't got money if it's free.
How many people think that health care costs money? As a matter of fact, so many people will tell you: "I pay my premiums, so I pay for my health care." It is a mere 15 percent, but people don't realize how much money is spent on health care. So we have to make people aware of that and perhaps also -- this was discussed when I was still minister -- have a statement that showed how many dollars were spent in that particular family. I think it would be a tremendous advantage for the Ministry of Health if people could see how much was spent on their behalf. Perhaps they could go back home, discuss it with the family and say: "Well, that is terrible. Did I really spend that many hundreds of dollars?"
So I would like the minister to talk about the money spent on all kinds of procedures, including the one that nobody wants to talk about. I'm bold enough to talk about it even if it's very unpopular. I was not elected to win a popularity contest. I think it's a shame, and I resent paying for abortions on demand. I know they're legal, but I don't think the people of the province wish to pay that. You could make an impact by telling the feds they have to take that off the list of procedures paid through the Canada Health Act.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm going to deal with the user-fee issue first of all. I don't know whether the member saw the program that was repeated again last night on television about New Zealand, but I might point out that New Zealand just had to eliminate their user fees on hospitals because of the incredible impact it was having there.
I do agree with the member when he talks about the need to save medicare. It is incredible. The pressure that we have on our health care system, and particularly on medicare, not only here in B.C. but right across the country, is immense. It comes from rising costs, from an aging population, from the technological ability to do things we never even dreamed of a decade ago. There are many things that are making our health care system less and less affordable every day. If we don't do something right now to start to restructure health care here in B.C., and indeed in all of the provinces, we will lose what is no doubt the most important social program we have in the country, and that's medicare.
[3:45]
That is exactly what the initiatives put in place as a result of the New Directions in health care, released by me in February, are designed to do: to make sure that our health care system not only keeps pace with the changing needs of our communities but also remains affordable. We have already started -- not through user fees but through other means -- to have a dramatic impact on the growth of health care expenditures. Let's always bear in mind that here in British Columbia we're not only dealing with 3 percent, approximately, for inflation, but also with population growth. The growth of our population is fastest in the over-65-year-old age group, which is the group, of course, which consumes the largest amount of services. We will have a real struggle here in British Columbia if we are going to maintain the high quality system that we have and not have to deal with the double-digit increases -- just to stand still let alone meet the needs that many people think are not being met.
I think we've started to turn that around. I'll just give you a couple of examples. We've taken the growth in health care expenditures from double-digit two years ago down to 4 percent this year. We've started to actually turn around the growth of utilization in physician services. It dropped by 5 percent this year. As you point out, small percentages like 5 percent don't sound like very much, but when it's 5 percent of the Medical Services Plan, we're talking about $55 million, and $55 million will fund a lot of necessary services elsewhere in the system, or allow us to do other things. It's not to be dismissed lightly.
[ Page 6045 ]
In terms of the hospital budget, which is at least half of the whole Ministry of Health budget, we've taken the growth in spending there from 12 percent two years ago down to 3 percent this year, for another $80 million worth of savings -- not an insignificant amount.
Let's have a look at what user fees have to offer to our system. There are two reasons why people promote user fees. I will agree with you, hon. member, that the public probably would not complain very loudly, for the most part, about a small user fee. Most people, when asked the question whether they would support a user fee, would reply positively. Let's look at the reason why people promote user fees. There are really only two reasons for having a user fee. One is to gain additional dollars to spend on health care and the other is to reduce abuse in the system. I'm going to deal with each of them separately because each deserves an answer.
One of the most important things that we learned from the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, a commission that was started by the government that you were a part of at the time, was that there is enough money being spent on health care right now. We are spending this year $6.2 billion; it's a third of the provincial budget. It's an adequate amount to meet the needs that we have. We don't need to add more money to the health care system to be able to fix the problems of the health care system, to continue to do the things that we need to do and to address those other needs that are going unmet right now. What the royal commission told us is that there's a lot of waste in the system.
Other studies in other jurisdictions have pointed to that. Whether you look at the rate of unnecessary surgery or medical intervention in U.S. hospitals, anywhere up to 30 percent of what goes on there is either not needed or is even harmful to people's health. Surely in Canada, even with a better, publicly administered system, there are some unnecessary procedures that take place here in our hospitals. The royal commission made it very clear that there was waste in the system, and that the challenge that we have, as people responsible for not only the taxpayers' dollars but for the health system, is to reallocate that money to where it's most needed. What we have dedicated ourselves to over the last 18 months is eliminating the waste, spending smarter and trying to make sure that every dollar we're spending on health care is working as hard as it possibly can.
If you're looking for a new tax, maybe user fees are a way to raise money. But don't make it an argument for putting more money into health care because we don't need more money in health care right now. We need to manage the system better. It's not underfunded; it's undermanaged.
With respect to abuse, people undoubtedly do abuse the health care system. As you say, if it's offered for free, let's have one. Whether it's drinks or television sets or visits to the doctor, if they were given away free, we'd all have more of them perhaps than we really need. When we have looked at the impact of user fees on the number of visits to the doctor in other jurisdictions -- take Saskatchewan -- we discovered that during the period they had user fees there was no reduction in the number of visits to physicians. The only change that occurred was that people who had the financial ability to pay those user fees -- the middle-income people, the upper-income people -- went more often to see their doctor, while poor people actually saw their doctor less often. Since we know that the item most strongly correlated to poor health is poverty, it doesn't make any sense, as far as I can see, to encourage the poor to stay away from their physicians.
We always say, "People who are on social assistance won't have to pay the user fees; we'll be able to look after the very poorest people in our community," and that's so. We also have quite a large number of people who are not poor enough to be on income assistance but who watch their dollars very carefully every month. They count their dollars to see whether they're going to be able to pay their rent, buy their groceries, put the gas in their car, pay their bus fare, or whatever they need for daily living. When it comes down to that critical point -- when you're looking at those very limited dollars that you have to spend on the necessities of living -- you ask yourself: "Do I really need to go to the doctor right now? Should I pay this $5 or not?" If you're dealing with a low-income person who really does need to see their doctor and they put it off because they're concerned about the rent, paying for food, or some of those other necessities, and they put it off to the point where they are really ill by the time they see their doctor or they end up in the emergency room, what have we saved? Certainly in terms of dollars we haven't saved anything. In terms of the quality of human life and of the health of the people in this province, I think we've done those people a tremendous disservice. We would be far more effective to start targeting the reasons that people do not use the health care system appropriately.
I've been told that a simple poster campaign in a hospital in Alberta had a tremendous impact on visits to the emergency room. The poster said something like, "If you come in here now, this visit tonight is going to cost the taxpayers $90" -- or whatever the average charge for emergency visits are -- and "if you can wait until tomorrow morning it will cost us $22.50." That did have an impact, because when those posters were taken down they noticed the difference in the number of people who kept coming in through the doors. That's not going to stop everybody, but it may make some people aware of the fact that while it appears to be a free good, it's not a free good. We all end up paying for it somewhere, and if we pay too much for health care we are not going to have enough money for universities, for the education system, or for any of the other things that we think are really important services that have to be funded out of scarce tax dollars.
What I'm saying by that one simple example is that there are ways through education, guidelines and protocols developed with physicians, auditing procedures, and through many other ways to get at potential abuse and potential waste in the system. In the long run, that kind of managed, thoughtful approach will be much more effective and have less harm on our population than the user fee, which is very easy to administer -- although expensive to administer, no
[ Page 6046 ]
doubt. Certainly the cost of collecting those small fees can be quite staggering.
In any event, as you pointed out quite accurately, the Canada Health Act doesn't allow us to do this right now. For the reasons that I've just set out, as minister I am not going to lobby the federal government and ask them to change the Canada Health Act. I will fight against it, because I don't believe that it is in the best interests of the health of people in this province.
I'm not going to say a lot about abortion. It is a legal medical service in this country. It is not done frivolously; it is done by a physician in consultation with a woman who decides she wants that choice for her reproductive health. Those services are covered under the Canada Health Act, and they are funded here. While I respect your opinions and your beliefs on this subject, I, my party and this government campaigned for the right of women to choose and for that to be an insured medical service in this province. I think the election results on that one speak for themselves.
P. Dueck: Just picking up on that last issue, I don't want to belabour that I mention abortion strictly as another item that should be de-listed, rather than the morality of it, because I know it's legal, and I don't want to talk about that.
We have had in this country in the last few years more information on birth control than ever in history, and we have more abortions than ever in history. Now you try and figure that out. I mean, it's absolutely unbelievable. This is why I say: why should the taxpayer be burdened with that?
You also mentioned that a user fee was a tax. I didn't say that it would be additional. I believe that with a user fee you could reduce the health care budget, not add to it. You always take it out of context, that all this money is coming in so we're taxing more. No, this money is coming in because it costs something to go to a doctor. By paying that small fee we will reduce the health care budget. The time will come, and it's not that far in the future, when we will put in user fees. You mark my words; it will be on the record. We will have user fees. Why do you think Sweden put them in? Why do you think New Zealand put them in? Because the end of the line comes when the lending institutions finally say: "No more. Your money has run out." If we just spend, spend, spend on everything, gloriously spending this money, it will not last. There will be a time, and that time is getting closer and closer, when -- and it really scares me; I'm going to be all right, but my children and their children are going to have a different story -- in spite of what you're saying today, the health care system will probably be changed dramatically.
You mentioned also that the target is to educate people. Absolutely. I can't agree with you more. I think we should do more in that area. You mentioned some of the things that you have in mind -- terrific. We should do far more in trying to educate people that this costs money and to please use it wisely. I don't think it's going to happen unless we do it in a way that hurts the pocketbook. When it's free people go merrily along until the end of the road. Then suddenly there's the cliff and over we go. I don't want that to happen.
I fought for a lot of these issues when I was in cabinet. We have to watch our costs, not tax more to cover them. We have to eliminate some programs and tax less.
Interjection.
P. Dueck: Mr. Chairman, I see someone in the back row that shouldn't be speaking because he's not sitting in his chair.
The Chair: Order. Occasionally a member's chair is occupied so the member is unable to take the appropriate seat. The Chair is prepared to be lenient in such cases. Please continue, hon. member.
P. Dueck: Hon. Chair, if that is the case, then he should remain quiet.
I agree with nearly all of the recommendations in the royal commission. I'm sure you don't agree with all of them either. Some of the recommendations are merely opinions the panel had and have not necessarily been tried.
Again and again I hear that user fees don't work. You know, they always zero in on the poor people: here is this poor person who can't pay. Of course we've got to protect the people who can't pay. I don't disagree with that. But why should I go to hospital? Why should I go the doctor's office? Just because it's all free? It's ridiculous. I should pay. I should pay in long-term care. I'm glad you put in that extra for those people earning more money. I think it's a bit low; put it a little higher. I'm willing to pay. I'm willing to pay the whole amount because I can afford it.
[4:00]
We have to get to the point where those people pay who can afford to -- and not just in taxes like the Minister of Finance wants to do. Not more taxes just because I have a house that an assessor thinks is worth X number of dollars, which is not true. Why shouldn't we pay? In every other area of life you pay for what you get. You want to get a licence, you pay. You want to get a fishing licence, you pay. You want to get insurance, you pay.
Here we have the Minister of Health saying we can't do that because it won't do a thing to the costs. Then the minister puts a user fee on Pharmacare. Well, how about those poor people? You see, you're not consistent. First you say we're not going to charge a user fee because it does nothing; it doesn't bring any revenue. It just brings in a little bit. Then you turn around and charge a tremendous $500 deductible on Pharmacare, and some of those people must take those drugs because their lives are dependent on them. So I want to reiterate....
Interjection
P. Dueck: Mr. Chairman, please, I have a hard enough time hearing myself speak, never mind the Minister of Health, and here's this hon. member for Nanaimo, who is very dishonourable when he's always interrupting.
[ Page 6047 ]
There is no question that we should have a safety net. I think you should reconsider the whole area of de-listing certain procedures -- and there quite a few of them that can be de-listed -- procedures that if people want them, they should pay for them. Also consider the fact that a user fee....
I'll make this prediction now: it won't be too long in the future that there will be somebody knocking at the Minister of Finance's door, whether it's this minister or the one that will follow -- and it won't be the same government -- and they'll say: "I'm sorry to inform you, but there is no more money. You cannot borrow any more. You cannot borrow more money to pay interest on the money you borrowed before, and each year it's increasing by millions and millions, and the end has come. The deficit that the government and all the people of the province are facing has come to the end of the line." You'll have to take some very drastic, unpopular -- as they will seem in your eyes.... I think the people of the province are ready to pay more. They're ready for someone to take a hard line -- not extra taxes but trying to reduce some of the expenditures.
I appreciate you listening to me. You've been very honourable in that respect, and that's more than I can say for some other members in this House. At the same time, I think the ministry you are head of is a very exciting ministry. It has tremendous responsibilities, and don't take them lightly. If you want to keep your job for any length of time and have people support you, you better take some of my advice.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think user-fees are an issue of ideology; I think they're an issue of practicality. I don't come at them from an ideological point of view -- because I'm a New Democrat or anything else. I look at them and they don't make sense. They don't deal with the cost issue. They don't deal with the abuse issue. They have....
Interjection
Hon. E. Cull: It's not just the theory of this. We can look at other jurisdictions that have had them in place and study the effects that they've had. Those effects in other jurisdictions have not been in the best interests of the health of the people in their communities. You use Pharmacare as an example, and I say, "Be patient, hon. member", because I too am concerned about the fact that Pharmacare benefits do not reflect people's ability to afford those drugs; they are based on other criteria -- the history of the program, how it came into place. I think we have to address the fact that we do ask some working families to pay a tremendous amount of money out for drugs before they get any assistance in their program, and we provide the same level of benefits to a family whether they are rich or poor. That doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense if what we are trying to do is improve the health of people.
In the short period of time that this government has been in place, I think we've had enough evidence to show that you can use means that are even more effective when it comes to reducing costs in health care. I point again to the fact that we have reduced utilization in medical services this year by 5 percent. When you start to look at the complementary practitioners over the next year, I think you will see a reduction there in the growth of utilization. You can look at some of the waiting lists that we have addressed in the last year. The cardiac surgery waiting list has dropped in the last year. The waiting list for radiation therapy has dropped in the last year. And with sufficient attention given to surgery, putting in place the same kinds of procedures, I think we will be able to have an impact on those, and next year I will be able to report positively on that.
We are addressing the issues that you're concerned about. I think that the difference that you and I have, hon. member, is that we have a different approach about how to go about doing this. I agree with your objectives, not your methods. Certainly the objectives appear to be starting to be realized by the actions that we've taken to date.
I've just been trying to get the figures on teen pregnancies. Despite the fact that we have more information about contraception and that it is more widely available than it has been in the past, teen pregnancies continue to increase. That is something we have to address. For that reason, last year we made $300,000 available to various groups in the province to enable them to address information on contraception to groups that need more information. We do have unequal access to the information, particularly for rural areas, for people who don't have English as their first language, for aboriginal people and in some cases for younger teens who unfortunately find themselves in a situation of having an unwanted pregnancy. We have to address that.
For that reason, at the same time as we made the change in our abortion policy, I announced a task force to look at the whole question of regional access to not only abortion services but also contraception services. If teens are getting pregnant at an increasingly higher rate every year, we're not doing something right. The ability is there to be able to deal with this issue and the information is there, but we're not connecting with the people who need to get that information. So we have to do a better job there, and I hope that when the task force reports later this year, it will be able to give us some good advice on how to bring that rate down, because everybody wants to see fewer unwanted pregnancies. If we had no unwanted pregnancies, then I think all of us would be happy.
C. Serwa: I have a few questions. One of the realities that is confronting us here in British Columbia is a recognition that our aged 65-plus population is probably the highest, or is the highest, of any province in Canada. I think that we're running at about 13 percent at the present time, whereas the Canadian average is approximately 10 1/2 percent.
Hon. E. Cull: We're not the highest actually.
C. Serwa: We may not be the highest. But with our population base.... Maybe Saskatchewan or one of the prairie provinces is higher. Ontario, for example, sits below the average in Canada. The reality is that a lot of these people spend their working lives contributing to
[ Page 6048 ]
the economies of other jurisdictions, other provinces in Canada. They come and retire in British Columbia, and we welcome them. But they come at a time of life when they demand the highest quantity of health care services.
I mentioned this to the former Minister of Health, who is sitting beside me. I didn't get very far with it, but I will try you, hon. minister. It seems to me that in the revenue-sharing formulas the province has with the federal government, there should be an element that would take into consideration the percentage of our population that is over 65. If we attended to that, it would relieve some of the burden on the provincial taxpayer. If you relieved some of that burden, you would free up some of the money that's presently being used in the health care system.
I would suggest that we should utilize that money on the prevention side of the equation, because if we don't start putting more and more money into the prevention side -- and I'm not just laying a trip on you, hon. Minister, because I told this member, when he was Minister of Health, precisely the same thing -- and start making a greater contribution and commitment to prevention, rather than paying lip service to it, we're not going to be able to attend to the curative. That's certainly a reality.
I'm also pleased with the latent response I heard in the last few minutes from a former Minister of Health, because I brought these two topics relating to user fees to the attention of that minister when we were in government, and I didn't get anywhere. I also believe that user fees on hospital beds and medical health services would encourage a sense of responsibility on the part of the consumer of those services. I think that's what we're looking at. By encouraging accountability or responsibility, I think individuals and the public at large will start paying more attention to the bodies that the good Lord gave us, and they will start respecting and appreciating them far more than they do. When we don't have that sense of responsibility, then all sorts of things, such as teenage pregnancies, go amiss. If we're not going to be personally accountable or responsible for picking up the costs of that, then society will have to bear that burden.
In view of what we're talking about, in view of "W5" -- which you have obviously seen -- and in view of the actions taken in New Zealand, where even the privatization of hospitals is actively encouraged by government -- government itself is referring patients to private hospitals if these private hospitals develop an expertise in one field or another or are providing quality services at a more competitive rate -- we're going to have to take those steps. Economics is no respecter of political ideologies. The reality is that we're being confronted with heavier and heavier cost burdens in an area that is not enhancing the quality of life for the population at large. It's primarily focusing on the curative. We've got to work at prevention. We've got to get people to understand that they have to accept more responsibility than ever before. That surely has to be the way out of this.
I would appreciate your comments.
Hon. E. Cull: I certainly agree that increased emphasis on health promotion, on keeping people healthy in the first place and on preventive health care is the direction we need to go in. In fact, we have tripled the amount of money being spent on preventive health care, excluding the amount that's done by physicians; you can't factor out what physicians do in terms of prevention versus treating illness. If you exclude the Medical Services Plan physicians part of the budget and compare what your government was spending and what this government is spending, we have tripled that amount in the year and a half we've been in office. We have to continue to increase that amount, because we can be doing a lot more to help keep people healthy in the first place.
Whether it's focusing on the tobacco reduction strategy and trying to turn around that very disturbing trend where young women are now starting to smoke more rather than less; whether it's getting at fetal alcohol syndrome, which we're discovering is in many cases the number one reason behind the kinds of birth defects and behaviour disorders that end up with people in prison because of brain damage as a result of their mother abusing alcohol or other drugs during pregnancy, again something that's entirely preventable; or whether it's looking at some of the things we've done in terms of the hepatitis B vaccination program that we brought in last year, or other immunization that we've enhanced in the last year; whether it's injury prevention programs or school-based alcohol and drug workers -- I could go on and list more things that we're doing in that area -- but if we can stop people from becoming ill or disabled, then we can have a tremendous impact not only on cost but obviously on the quality of life and the health of people in this province.
So you won't get any disagreement at all from me on that area. We have more to do, but we certainly made a good start. It's part of our new strategy. Our New Directions for health care is to pursue that initiative. Indeed, one of the major recommendations of the royal commission was that we weren't spending enough on promoting good health in the first place.
You talked about people who have basically paid their taxes in other jurisdictions but come here and consume our health care services, and that therefore we're paying for them here. I agree. For that reason, it's absolutely shocking and irresponsible the way the federal government has continued to cut transfer payments to the province of British Columbia. It was through the transfer payment system that we were getting our share of the tax dollars that had been paid in other jurisdictions here to pay for our health care services.
[4:15]
The policy that the federal government has put in place to cut federal transfer payments for health and education -- but particularly for health -- means that shortly after the turn of the century we will see no transfer of dollars to this province for health services, despite the fact, as you point out, that people who have not contributed to the funds that are needed to pay for the services will be coming here and consuming those services, and because of their age, they will be doing so
[ Page 6049 ]
at increasingly greater rates. We have tried -- and we continue to try -- first to get the federal government to reverse this irresponsible policy, and secondly to consider the factors of movement and aging of the population in the way they calculate those payments to us. Those pleas have fallen on deaf ears at the federal level. They don't seem to care about the off-loading of these responsiblities onto the province, and I think that it is absolutely irresponsible for the federal government to have put us in this situation. Nonetheless they did, and I don't know how we could create a system here in British Columbia on our own that would not violate the fact that we are a country and that medicare is a Canadian program, not a provincial program. We have to have that ability, particularly in medicare services, for people to be able to move across the country without there being barriers like that. In some of the other ones, we have more of a residency requirement for people moving from other provinces before they can start to consume our services here. The federal government has failed in its responsibility to senior citizens and to provinces in this country through their irresponsible policies in federal transfer payments.
C. Serwa: I'm certainly pleased that the minister has put a fair bit of thought into perhaps looking towards the federal government. The reality is that other than trying to work some sort of an interprovincial protocol type of agreement, the only one in existence at the present time is the federal transfer payments. While they are being reduced -- and perhaps rightfully so from the standpoint of debt and deficit -- it seems to me that it would be appropriate that the percentage calculation be incorporated so that at least we get a fair shake at it.
On medical service premiums, hon. minister, has it been brought to your attention that perhaps there are opportunities there where we could charge X dollars, for example, for an individual at the present time? But if the individual makes lifestyle choices that reduce the potential of utilizing the health care system, is there any sort of a mechanism...? For an example, you mentioned tobacco, and the other one, of course, is alcohol. I think 40 or 45 percent of our acute care costs incorporated are in relation to alcohol and tobacco. But if an individual makes lifestyle choices of eating right and exercising, and perhaps not smoking and drinking, is there any type of mechanism under active consideration that would say, "Okay, you fall into this category," and, like the ICBC insurance rates, there would be an incentive to reduce that particular premium?
Again it's trying to get the message out that each individual is clearly responsible, and rather than paying extra you would then get the benefit of paying less. Is that too complicated to strive to attain? What we're trying to do is find a mechanism to simply reach people to let them know that they can have a great deal to do with the requirements in the system.
Hon. E. Cull: The simple answer is: yes, it is too complicated. If you were to ask people if they think that people who smoked, for example -- which is one of the leading causes of death in this country -- should pay more for their medical services, I don't think you'd get too much disagreement, except from smokers perhaps -- but maybe not even from some smokers, because I think most of them do recognize the risk they're putting themselves at.
But you very rapidly move away from things that we might be able to agree on -- like smoking -- into things that would become more difficult. What about consuming high amounts of animal fat? How much is a high amount of animal fat? We know that some people can consume more than others and that it has no impact on their health or on their blood cholesterol. What if you have a poor diet, but you exercise well, and you therefore are balancing off your risks that way? What about things that you might not be able to control well? A lot of our health problems start when we're children, when we may not be totally in control of all of the things that we do to have a health lifestyle. With just a few examples like that, you see that you can get onto a slippery slope very quickly, and it's very difficult to start discerning when you really have control over these things and when you haven't.
It immediately gets us into the situation in the United States, where if you have some kinds of health conditions you can't get insurance, no matter how much you're willing to pay. Those relate not only to ones that are lifestyle-related but to things that you have no control over whatsoever. If you are genetically inclined to have a certain kind of disease, you don't control that. There's very little you can do to prevent it, but in the United States you might not be able to get insurance no matter how much money you're willing to pay, should you have that. I don't think anybody in this country would stand for that kind of system coming in here.
So while there is some appeal to making people pay for obvious lifestyle things, because there's a belief that pocketbook and behaviour are directly connected in many cases, it's a very difficult one to implement. For that reason, we've put the vast majority of our efforts into education, and we've had.... I'm not speaking about our government in particular, but Canadians have had a tremendous impact over the last number of years as we have actively focused on good health and activities that promote good health.
I can remember as a teenager hearing about the 70-year-old Swede that was in better shape than the 24-year-old Canadian or something like that. That has changed. Participaction in the 1970s started to raise our fitness and health rates, and most people now accept that exercise is part of a normal, healthy lifestyle. If you look at things like our consumption of animal fats or alcohol, our smoking rates or any of those other things that we know have a negative impact on our health over the long run, those rates are all dropping. They're not dropping because people who do those things have to pay more -- although in some cases, with the taxes on tobacco perhaps, there may be a direct financial connection. They have dropped because education programs, targeted particularly at younger people who haven't yet acquired the habits, have been effective.
[ Page 6050 ]
We've found that by regulating and educating we can have tremendous impact on the rate of smoking, drinking and other behaviours. Take things like encouraging kids who are riding bicycles to wear helmets. You hardly ever see kids out on the streets these days who don't have them on. It's become part of the accepted culture of skateboarding or roller-blading or biking, and that's an educational program.
So I think education is where we will have impact and where we have to continue to devote our resources. That way we don't start pointing fingers of blame at people as to whether they are responsible or whether their lifestyle, perhaps even their cultural diet, is not as healthy as another diet. You really start getting into a messy area there that I don't think is effective.
L. Fox: There's been quite a discussion this afternoon around the whole idea of minor fees for service in health care. In the budget the Finance minister stated that the Medical Service Plan premiums for 430,000 lower-income British Columbians were removed and that you also reduced the premiums for another 135,000. I wonder if the minister couldn't give me a little background on that: what that meant in terms of income to MSP, and how much of what was cancelled was previously paid for by the Social Services ministry.
Hon. E. Cull: On the last question, none was paid for by Social Services; this all came out of our budget. I'm going to check for you on the amount of money, because I want to make sure that I've got the correct figure in my mind with respect to the forgone income. But don't forget that it was offset by a small increase at the upper end of the Medical Services Plan premiums. While we eliminated the premiums for people who make under $19,000 net income a year, we increased it at the upper end by a couple of dollars per month. So the actual net impact is very close to zero in terms of forgone revenue. We have collected a bit more and given up some, but I can get the exact amount transferred from one end of the income spectrum to the other.
You asked another question. I know there were three points there, and I've only answered two. Is there still a part I haven't answered?
L. Fox: Yes, I was trying to find out.... I'm well aware that 300,000 people in British Columbia are on social services, and I'm also aware that their premiums in medicare were paid for by Social Services to MSP. My question is: how many of these 430,000 people had their premiums paid for by Social Services, and what was the impact of reducing the premiums to the other 135,000? Because it's an interesting fact. You talk about 430,000 low-income British Columbians, and then you talk about another 135,000 who received a reduction. What was the reduction portion and what were the criteria for that particular thing? As well, how many dollars were paid for by Social Services on behalf of the 300,000 people who were on social services?
My concern is -- and maybe I should point it out so the minister understands my question -- that what this government did was to shift the responsibility for those low-income people from itself onto the individuals who could afford to pay the premiums. You put that responsibility on higher-income earners and people who can afford to pay increased premiums, so, in fact, you are targeting another segment of the population through a means-test approach.
Hon. E. Cull: The way the Medical Services Plan's premium assistance has always worked is that income is calculated at net income and adjusted family income, and there are a number of different categories that are established for premium assistance. People whose adjusted family net income is under $9,000 -- so this isn't their gross, there are certain deductions taken off it -- receive 95 percent subsidy, or premium assistance, under the scheme before we just changed it. Those people, I believe, paid $1.75 per month, so that was their 5 percent. You can appreciate that it cost us an awful lot just to collect that money and process it. It cost more than $1.75 to collect $1.75 worth of premiums, and -- if you want to think of it that way -- we're actually losing money by going through this process. Those 430,000 people have now had their premiums eliminated entirely by going to 100 percent subsidy: people who were in the 95 percent category, or the next group up, from $9,000 to $11,000, in the 75 percent category who paid a little bit more than $1.75 but certainly not much more than that. So not only has this assisted those families who now do not have to pay for those premiums, but we've assisted ourselves in terms of our overall tax situation because we've made our operation more efficient.
This is a real problem, because a lot of those families in that 430,000 would be choosing not to insure themselves. We estimate -- we don't know for sure -- that the number of people who are not insured ranges between 1 percent and 2 percent. But that's an awful lot of individuals who are essentially playing Russian roulette with their health and praying that they don't need to use the health care system so they don't have to pay what maybe to you and I is a small amount of money but which to some of them is quite a large amount.
[4:30]
Moving on from the $9,000 to $11,000, there are three other premium assistance categories: 55 percent, 35 percent and 15 percent. And it used to run out at $17,001 adjusted family net income per year. What we have done in terms of this year's program is increase the monthly premiums for people who receive no subsidy from $35 a month to $36 a month for singles, from $62 to $64 for two people and from $70 to $72 for families of three or more. And we have adjusted the subsidy categories so that if you are under $11,000, you pay no premium, if you're between $11,000 and $13,000, you receive an 80 percent subsidy. The next $2,000 increment up from that, from $13,000 to $15,000 is a 60 percent, and so on, until you get to $19,000, at which point the subsidy cuts out. So we have shifted the subsidy category up by a $2,000 increment, if you like,
[ Page 6051 ]
and eliminated it at the bottom end for those whose incomes fall under $11,000 a year. These are not the people on social assistance. If they were on social assistance, they were already covered and were not paying these amounts. These are funds that are required from people who are simply the working poor.
L. Fox: So if I understand the minister correctly then, the ministry still pays the MSP premium for the people on social assistance.
Hon. E. Cull: As we had agreed earlier with the opposition Health critic, Medical Services Plan was covered last week, so I unfortunately don't have my staff person here for the Medical Services Plan. That was not one of the agenda items we were given for today.
I think what we have here is a bit of a problem of where the money is. These people just don't pay premiums. The premiums don't come directly to the Ministry of Health. About $750 million is raised through premiums, which covers about half of the Medical Services Plan budget. That money is simply not collected from social service recipients. It's not really paid from Social Services to Health in any way; it's just not collected from these people. It doesn't go into general revenue, and it doesn't become part of the overall revenue sources that flow through to the Ministry of Health -- $6 billion this year in health care funding.
L. Fox: With respect to the deal that was struck, if you perhaps had remembered that there are three parties and two independents, some consultation with us may have precluded this kind of difficulty.
I'm still trying to understand. I'm aware of some social services recipients, people who are on the GAIN program, for whom in fact that program was paying their premiums prior to this budget. My question is: if Social Services is not paying MSP premiums, does that particular ministry then pay the Ministry of Health for the full bill for GAIN recipients?
Hon. E. Cull: Actually, just with respect to the agenda here, it was my understanding when we struck this agenda agreement last week that the opposition critic was consulting with the other members to ensure that they were aware of who.... We were just getting the information from you people as to who you needed in the House here so I didn't have to have eight staff for eight different parts of the ministry available at all times. It's extremely wasteful -- if we want to talk about taxpayers' dollars -- to have senior civil servants sitting here when no questions may come to them all day on a particular issue.
In any event, I'm struggling with this question. If you are on social assistance, the individual doesn't pay the premium. The money is not paid on behalf of one ministry to another ministry; it's simply revenue that is not collected from those individuals. So it doesn't have to be journal-vouchered from one ministry to the next. The Medical Services Plan premiums are not, if you like, targeted to the Ministry of Health, although I want to point out -- because a lot of people feel, "Well, why don't all the medical services premiums go to the Ministry of Health?" -- that even if they did all come to the Ministry of Health, we would still be short by another $800 million or $900 million to pay just for medical services alone. So the province collects those revenues. Collecting medical services premiums is a revenue source, which is why the Minister of Finance dealt with this in his budget, not in my budget. It is not directly tied to my budget.
That money is not collected for people who are on social assistance. It is now not collected for these 430,000 people who would otherwise have paid some small contribution towards their medical services until this change was made.
L. Fox: Let me phrase this another way. I don't think the minister is understanding where I'm trying to get to. Anybody who happens to be on social assistance that earns $11,000 or less will now not have to pay premiums, either through the Social Services ministry or directly. Is that correct?
Given that, my question is: how many of the 300,000 are part of the 430,000 that are on social services? There are 300,000 people on social services in British Columbia. The Minister of Finance has suggested that for 430,000 lower-income British Columbians there won't be any premium. Are all 300,000 recipients of social services in that number, or only a portion thereof?
Hon. E. Cull: Some of the social assistance recipients may have been paying the lowest level of premium, so there may be some of the 430,000 who are social assistance recipients right now. The 430,000 people are in addition to those people who had their premiums covered by the Ministry of Social Services last year and therefore did not have to pay those services. I should change that, because that's going back into the debate we just had. Because they were GAIN recipients, they did not have to pay Social Services. There are 430,000 people in addition to that. Some of them may be social assistance recipients. If you're interested in the numbers, I'm sure you we can get those for you.
L. Fox: I think the last statement helps to clarify it.
I want to get into a little bit of a situation which I know the minister is aware of -- because she wrote me a letter on April 1 -- with respect to Cinnamon Lodge in Kamloops, which is the intermediate care facility that has been looking for some funding from this ministry.
Given that there is the opportunity for the Ministry of Health to save considerable dollars through the funding of a private facility versus building their own facility, it would seem to me that.... In view of the availability of ten licensed special intermediate care beds in Cinnamon Lodge in Kamloops, and in view of the waiting lists that appear to be there, why is the minister not recognizing these ten beds? Are they in fact going to be recognized in the future?
Hon. E. Cull: We did canvass this subject in general last week, and the answer is quite straight-
[ Page 6052 ]
forward. We maintain a list of priority communities that require long term care facilities. We have a five-year capital plan to ensure that we are creating more beds every year throughout the province -- approximately 3000 beds over the next five years.
When we go about providing those beds -- because capital dollars plus operating dollars are required to increase beds in any community -- we go back to our priority list. We try to fund those communities which are in greatest need of additional long term care beds first, and we work our way through the system that way. We recognize that we don't have the ability to meet all of the needs immediately in any one year, so we try to do it in a thoughtful, planned and prioritized manner.
If I recall correctly -- I don't have my note here, so I'm going from memory -- Cinnamon Lodge built additional capacity without any approval from the ministry to do so. We gave no indication to them that we would purchase these beds or use them in our system, and ever since they finished these beds they have been lobbying us to add them to the system. I won't argue with the fact that they may be needed in that community, but what I do argue is that we have to set priorities about which communities are first in terms of the list. Right now that community is not at the top of the list; that is not where we are going to be adding beds.
Should be get to some point in the future when we would be adding more beds to the system, Cinnamon Lodge would be asked to bid on the proposal, just like anyone else who would be eligible to bid on our tender in the community. If they were successful in their bid, we would then use their services.
I recall that this particular case has been dealt with by the ombudsman's office as well. Certainly we've been back and forth with the owner of Cinnamon Lodge for some time. The simple answer at this point is that the need for those beds in that community is not high enough up on our list in planning. Should we get to that point, they would have the same ability as anyone else.
If we got ourselves into the situation where someone could build a facility and then demand that we fund it because there's a need in the community, we would have absolutely no ability whatsoever to plan in a thoughtful way for long term care facilities in this province. It would be absolute chaos. We make it very clear to the operators when we will fund them and when we won't. The owners of Cinnamon Lodge knew all along. It was very clear that there was no commitment on the part of the ministry should they decide to take this step. I can appreciate their entrepreneurship, but we have to stick to our plan of making sure we meet the highest need first.
L. Fox: I recognize what the minister is saying, that one can't go out and build a facility and then pressure the government for funding. Part of the concern of this particular individual, as I understand it, is that funding has been given to another institution during the two years that this particular facility wasn't given the opportunity to be part of that proposal or the opportunity to propose an alternative. If I could have the assurance of the minister that should beds be deemed desirable within that community, this particular lodge would have the opportunity to compete for those beds, then that would be sufficient for me.
I will take that as affirmative.
L. Reid: I'd ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Reid: In the gallery this afternoon we have Mr. and Mrs. Frost who are visiting from Campbell River. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. Chair, if I might continue.
The Chair: You may continue.
L. Reid: When we began this afternoon's debate, we were discussing the relocation of the sexual assault unit. On May 5, 1993, a letter was written by Murray Martin, president and chief executive officer of Vancouver General Hospital. For the record, it states:
"It is my understanding that the emergency services task force, chaired by Dr. Ron Walls, has made the recommendation that the best interim location for the unit would be in the Emergency at the UBC site of University Hospital and ideally eventually associated with a 24-hour-per-day centre to be developed at Grace Hospital. In the event that this recommendation is, however, not found to be acceptable and it is determined that it should be located at VGH, then I reiterate our commitment to the program."
Hon. minister, that paragraph begs two questions: why would this government consider an interim location for the sexual assault centre, and why is the university site being considered when it is such a distance from other core services in downtown Vancouver?
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, there is a process underway right now where many people are coming together to review the services of Shaughnessy Hospital. They're making recommendations and looking at options, and they're committing things to paper. Until these come forward in a final report that is considered by cabinet, and a decision is made as to their location, we're speculating. The recommendation may indeed be to go to UBC site, but I have not seen it. I share the concerns that the member has raised. As I said, I have full confidence in Dr. Penny Ballem in terms of the Women's Health Centre services and the work that's being done there. We will have to wait until the task force has completed its work and we know what the final recommendation is.
[4:45]
L. Reid: I'd like to carry on the discussion that my colleague for Vancouver-Langara initiated earlier this afternoon. We were discussing the issue of mental health. I have a question that's been raised by a group in my riding that looks at non-unionized, non-profit employees' salary and benefit compensation. The situation is that they believe that the mental health aspect of it has been frozen pending recommendations from a interministerial committee under the direction
[ Page 6053 ]
of Mr. Peter Cameron. Could you please comment on that.
Hon. E. Cull: There was money put aside both last year and this year for wage equality, to try to raise the wages of those people who work in the health care and social services fields from the very low levels -- in some cases in mental health, as I think I said earlier, from $7.50 an hour up to $11.90. Because this impacts on more than one ministry, although some of these agencies receive their funding from different ministries -- it could be the same organization that's receiving the money -- we want to make sure that the money being spent is consistent not only in the Ministry of Health's budget but in the Ministry of Social Service's budget and in other social services that are funded by government. In other words, we don't act as though we don't know what the other hand is doing.
So yes, there is an interministry committee that is working on this and reaching agreement on how to allocate these moneys across the system so that there is fairness and equity, and so that we start to pay to the people who deal with the mentally ill and some of our social services recipients, child care workers and others a decent wage for doing the important work that they do.
L. Reid: We can select the discussion in terms of the differences currently in place between non-unionized, non-profit employees' salary and benefit compensation versus unionized, non-profit employees -- because it appears that the situation for non-profit employees is going ahead as per usual, and the situation for non-profit employees is a different scenario. Is that the case?
Hon. E. Cull: As I said, it's an interministry issue. There was money in last year's budget, and the money was allocated last year as a result of interministry consultation. There were some problems raised about it, some questions, and we're doing some refinements. This year's money is going through a similar interministry process so that we can make sure we're doing the right thing.
I don't believe that there's any difference in treatment between the non-profit and the for-profit, with the exception that we want to make sure in all cases, if money is being given to organizations for wage equality, that it indeed ends up in the pockets of the workers and is not somehow absorbed elsewhere in the system. So that kind of requirement is there whether it's a profit or a non-profit organization. To the best of my knowledge, we're dealing with a difference between union and non-union shops. Obviously union shops do their own negotiations and have a higher wage level as a result of those negotiations in any event.
L. Reid: Can I deduce from your remarks that both scenarios have been frozen -- the non-profit and the profit -- in the mental health area?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
L. Reid: In terms of the sale of land around the province that has typically been considered mental health land -- i.e., whether it pertained to lands at Riverview or other areas that were the home to facilities for the mentally ill in our province -- there is much discussion in the field about whether or not those lands ever formed part of a legacy fund for the mentally ill in British Columbia. Now that some of those lands are being sold -- or it's certainly anticipated that some of them will be sold -- is the legacy fund still in place in the province? Do the dollars from the sale of that land go towards ensuring a very high level of health care delivery in this province?
Hon. E. Cull: To the best of my knowledge the legacy fund was an idea that was never implemented by the former government. It certainly was an idea that had been around for some time.
The only land I'm aware of that is mental health land and that potentially could be available for sale is the Riverview land. I've met with the Minister of Government Services, who is responsible for B.C. Buildings Corporation, and made it absolutely clear to her that we want to finish our planning process with respect to the replacement of Riverview so that we can determine what happens to that site, and that no decisions are made with respect to the Riverview site in advance of completing our planning. One of the options, of course, is for Riverview to be rebuilt on the existing site. Certainly there's a need for some of that land -- not only the amount that would be available to the buildings themselves, but more land for the sort of peaceful tranquillity and sanctuary that is required as part of those services. So we're very aware of that. I've been working with other government ministers to make sure there are no precipitous decisions about the disposition of that land.
L. Reid: For the record, then, at some point your government may institute a legacy fund for Health dollars?
Hon. E. Cull: There has been no decision on that. That proposal has come forward, but no decision has been made.
L. Reid: If we might turn for a few moments to a discussion of regionalization within the province, one of the first questions is the New Directions pamphlet. What is the cost of this brochure to British Columbians, and what is the cost of television advertising to ensure that this material reaches the public?
Hon. E. Cull: The total cost of all New Directions material, including television advertising -- the making of the television ads, the production, the distribution, any of the other booklets and documents produced to support New Directions -- is less than two-thirds of what we spend an hour on health care in British Columbia: $560,000.
L. Reid: There have been a number of discussions regarding the new directions in health care, and the
[ Page 6054 ]
discussion always comes back to utilization. Is the shift in community care going to decrease utilization or help the average member of the public to better understand utilization and where we need to go with that? There is much discussion that at some point it will cost the system more money. Most folks are not of the belief that this is going to reduce the cost of health care. I know you have responded to this in the past, but in terms of being a very general comment, the general consensus I'm dealing with as Health critic is that the cost will be considerably, as opposed to marginally higher. Could you comment on that?
Hon. E. Cull: The objective of the new directions in health care is not to reduce health care expenditures. As I've said already in this debate, we spend about a third of the provincial tax dollars on heath care, and we have been doing so for at least five years, if not longer. That is a reasonable amount of money to be spending on health care. The object here is to get better value for our money.
To give just one example, if somebody is in an acute care hospital bed because of the lack of community services, because there isn't a quick response team, because there aren't appropriate multilevel care facilities or because there aren't sufficient homemaker hours or home nursing hours to support that person in their home, you're going to be spending in the order of $400 to $800 a day, depending on the acute care facility that this person is in. Through community-based care you can take that $400 to $800 a day out of the acute care facility and support far more than that one individual. Community-based care on an individual basis is probably less expensive, but the objective here is to provide more people with the services they need to keep them out of acute care facilities and free up those more expensive facilities for the people who really do need to be in them.
L. Reid: Certainly I understand the direction that you're heading in, but in terms of the common comment out in the field -- more costs, more bureaucracy and less service -- how do you come to grips with the less-direct-service discussion? That certainly seems to be the issue. You yourself have commented that the cost of getting this up and running is going to be considerable. I trust that the benefits are going to be fewer costs, less bureaucracy and more service over time. Is that a reasonable discussion for the general public to be able to digest at this time?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think I've ever said that it is going to cost a considerable amount of money to make this shift in health care. What I have said is that we're going to spend more money on health care services for people in the community as a result of this. We're going to be shifting dollars, as we have last year and this year, from the traditional institutional system into the community-based system. So yes, there will be more service. I think that if we eliminate duplication from the many boards that are running acute care and long term care facilities, the union boards of health, the regional hospital districts and many others that exist in our communities, and move to a community health council that wraps in the vast majority of those boards, we will have less bureaucracy. Less bureaucracy means less cost for administration, and that means those dollars can be spent on direct patient care, which is very important.
L. Reid: That noted health care philosopher of last week, Brian Kieran, suggested such an overlay, such an incredible number of new entities in health care. What is going to be removed from this exercise so that these new boards will not be a duplication of service?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm absolutely shocked that the opposition Health critic, who until this moment I had far more respect for, relies on Mr. Kieran for her health care knowledge -- but, boy, you learn something new every day in this business.
The simplest answer I can give you is to take a community like Dawson Creek, for example. If you look at a typical smaller community in the province, you realize that it will have a hospital with a hospital board, a long term care facility with its own board, a union board of health managing public health services, direct services delivered by the Ministry of Health that may have no board or at best an advisory board dealing with them and the regional hospital district making decisions about hospital facility capital planning. I'm up to five here now. You also get Meals on Wheels and a few odd non-profit society boards. Even in your typical smaller community, you could have anywhere up to a dozen boards providing health care services.
If you take the major players -- the hospital, the long term care facility, the union board of health, the regional hospital district -- and amalgamate them, you have reduced the number of boards. You've probably brought 80 to 90 percent of the health care budget in that community under the responsibility of one broad, community-based board. That then allows that board to make the kinds of decisions we discussed a week ago, which are difficult to make right now because of the fragmentation of our system.
L. Reid: Not to take away from your earlier comment about how much respect you had for me previously, I trust that we can regain that very, very soon. In terms of Mr. Kieran, he certainly returns phone calls when they are placed to his office.
In terms of health councils in the province, you did not address what duplication will be removed. I'm aware of all the existing bodies that you mentioned. Is there something that's going to be eliminated from the process or not?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, a considerable amount of the administration that is there in all of those different bodies can be removed. Right now there are four or five bodies -- each with its own human resources and purchasing staff; sometimes each with its own laundry services, although there has been more coordination of laundry services in the past; and sometimes with other administrative facilities. These can be amalgamated and reduced through the creation of one board. You're not going to need to keep five administrators on staff.
[ Page 6055 ]
L. Reid: One of the issues that always comes up when we're discussing regionalization is universality, and certainly we end up with a discussion of economic disparity in different regions of the province. Is that an issue for you today? Can you assure British Columbians that different regions in the province, in that they may take a little bit longer to get these new services up and running, will be able to avail themselves of the same level of service?
[5:00]
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I can assure people throughout the province that the level of services they receive will be commensurate with the size and nature of their community. Right now we have in place a number of funding arrangements, and while they don't ensure equity across the province, they are designed to achieve equity. They can be improved to achieve a greater degree of equity than we have right now. We talked at length earlier in the debate about the funding formula for hospitals. I think that's a good example of refinements we've made to funding decisions, which are improving the equity slowly across the system and the province.
The other reason that I can assure people that the wealth of their region will not determine the level of service they get is that there will be no additional taxing authority granted to these bodies. Therefore the money that is distributed will come from the Ministry of Health's budget and will be developed according to a funding formula that we will have to work out with the major players in the system. The objectives of it will be to target resources to where they are needed the most. We will be dealing with population growth, age of population and health status as well, I hope, so that in those communities with the same population profile or size but where one is much less healthy than the other, that region will receive additional resources to try to bring up its health status.
L. Reid: In terms of discussing a time line for achieving some kind of parity across the board, would you be prepared to discuss a time line this afternoon? Certainly the discussion is still out there in terms of economic disparity. There are still individuals who feel that they will not have access to the same services across this province. I know a number of situations have arisen where you have commented on the Greater Victoria Hospital Society.
I don't take anything away from that particular society, but I will submit for the record that I believe it would be very easy to have all kinds of stopgap agencies in place in Victoria, the provincial capital. I find it difficult to make that comparison for Fort St. John or Dawson Creek. Those agencies that are going to support the shift to community care simply may not be reflected in such numbers once we leave the provincial capital and the metro. I think that is the concern that we have not touched on in tremendous depth today. If you could please comment?
Hon. E. Cull: I can't give a deadline or a time line for that kind of equity. When we introduce a global funding formula, which is still some years off, I think we will begin to address the inequities that are inherent in our system. Right now some of the decisions about how health care dollars flow into a community are more equitable than others. Some are more democratically determined than others. For example, we worked our way through the hospital funding formula this year and looked at the possibility for improving the equity in that funding formula. We have a very good formula right now that has been developed in consensus with the health care unions and the B.C. Health Association. Unfortunately, all it does is work out how to equitably distribute additional dollars that are available every year in addition to base funding that is already there for hospitals.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
It is a very fair assumption that in many cases that base funding is not equitable. It means a different level of services in some communities because of historic patterns of funding over time that haven't kept pace with the changing distribution of the population in the province. You could get better equity by using the funding formula on the entire amount of money or, as was suggested, by using it to claw back some from the base and redistributing that. We had a look at what the impact of that would be on the hospital system; it would be devastating. We have to move incrementally, carefully and cautiously towards equity.
If we set in place principles which mean that the money we distribute every year is distributed according to an equitable funding formula, we will indeed be able to improve the equity situation over time, but not overnight.
L. Reid: I understand the comments about the equity situation in terms of whether or not we're going to have boards in place. You mentioned earlier in debate that it may be 1996 before those boards are freely elected in this province. The concern between now and 1996 is decentralization. I guess it refers specifically to dollars. People believe that they will be given some authority to make some decisions, but will not have any ability to fund those decisions in the best interests of their communities. Could you respond in terms of what I perceive to be a three-year time line? It will be three years from now before the communities which have the unique knowledge of their communities will have the dollars to back up the decisions they reach.
Hon. E. Cull: In the transition period the emerging community health councils will have the ability to work with the budgets that are already being provided to the different parts of the system. The various parts of the system that would normally prepare their budgets in isolation from one another will be encouraged, and indeed required, to do their budgeting in cooperation with other parts of the system. So the hospital budget will be prepared with the input from other parts of the health care system. The mental health budget will be prepared in discussion with other parts of the health care system.
[ Page 6056 ]
In the period that we will be entering over the next couple of years, we will be moving to this one budget from a system where everybody has their own budget and does it in isolation, and we'll be doing it in a progressive manner that allows us to come together, start sharing information, build budgets together and ultimately move to one budget.
J. Weisgerber: I was listening with some interest to the debate. As I understand the comments by the minister, the community health councils would have all of their funding flow to them through the ministry from general revenue and there would be no taxing authorities. no taxing powers, for these councils. That seems to be quite a significant shift from what was originally announced. There were quite clear indications in the early announcements that local taxing authorities for those councils were at least being considered.
If the minister has decided against that, I'm delighted. If I was mistaken, then I am with the majority of British Columbians who misinterpreted the early announcements. Before I go too much further, I'll let the minister clarify that so that I'm absolutely sure of where she is coming from.
Hon. E. Cull: Indeed the member is mistaken, and has been mistaken from the very beginning. I believe his comments may have led to some of the confusion on the part of some people as to what was intended. In the seven weeks that I spent going around the province I didn't find a lot of confusion about this issue, because it's very clear in the document that no new, additional taxing authority is contemplated by either the community health councils or the regional health boards.
Indeed, in my announcement on February 2, I made it very clear that we would be establishing a global funding formula, that there would not be taxation authority beyond what exists right now in terms of the cost-sharing of capital projects through regional hospital districts, and that the Union of B.C. Municipalities was working with us to sort out where best to house that capital taxing authority -- which exists today and will exist tomorrow, because we are not changing the taxation system.
J. Weisgerber: Again I say that's good news. I don't believe that the announcement that was made originally was clear in that respect at all. There was a reference to taxing authority, but without any clarification.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Good politics aside, I think it's a critical issue. It's one that causes an enormous amount of concern for smaller communities, for communities in less wealthy, less affluent parts of the province, and there would be an enormous inequity if health care decisions were made on the basis of local taxation. If there is not going to be, I want to take this opportunity to make sure that it's clearly enunciated. If it is, then I will do my bit to make sure that your commitment is relayed by me whenever I'm talking about it.
Hon. E. Cull: I welcome the member's assistance in clarifying the misunderstandings he created by his comments right after the announcement. When they were brought to my attention, I clarified them to the media. I've clarified them to the communities that I have visited. It is contained in the original material that we released, and it was dealt with at the press conference on February 2. I don't know how many more times we could make it clear that we're not changing the financing arrangement for health care. We're changing the governance system, and the taxation system that exists right now will continue as it has in the past, which means the government pays roughly 100 percent of all health care operating costs. There are some costs that are not funded by us and will not be funded by us in the future, and we cost-share the capital costs. The decision of whether that stays with regional hospital districts or moves through regional health boards will be determined in consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
J. Weisgerber: I'm flattered that the minister thinks I have such an influence on public opinion and public perception. But the reality is that if the minister was aware there was a misunderstanding since February, then it's unfortunate that she didn't pick up the telephone, or pick up a pen and pencil, write me a note and say: "You're wrong." It doesn't serve British Columbians well to allow those kinds of misconceptions to float out there. If they're there, and you know they're there, then it's pretty simple to set the record straight.
Hon. E. Cull: Well, my apologies. I was so sure that the member understood full well what was going on, that he was continuing to mislead the public for his own political reasons, not because he just failed to read the documents that were delivered by us.
J. Weisgerber: Well, I would never deliberately mislead anyone. If I did, and anyone was to suggest that I had, I'm sure the Chair would jump to my defence and not allow that even to be suggested in this place. The reality is -- and I'm not going to carry this on forever -- that there was a misunderstanding. I happen to believe that it flowed from the announcement that the minister made. In any event, if it's been clarified, then our debate here over this last five or ten minutes has been useful.
L. Reid: To continue the discussion in terms of what is perceived out there to be the balkanization of health care resources, certainly my hon. colleague's comments are well taken in that there is confusion. I can appreciate that the places the minister visited perhaps were better able to acquire the salient points of the debate. But the concern still is whether or not we are moving to greater control in the communities under the guise of allowing them to make more decisions. If we're not prepared to give them the control, are we going through a needless exercise in this regard?
[ Page 6057 ]
Hon. E. Cull: No, it's certainly not a needless exercise. I think it's very important that we give communities more control over health care decisions. But, as we do with hospitals and mental health services right now, we will expect some standards to be met for the dollars that are transferred to communities. When we turn over moneys to the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society, we don't say: "Here's your grant; do with it what you want." There are stipulations attached to that money, as there are when we provide money for alcohol and drug treatment centres. Again there are criteria and standards and services that have to be provided in exchange for the money. What we will be doing is giving community health councils a greater ability to manage that budget as a whole, to meet the requirements for service that are expected by the people in the province for their communities; but then to be able to determine priorities, and make arrangements between different parts of their health care communities that are not easy to make right now because of the fragmentation of the health care system in every community.
L. Reid: One of the discussions that I've had with different members of the community looks at responsibility, accountability and authority, those three elements needing to be in place for people to believe that they have some jurisdiction, but also for them to be comfortable accepting the comments that will naturally come to them when things are not going well. I think we're asking local levels to assume the responsibility for an issue that they are going to have limited control over. I appreciate the minister's comments that it will take some time to get that in place. Again, will the minister confirm whether or not, in her view, this time line will be in place by 1996?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I believe it will.
L. Reid: We were talking about bureaucracy in terms of whether or not it's top-heavy. Certainly a number of ongoing discussions that look at reducing some of the existing bureaucracy would still ensure that the Ministry of Health was a very top-heavy organization.
Some thoughts on how best to ensure that a streamlined process is in place. I know this is one aspect of the entire ministry. Are there other plans in place where the public at large will believe that there is a streamlining of the bureaucracy ongoing and critical to its eventual success?
[5:15]
Hon. E. Cull: As the member may be aware, we are going through a reorganization within the Ministry of Health, with the intention of streamlining our internal bureaucracy. As a first step we've eliminated 13 senior managers to reduce the layers that exist in the system so that we have as flat an organization as possible. Later this month, however, we will be getting a new deputy minister. Some of the changes are going to have to wait until Mr. Lawrie McFarlane is in place so that he can start to bring the organization together and make the decisions that have to be made by the head of a ministry as large as the Ministry of Health.
L. Reid: I'm feeling somewhat sympathetic to the concerns raised by the hon. Leader of the Third Party about the confusion out there. The majority of British Columbians are not aware that the Ministry of Health is undergoing any reorganization.
Interjection.
L. Reid: My apologies as well to the leader.
They believe this will involve a second layer of bureaucracy being added to the system. Do you have plans in place to publicize the reorganization within the Ministry of Health?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, we do. One of the 38 actions that is in the New Directions plan is the restructuring of the Ministry of Health. While the vast majority of British Columbians -- the man or woman on the street who doesn't have contact with the ministry on a day-to-day basis -- may not be aware of any of the changes, the stakeholders and the people who deal with the ministry on a regular basis are quite aware of the personnel and organizational changes that are underway. With any bureaucracy there's always a balance to be struck between changing it entirely by turning the place upside down and trying to make the changes in an incremental way so that the organization continues to function. We're trying to go at it in a thoughtful way so that the organization can continue to be productive and won't have a period of downtime while the system is in disarray as it reorganizes itself. We have started to make changes with different parts of the ministry, and those will proceed over the next number of months. I encourage you to have a look at the status report and the action plans that I've already pointed out to you. You can see what action is taking place and who's responsible.
L. Reid: In that Mr. Lawrie McFarlane is from health care in the province of Saskatchewan, are there any conclusions we can draw about how this restructuring is going to be put into place? Will there be any similarities to the Saskatchewan model currently in operation?
Hon. E. Cull: Mr. McFarlane is not from the Ministry of Health in Saskatchewan. He happens to be involved in the health field in Saskatchewan with the Saskatoon Health Board. Recently he has been responsible for the restructuring of a number of hospitals, long-term care facilities and some community health agencies in Saskatoon, indeed creating the kind of community health council we are contemplating in our New Directions in health care. So he will have on-the-ground experience from a fairly large urban centre where he has successfully brought this about. I am hoping that his on-the-ground experience will be very useful as he moves into a senior management capacity in the ministry.
[ Page 6058 ]
L. Reid: There is a very recent article, this month actually, in the B.C. Medical Journal. It's entitled, "Regionalization -- What It Is, What It Isn't, What It Could Be." I would ask the minister to perhaps reflect on the first comment in this article. It suggests that:
"Regionalization, as applied to health services, has been variously compared to decentralization, delegation, devolution and rationalization. Regionalization, as discussed in the British Columbia context, consists of planning, funding and delivering health care services in an integrated and coordinated way within designated regions throughout the province."
That certainly seems to be a belief that you share, as well. Is that your understanding of what transpired in Saskatchewan and what Mr. McFarlane will be addressing?
Hon. E. Cull: The B.C. Medical Journal isn't one of my top reading requirements these days, so I haven't read that article. With respect to what's happened in Saskatchewan, there are regionalization initiatives across North America right now. We will learn from all of them, but we'll do here in B.C. what is most appropriate for B.C.
L. Reid: If I can make reference to another comment contained within the same document entitled, "What It Is Not." It says:
"Regionalization, in whatever form, is not uniformly successful in other jurisdictions. That is not proof of inappropriateness, but is, perhaps, a measure of resistance to change. At this moment, eight of ten provinces are discussing or implementing regional models. Over the last two decades Britain, New Zealand, Australia and several European countries have regionalized, with varying success."
I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of hopefully pulling together the best efforts of each of these jurisdictions so that we can bring to bear something in British Columbia that will be uniformly successful. The research is still out, hon. minister, in terms of whether or not this shift can be implemented with reasonable success. I would ask the minister to perhaps reflect on other countries in terms of the New Zealand model, and perhaps give us some background as to what the best features are from such a model that may in fact be represented in British Columbia.
Hon. E. Cull: I would recommend that the member get hold of a report that was done for the B.C. Health Association, which compared a number of regionalization models. I believe they had a graduate student do some work for them, and it makes for very interesting reading -- pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the various systems, and a number of things that are important to consider if you're going to move in the direction that we're moving in. We found that a very useful document, although it came along after we had already started into our initiatives. It proved that we were on the right track in terms of our thinking.
I think that you're in very difficult territory as soon as you start comparing one jurisdiction with another, and saying that this is what we should do, or that they learned from that and we should accept that model. Take Saskatchewan, for example, which has a population a third the size of ours. Two-thirds of their population lives in one large centre, and the rest of it is scattered in small rural communities around the province. They don't have to deal with the geography that we have in terms of mountains, valleys and other things, such as water transportation on our coast.
We have to be very cognizant of what works here in B.C. We spent over 12 months working on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs with a large group of people who are interested in this concept, and at the end of the day we accepted their recommendations on the best way to proceed with regionalization.
L. Reid: I appreciate that there are a number of different schools of thought out there. If I might come back to the point that I believe is the most salient in terms of today's discussion, it is that wealthy communities are believed to have superior care to other communities. I believe you have addressed that in terms of saying that that's not your intention and that we're going to try to achieve a different level of success.
My concerns have not been alleviated this afternoon, so perhaps you could address the greater concern in terms of whether or not services across this province will be addressed through a core system or a protocol system. How, indeed, are the average British Columbians going to be able to access the same service in different regions of the province? I appreciate the document, and I appreciate where it's outlined, but again with reference to the third party leader, the concern out there is rampant in terms of people not being reassured by the paper document they have in their hand. If there's some other light you can shed on the issue, we'd certainly appreciate it.
Hon. E. Cull: I was trying to find the particular page so that I could read it to you, but I can't put my finger on it immediately.
If there are people who are concerned that wealth will determine the level of health care services, let me say again that this cannot happen unless we move to a system whereby we allow regions or communities to raise their own taxes, to raise their own money for health care services.
That is not the concept we're pursuing here; in fact, it's directly opposite to that. Right now we allocate dollars according to need, but we do it in a very fragmented way through different programs in health care. We're proposing in the future to allocate dollars in a more integrated way, but using the same criteria that reflect the need of communities. Indeed, I think we can improve on the formulas that we've used in the past to distribute health care dollars, so that we focus not only on the size and age of the population, but also on the health of the population, so that those communities which have the worst health status can receive more money. Since there's such a great correlation between wealth and health, it's more likely that the poorer communities would get more resources to devote to
[ Page 6059 ]
health care until their health status approached the norm.
L. Reid: Just to continue that discussion, based on your recent comment, I certainly appreciate that all communities in this province will receive similar, if not identical, funding. What about the community that has the ability to fundraise for a particular item? Certainly you and I have both been involved in discussions about CAT scan machines and MRIs around this province. Some communities have resources at their disposal to purchase such an item for use in their community, in their hospital. What about the communities that don't have those dollars? How will you level the playing field in terms of outside dollars? By outside dollars, I refer to dollars that are not allocated under the Ministry of Health.
Hon. E. Cull: We can't stop communities from fundraising. But as is the case now, we do not have to be persuaded by fundraising activities to provide operating funds to those projects. The vast majority of dollars raised through community fundraising activities are for acquiring equipment. The biggest cost for CAT scanners and other types of equipment is not in the initial outlay to purchase the equipment; it's in the ongoing operating costs. While I admire communities that have gone to tremendous lengths to raise funds for equipment that they believe is important to their community, while we've been in control of the decision-making, we have not allowed those fundraising efforts to sway good decision-making about where operating dollars should be allocated.
As we move into a system that gives greater local control, foundations in communities will undoubtedly continue to support hospitals, as they have in the past. I'm not sure that we would want to shut that down. But the dollars that will be directed to allow that equipment to be used...if communities make decisions that they're going to have a CT scanner over some other enhancement in their health care system, those dollars will continue to be allocated on the basis of need, not on the basis of the wealth of a community.
L. Reid: The Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs had the opportunity to cost out the shift to community care. It certainly had the expertise around the table to do that. Why did it choose not to provide British Columbians with the total cost of this package?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm afraid I can't answer that question. The royal commission completed its work before the government changed. I received the report seven days after the swearing-in ceremony. I don't know why they did not do that. But they certainly provided us with excellent recommendations and an excellent background package of materials, the submissions, their analysis and work that they had commissioned themselves.
L. Reid: I too found the Seaton royal commission to be an enjoyable read. It was a discussion document. My question -- and I think the question that most British Columbians would pose -- has to do with the numbers that correspond to the document. We need that. If they did not provide that initially, why were they, or some other group, not asked to go back and cost out the shift to community care in the province?
Hon. E. Cull: The reason they haven't been asked to go back and do it is that the commission finished its work and was dissolved in November 1991. But I think that the commission's report was more than a discussion document. They made 379 recommendations, some of which were quite explicit and had excellent detailed analyses behind them; some of which required more work, which is why we took 12 months to review all the recommendations in the report and do any further analysis we felt was needed in order to come to conclusions about how to implement them and make our decisions as the result of the consultation process.
I could make a document available to the member that gives the status of all 379 recommendations. It is publicly available and sets out which recommendations have been implemented, which will not be implemented because we've reviewed them and rejected them and which are still under study because they may require further information.
L. Reid: I appreciate that the commission made its report. If you're not prepared to have them return to the table to provide the numbers that go along with the discussion, who within the Ministry of Health is responsible for costing out the shift to community care?
Hon. E. Cull: The Ministry of Health staff, assisted by Treasury Board.
L. Reid: Are those figures available for debate in the estimates process for '93-94?
Hon. E. Cull: What is available for debate is the amount of money we have shifted from acute care and the Medical Services Plan into the community health budget. What is available for debate are the decisions we have made this year about how much funding to provide to different parts of the health care system and the number of services that can be funded by the amounts provided to the health care system.
[5:30]
We have a very modest increase of about 4 percent in the budget this year. That is not sufficient to keep pace with inflation plus population growth, without even starting to consider factors such as aging and utilization. Yet at the end of this year we will, I believe, be providing more services to British Columbians in the health care area by managing those resources more wisely, by shifting from places where we are wasting resources or expending too much money on services or individuals to places where we can be more cost-effective.
The best example I can give is that 25 percent of acute care hospital beds are being filled, according to the royal commission, by people who shouldn't be there. If you could move those people into long term care facilities where they should be -- or the vast
[ Page 6060 ]
majority of them should be -- you will be providing that care on a much cheaper basis on a daily rate. They will be provided with more appropriate care too, because, as anyone will tell you, an acute care hospital bed is not a home. What those people need is a home. They need to be in a long term care facility that is homelike and has appropriate level care for their needs.
L. Reid: I can appreciate what you are spending this year. I find it reflected in the estimates document. My question pertains specifically to the cost of the Seaton commission recommendations. Has anyone taken a look at costing out that entire package? If you are not prepared to recall the commission to do that, surely there is someone within the Ministry of Health who has taken a look at the cost implications of that entire report. To me, it is simple economics at this stage of the game. We have had the discussion and we have the recommendations. To close the loop on this discussion, we need to know what it costs.
I can appreciate you selecting out the items you are going to put in place this year, but you have stated that this is a three-or-more-year proposal. For assurances to the public and to the official opposition, what is the entire cost of the package? What can we expect for year two, year three, year four? It seems to me that it's prudent ministerial behaviour to cost out the Seaton royal commission. I ask again: has anyone in the ministry been asked to do that, and if so, what are those figures?
Hon. E. Cull: As I said a minute ago, of the 379 recommendations, not all are being implemented. Some of them are still under study and some have already been implemented. Even some of the ones that are being implemented are not being implemented exactly as recommended in the Seaton royal commission. As a financial exercise, for us to cost out all 379 recommendations of the royal commission would be pointless. Some of them we just may not do.
As we have looked at the recommendations we are going to implement, we have costed them out, and in some cases it's the cost implications that have caused us to reject some of their recommendations as being unfeasible at this point, given the financial resources of the province. It is important to remember that what the royal commission told us overall was that they felt the shift in health care to closer-to-home, more community-based, better managed, more efficient, could be accommodated within the existing expenditures. If you want to know how much money we will be spending on health care next year and the year after that, I suggest that it will be approximately one-third of the provincial budget.
L. Reid: I appreciate the discussion in terms of one-third of the provincial budget, but it seems to me that with the tremendous mileage this government has received as a result of carrying forward on the Seaton royal commission, it just seems reasonable to expect, in the estimates debate, that we would know what those recommendations cost. I can appreciate the minister's comment that we've costed out the ones we intend to implement, and I can appreciate that there may be some that are more costly, which may not allow them to be implemented. But it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request in terms of taking a discussion document and tying it to some financial record. That just seems reasonable.
If you're not prepared to return the committee to the table to do the work, is there someone I can contact within the ministry who would be able to discuss this in more detail?
Hon. E. Cull: Decisions about what anything is going to cost depend on the decisions that are made around implementation. For example, one of the recommendations of the royal commission was to go to a universal hepatitis B vaccination campaign. That would have cost us, if we were to do it this year, somewhere in the order of $10 million. In the overall scheme of looking at our budget, we were unable to afford that, so we have gone to a program that moves us towards universal immunization over a period of time. We began the immunization program in the fall of last year, starting with grade 6 students, at a cost of $3.5 million. That's why it doesn't make any practical sense to take the recommendations of the royal commission and cost them out as if this were some kind of financial exercise where it would be nice to know at the end of the day how many hundreds of millions it would cost. Would it cost more than we're spending now? How much more? What would the impact be? What is important are the decisions that we're making and the way we're implementing the decisions.
If you want to talk about how much more money we're putting into community health -- what that will cost this year, what we'll get for it -- which flows out of the decisions from New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia which are based upon the work done by the royal commission, we can discuss that. We can discuss the amount of money that we're putting into mental health, into alcohol and drug or into expanding programs in any part of the ministry. Those budget decisions are made on an annual basis as we weigh the priorities within the Ministry of Health and the priorities elsewhere in government. It's not simply a matter of the ministry sitting down and saying, "What would we like to do? What would be possible to do this year?" and then asking for those funds to be given to us. We have to sort out other priorities in other ministries and across government, the ability to raise revenues, and all the rest of it.
I'm more than prepared to discuss the decisions that we've made around the funding for the hospitals budget, the community health budget and the Medical Services Plan budget. Our decisions are reflected in the dollars that have been allocated to those various programs this year.
L. Reid: I appreciate your comments in terms of the Seaton royal commission, but the key to success for any enterprise is implementation, and I see a drastic chunk missing from the discussion today if we're not able to discuss the total cost of the package. You and I had the same discussion surrounding the HLRA. You can't have
[ Page 6061 ]
one group suggesting a cost of $50 million and another group suggesting $500 million. All it does is create confusion in the minds of the public. The same discussion, the same principle, applies to where we are today on the shift to community care.
For the record, since you mention hepatitis B, apparently the cost per year will be $6 million to immunize children for three years -- $3.2 million for vaccine and $2.8 million for staffing. That's under the signature of John Blatherwick. We can't continue to have the difference between $10 million and $4 million. That's exactly my point: the numbers are not clear, and the numbers would shed a lot of light on this particular discussion.
In terms of where we go from here, I trust that we don't just cost out small recommendations or large recommendations, but that we look at the entire package. I believe, based on what's happening in other provinces, that there will be a number of trends that we're going to build on. For the taxpaying public in this province to have an idea of what that trend is going to cost, whether or not every single recommendation is implemented, is useful to the exercise. And it is useful for the next budget that this government will prepare. There has to be some way to close the loop. It truly has not happened in this afternoon's discussion. I await your comment.
Hon. E. Cull: Quite honestly, I'm having difficulty with this line of questioning, because the amount of money that is made available to the ministry is not driven by the recommendations of the royal commission. It's driven by the decisions that are made by our government, by Treasury Board, in evaluating the resources and needs of the province, and the particular needs within health care. We will advance on this initiative in accordance with the means that we have to put to it. Our analysis and the analysis of the royal commission show that it will be no more expensive to provide health care services in this way. Indeed, if we look at the number of services that will be provided, it is more cost-effective because we will be providing people with appropriate care in the right place at the right time, and in many cases for less cost.
But if you're suggesting that because I believe we will be providing services at a lesser cost, we will be seeing a great reduction in the overall health care budget, I have to assure you that that is not going to happen, because the unmet needs in health care are immense. If we can find a way, for example -- and I use this purely as an example -- to provide mental health services at a cheaper-per-unit cost, we will not reduce the overall amount of money spent on mental health services, because the unmet need in that area is incredible. We will continue to provide the level of funding that we can afford to provide, and hopefully provide more services and more effective services.
That's what this is all about, and whenever we get off into a debate about how much money is going to be spent overall, we lose sight of the fact that what we're trying to do here is not to slash the Ministry of Health's budget. Indeed, we've increased it modestly by 4 percent this year. We're trying to make that budget go farther than it has in the past.
When you look at the increases we've been able to make, as I read into the record today, in the area of mental health alone, or if you look at our record of reducing waiting lists in some key areas of medical services, you can see that we are in fact providing more services for the same amount of money -- indeed, for less money if you take population growth and inflation into consideration.
L. Reid: If indeed it's not possible to nail down some numbers in terms of where we're headed with this discussion, I have some questions regarding the public's perception of their health care system. They truly believe it is the finest system in the world. Certainly polling results have suggested that 95 percent of them believe it's excellent or at least very, very good. How do we tie that discussion to your original comments regarding the Seaton royal commission, which said that we were shifting to community care because it would be less expensive? Indeed, this year we are spending fewer dollars on health care than we did over the past five years. It's a very small percentage difference: from 33.6 percent to 33 percent. But because that's the case, I now deduce that your original comments do not apply. Are you still standing by your original comments that indeed we're shifting to community care because we're going to be saving dollars in health care?
Hon. E. Cull: We are making these changes in health care to protect the medicare system and to ensure that our system keeps pace with the changing needs of people in this province. There is far more involved in the new directions to health care than simply a greater emphasis on community-based care. We are focusing more on preventive health care, on the promotion of good health, on bringing health care services closer to home -- which may in some cases not be community services but institutional services in the community -- and we're focusing on spending our dollars more wisely. We're focusing on involving more of the public in the decision-making so there is greater local control over health care decisions. That's what the new directions in health care are all about.
In many cases, by locating the care appropriately in the community -- which might mean a long term care facility as opposed to a hospital; which might mean an ambulatory clinic as opposed to an in-patient stay; which might mean a mental health service as opposed to the emergency room of the hospital.... All of those services are designed to provide better health care services for the budget amount that we have this year, which is, indeed, more than we spent last year and the year before. In terms of absolute dollars to health care, we've gone from $5.9 billion last year to $6.2 billion, an increase of just over 4 percent.
L. Fox: I'm finding this debate extremely interesting. As I understand the minister's statement of just a few minutes ago, she stated that in her view the Ministry of Health budget will always be one-third of the provincial budget; but through the Closer to Home
[ Page 6062 ]
process, she's going to be able to offer more services to more British Columbians using the same one-third budget. If I'm correct in my analysis of what she said, that disappoints me somewhat.
I appreciate where the critic is coming from. In any move that I've ever made within my numerous businesses, there has always been a cost-benefit analysis done. I've looked at the cost of producing a service versus the benefit to the customer and the company, and I've determined that move based on financial factors and the level of service delivered. What I'm hearing in this particular debate is that these kinds of assessments haven't been done on any of the initiatives, prior to implementing them. If I'm wrong on that, I would appreciate the minister clarifying just what process is used before you implement a particular direction.
[5:45]
Hon. E. Cull: There are 379 recommendations in the royal commission's report. Almost one-third of them have been implemented; more of them are being considered for implementation. If you want to ask about the cost-benefit analysis that has been done on any recommendation that we have decided to implement, I'd be happy to provide it to you.
For example, let's just use hepatitis B, because I happen to have the figures handy for that. We did an analysis. In fact, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control estimated both the direct costs, hospital costs, laboratory costs and physician costs, and the indirect costs of sick leave or wage loss. For 1990 those costs, due to hepatitis B, would be $5.6 million. They expect that to rise to $9 million by 1995. The cost of the program we've implemented is $3.5 million, so we have an indication of what it costs to go into that program. Any of our new initiatives have to be costed out before we can spend money on them, and we also have an indication of how much it would cost should we not do that initiative. Sometimes it's more difficult to put the cost figure against the "not doing it" scenario, because we -- when I say "we," I mean the public at large, not the Ministry of Health -- often don't consider the hidden costs such as sick leave or wage costs if people get ill from hepatitis B.
If we look at fetal alcohol syndrome, we can cost out the program this year. I can tell you how many dollars we're spending on the fetal alcohol syndrome program. You also have to take a stab at what it will cost if you don't deal with these issues, because you not only have to deal with the obvious medical costs of people who have fetal alcohol syndrome but also with the fact that a lot of the people in our prisons are there because of the brain damage done to them in their mother's womb. That becomes much more difficult to cost out, but clearly it is much more expensive to look after people in institutions, whether they are penitentiaries or hospitals, than to provide them with preventive care earlier, in terms of fetal alcohol syndrome.
If you want to talk about that, we can talk about the costs. If you want to talk about what the costs will be in this budget year and in our estimate over the next three years as we implement a regional system, we can talk about that and about the estimated cost-savings there. If you want to talk about what it will cost to shift that 25 percent of people from acute care hospital beds into long term care beds, we can provide you with the difference between the average acute care hospital stay and the average long term care stay, and look at the cost-savings there. Let's remember that when we're looking at this dollar for dollar as opposed to per unit, we are trying to consume more service in some cases. We want to see growth in multilevel care beds because we know our population is aging. We know that there will be more people needing them. So at the end of the day the dollars might go up because there will be more people served under that system.
It's pretty straightforward to me that if you have somebody in an acute care hospital bed at one of the cheapest rates -- $400 a day -- and you can move them to a long term care facility for $200 a day, you can treat two people for the same amount of money. What we're getting at, in trying to make sure that every dollar is spent as wisely as possible, is that we're not wasting money by treating people in the highest-cost part of the system when they could be treated in another place in the system that is more cost-effective. Announcements were made earlier today about the legalization of midwifery in this province. Depending on the assumptions you make about the number of women who will use that service and where they will have their delivery -- whether they have them in hospital assisted by a midwife, in a birthing centre assisted by a midwife or in a home with midwife assistance -- the estimated savings range from $2,000 to $4,000 per birth.
We can get into all kinds of cost estimates and details -- the work is there -- but as to whether there's a price tag to put on the royal commission's report, as was requested by the opposition critic, no, there isn't, and I don't think it would be particularly meaningful.
L. Fox: I just want to clarify one of the first numbers you gave me. Sometimes I find it rather difficult to hear across here. Perhaps I'm going to have to ask for one of those hearing aids so that I can hear some members of government. Did I understand you correctly that the cost of lost wages for hepatitis B was $5.6 million?
Hon. E. Cull: I'll just read that again, because it was a combined cost. The direct costs, which are hospital costs, lab costs and physician costs, plus the indirect costs of sick leave and wage loss for 1990, are estimated at $5.6 million. So it includes both direct and indirect costs. Because of the increase in the rate of this disease in British Columbia -- unfortunately, we have the highest rate of hepatitis B in the country here in British Columbia -- the figure is expected to increase to $9 million by 1995.
L. Fox: How many cases of hepatitis B are in those particular numbers? Do you have that information?
Hon. E. Cull: I'll have to look that up for you. This program was announced over a year ago, and I've forgotten the exact number. I used to know the number
[ Page 6063 ]
of cases. Oh, my staff has already found that number: 830 in 1991.
L. Fox: So 830 cases of hepatitis B in 1990 had a cost factor to the province, collectively, of $5.6 million.
I wanted to get into some of the other areas that you just spoke about, but I've noticed the hour. I didn't realize it was so late. I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. T. Perry moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:58 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE
On vote 56: minister's office, $330,000.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Tourism, the Chair will bring the committee members' attention to this blue copy that's been passed out. It's a synopsis and, I guess, an extract of the standing orders that apply to the Committee of Supply around areas within the minister's estimates that are examinable. I draw the members' attention to that, and I encourage everybody to read it. That is generally the main rule that governs the committee's proceedings.
With that, I recognize the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.
C. Tanner: On a point of order, I wonder whether the Chairman would remind his House Leader that next time this committee be called in the House rather than in committee. I think that's the procedure we've followed up to now.
D. Schreck: Point of order. It's totally inappropriate, hon. Chair, for any member to be issuing instructions to the Chair in a partisan sense with respect to House Leaders. If any such conversations are to take place, they should take place among the House Leaders, not in this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. You are quite correct, actually, on the proceedings within here. The Chair is an unbiased or overseer in these matters.
Hon. D. Marzari: I have a few opening remarks to these estimates. May I request, hon. Chair, that I might sit down for the presentation of this?
[3:00]
The Chair: The standing orders, hon. minister, that govern proceedings in committee are those that govern the proceedings within Committee A.
Hon. D. Marzari: Okay, I will proceed with the presentation.
C. Tanner: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if you feel that I'm interrupting, but by coincidence both the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I have had a back problem the last two or three weeks, and if the member wants to sit down, I'll be very happy if she could do so.
The Chair: Hon. committee members, with respect to medical problems, the difficulty that we're setting a precedent here must be recognized, and we must be aware that we are respecting some medical problems we have among the members of this committee. We'll proceed on that basis for the lengthier presentations, but we must bear in mind the necessity to respect the standing orders as they are written.
Hon. D. Marzari: Thank you. I'll remain seated for the presentation.
It is my pleasure to present for the Legislature's consideration the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry Responsible for Culture. These estimates outline the ministry programs which support tourism and culture, two sectors of the provincial economy which are asserting an increasingly important influence in B.C.'s economy. I am very proud today to have an opportunity to discuss how these programs share a common aspiration: to add to the diversity and the well-being of our province. As pressures mount within government to use financial resources to their best advantage, the needs within the tourism industry and the culture and heritage community have developed along similar paths. Within both sectors we have seen the need for effective partnerships which draw upon the shared resources of the public and private sectors, strategies which define and support the case for new investment, consultation and advocacy.
I would first like to address the aspects of the ministry which deal with tourism. Over the past two
[ Page 6064 ]
decades, changes in the lifestyles and vacation choices of our visitors have completely reshaped our tourism industry. At one time the province relied on a passive scenery-oriented tourism industry, but today B.C. is a dynamic, activity-based vacation destination. Our marketing strategies and policy initiatives are responding accordingly. Across the province there are more than 12,000 businesses which rely on tourism for their well-being. These businesses cover an enormous range in terms of their size and complexity. From large urban hotels and resorts to family-run outdoor guiding operations, these businesses extend from one corner of the province to the other. As a result of their diversity they've had an astonishing economic impact. And in a time of economic transition, the tourism industry has brought renewal and stability to many areas of our province.
To understand the magnitude of tourism's impact we need only consult the latest statistics. Tourism is B.C.'s fourth-largest export, earning more than $1.2 billion annually in foreign exchange from international and North American visitors. Last year tourism accounted for $5.5 billion in gross direct spending in the B.C. economy, and contributed about $2.7 billion to the provincial gross domestic product. To put tourism's contribution to the provincial GDP in perspective, it stands at 3.7 percent of the total economy, which is roughly equivalent to mining and related manufacturing in the province, and about half of what forestry contributed, at 7.8 percent of the GDP. Between '84 and '90, the industry's contribution to B.C.'s gross domestic product grew more than 5 percent annually, and according to current dollar figures issued by the Ministry of Finance, tourism's overall GDP contribution grew by 77.3 percent between '81 and '91. These figures show that tourism has a meaningful role to play in the social and economic future of the province. The challenge to the ministry is to provide programs which will maintain and enhance B.C.'s share of an increasingly competitive international tourism market.
Last year I spoke about a number of long-range objectives which would help strengthen the position of the province's industry. These objectives included strategic planning, the upgrading and improvement of service and the need to protect the resource itself. I am pleased to report on the progress we've made in meeting these objectives. The ministry has released its first-ever vision document, which defines the province's long-range tourism goals and strategies. The document has been well received by industry because it provides a clear strategic direction for the ministry, and offers a meaningful framework for further discussion and planning. We're also in the second year of implementing a ministry business plan, which complements the vision document by outlining the means for meeting the ministry's priorities and goals on an annual basis. Both of these documents provide the public and the industry with greater accountability. They also serve as essential documentation which can be used to raise the industry's stature both at home and abroad.
In the area of upgrading and improving services, the ministry is working closely with regional experts through the Partners in Tourism program. It's important to note here that we have kept our commitment to the regions by maintaining the 1992 funding levels for this essential service. Our commitment to the regions is also evident through the ministry's ongoing participation in the Canada West marketplace. This year's marketplace in Penticton brought together 71 industry delegates to meet with 50 buyers representing ten European countries.
B.C. has an excellent reputation for providing reliable and easily accessible information about the various opportunities found throughout this province. A leading example of this is the toll-free 1-800 service, which responds to about 200,000 calls a year from across North America. The results of this program have been so impressive that the ministry has taken another step toward improving it through the use of modern communications technology. Together with B.C. Tel, the ministry is set to launch Discover British Columbia, a new toll-free provincewide information and reservation service, which will provide one-stop shopping for travel information and accommodation bookings. The ministry's $500,000 investment in the program will make the service available to B.C. residents as well as to out-of-province visitors.
By documenting the growing number of first-nations tourism-related activities taking place throughout B.C., we are revealing the diversification which is taking place in the industry. Through programs like the community tourism action program, the ministry is helping communities like the Mowachaht band near Gold River to identify and implement culturally based tourism activity.
As a result of addressing long-term strategy for the growth and diversity of the industry, new priorities have emerged. Our marketing strategies have been adapted to reflect the need for partnerships and cooperation with industry. The funding available for this year's marketing budget has been preserved at current levels, and it will be allocated in a way that makes the best possible use of the tourism resources.
The Canada-British Columbia tourism agreement provides an excellent example of how new partnerships are working on behalf of the industry. Over the next four years this agreement will invest $10 million in shared federal-provincial funds in order to enhance the competitiveness of B.C.'s tourism industry. The program also relies on a significant financial contribution from the corporate and private sector. The agreement acknowledges that our key international markets, including the U.S., Japan, the United Kingdom and Germany, show the greatest potential for tourism growth. Last year alone total overseas visits to B.C. were up 5 percent. The Canada-B.C. tourism agreement has helped to deliver a $1.3 million television advertising campaign to key American markets. The Holland America campaign, which was launched in cooperation with Tourism B.C., Tourism Alberta, the Yukon government, Tourism Canada and Holland America, has significantly targeted visitors from the United States who are over 55. Our support for this campaign acknowledges that the cruise industry is worth approximately $100 million to the province, including an estimated $43.5 million discretionary
[ Page 6065 ]
spending. The latest federal-provincial project initiated under the agreement involves a cooperative venture among Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Victoria, the Whistler Resort Association and Canadian national airlines. This targeted marketing campaign will invest more than $500,000 into a three-year program to promote both short-term off-season travel and longer-term tours of the province to key markets in L.A. and San Francisco.
The ministry's emphasis on partnerships and cooperation with industry also extends to the area of employment. At present the tourism industry accounts for more than 105,000 direct and 180,000 tourism-related jobs in B.C. Before the close of the century, it's estimated that an additional 60,000 jobs are going to be required and will be created. The tourism jobs of tomorrow will be associated with a high degree of technological and marketing expertise. In recognition of the importance of professional accreditation to the industry, the ministry has helped to establish a new association of tourism professionals. Working in cooperation with the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, we have developed a framework for action which identifies a collective, coordinated direction for tourism human resource development in British Columbia. Because of the demand for tourism professionals, the ministry is working with the Ministry of Advanced Education, UVic and the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism to coordinate the curriculum for the university's new tourism management program. The ministry is also working in cooperation with the Ministry of Social Services to use tourism as a focus for community development under the B.C. 21 program. This program will encourage first nations involvement and the development of professional training programs.
As the tourism industry becomes increasingly complex, competitive and technologically advanced, our programs reflect the ministry's commitment to advocacy on behalf of the industry itself. We are demonstrating this commitment through the liaison work we are conducting with other ministries, and we are working to protect the interests of tourism operators who are affected by new licensing regulations imposed outside our ministry's jurisdiction. Because we recognize that the future of the tourism industry is closely linked to the sustainability of our resources, the ministry has taken an active role in government-wide land and resource management processes.
This year the ministry commissioned a river use study of the Tatshenshini-Alsek, a remote northern river which has seen a 200 percent increase in visitor use since '89. The report, which recommended a number of strategies for managing wilderness recreation use of this world-renowned river system, is being used in the ministry's river management discussions with the U.S. National Park Service and the Yukon government. The report may also help to inform the recommendations of the Commission on Resources and Environment when it begins its deliberations on land use and environmental management of the Tatshenshini region.
In recent months the ministry has also had an important role to play in developing detailed inventories which identify the need for integrating resource management with tourism planning. Our ongoing involvement in these issues has given us some authority to become a player in protecting tourism interests within the framework of the Clayoquot Sound scenic corridor program. I want to emphasize that our involvement on behalf of the industry in the Clayoquot Sound decision has been ongoing, and the ministry will continue to advocate for the protection of the resources required to support the industry itself.
[3:15]
Through long-range planning, targeted marketing campaigns, employment strategies and our work with the industry to standardize tourism statistics, we're building increased awareness on the value of tourism to the economy. This type of advocacy is also a major component of programs being developed in the Ministry Responsible for Culture. A long-term overview of provincial spending on culture has revealed that this area of government jurisdiction has traditionally been underfunded. In a year of tight budget restraints, we've worked to maintain funding levels where they are most needed in the grants awarded to artists and arts organizations through our cultural services branch. In order for the ministry to inject new money into culture, government is re-examining and acknowledging the ideologies that have allowed cultural funding to be undermined. In other words, we are providing advocacy which is needed to prove the case for culture. It is our responsibility to show government -- the federal government, most particularly -- that its commonly held definitions of culture have been too narrow. Our obligation has to go beyond support for traditional cultural cultural institutions. We have to extend to exploration in the area of professional development.
Culture at its best reflects human aspiration and defines the potential for human accomplishment. It reveals, illuminates and challenges, and these are the spiritual and emotional components of an activity which are too often weighed in terms of entertainment value rather than the real social influence that cultural programs have. In their preoccupation with generating income, artists and arts organizations are being forced to put aside their creative talent in lieu of creative financing. They are taking fewer risks, and they are very often producing, I must say, safe, low-budget material that diminishes our reputation for fostering artistic excellence. Our professional artists are basically victims of a mentality that relegates culture to the economic fringes.
Provincially there has been little history of initiating policies that would document not only the need but the responsibility to support culture. During the last year the ministry has taken up this challenge. We recently commissioned a cultural industries report, which documents for the first time the enormous potential for the growth and diversification of B.C.'s cultural industries. The report encompasses broadcasting; film and video; newspaper, magazine and book publishing; music publishing; sound recording; and other emerging media.
[ Page 6066 ]
To demonstrate the grounds for expanding the production, marketing and distribution of cultural works in B.C., the report examined the increases in public spending on culture and recreation. For example, the 2 percent rise in cultural spending, which has occurred between 1969 and 1990, translates into an overall expenditure increase of $6.4 billion into our economy. During the past two decades, there has been a 141 percent increase in public expenditure on live performances and a 71 percent increase in art purchases. These figures illustrate that the government's investment in culture is validated by the public's support of and interest in cultural activities.
The ministry is also tracking the economic impact of one of the most dynamic cultural industries in the province, which is the film sector. A report prepared by the province's interagency film development committee shows that the made-in-B.C. film sector is making a significant contribution to the provincial economy. In return for the $16.5 million the province has so far invested in B.C. Film -- the non-profit society that administers the Ministry of Culture's annual film grant -- more than $148 million in film activity has taken place in the last five years. That's nine times the province's original investment. In a cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the ministry, the revenue injected into B.C.'s economy as a result of projects supported by B.C. Film has been estimated at $314.9 million.
While we've documented the potential for investment in culture, other studies have shown the correlation between federal reductions in cultural spending and an overall loss in economic activity. According to a study by the consulting firm Genovese Vanderhoof and Associates, which we got in March, the recent 10 percent reduction in Canada Council's performing arts grants will actually increase the public debt. The $2 million the federal government saved by invoking a 10 percent cut will end up costing Ottawa just under $2.2 million in lost tax revenues, and this figure takes into account GST and UIC payments and lost income tax revenues.
The ministry's attempts to prove the economic case for government involvement and investment in culture through forward-thinking policy initiatives are only the beginning of an extensive advocacy campaign with the federal government. The ministry is also exploring means to create a better climate for outside investment in culture. We are now putting proposals in place for legislation that might establish a B.C. cultural foundation and a B.C. libraries foundation. The purpose of these foundations is obviously to encourage private sector support for libraries and cultural organizations by increasing tax deductibility of charitable donations. The ministry is also working to stimulate investment in culture by raising the profile of the cultural community itself.
The recommendations that will be handed down by the new Status of the Artist Advisory Committee will really help to improve employment standards for our professional artists. Through supporting greater autonomy and cross-cultural representation on provincial committees like the B.C. Arts Board and the B.C. Festival of the Arts Society, the ministry is encouraging these groups to play a stronger advocacy role within the cultural community. Throughout the past year I have invested a great deal of time in consultation in order to ensure that the voice of B.C. artists is reflected in our policies. I've taken pride in this consultation, because I feel there's a need to listen and to show leadership.
As in the Tourism ministry, this requires developing new partnerships with both the private and corporate sector. A recent $200,000 award to the Knowledge Network to develop new arts film programming and to support B.C. film-makers was facilitated by a $100,000 grant from the ministry itself, and matched over five years by a $100,000 grant from the Simons Foundation. The ministry will soon be announcing the details of another important partnership with the B.C. Federation of Labour -- in fact this was announced last week -- which is designed to integrate art into the workplace. This artists and working life program will not only attract new money into the arts but it will also encourage greater interaction between artists and the community.
In summary, the ministry's programs in culture are responding to the need to generate popular support for culture so that we can begin to see it as an essential commodity and a precious resource and to the need to create a well-ordered series of policy initiatives, which support our investment in culture and our attempts with the federal government to develop a better cost-sharing arrangement.
Our commitment to advocacy and consultation also applies to the realm of culture and heritage. This year the ministry hosted a precedent-setting symposium at Cape Mudge, which directly involved First Nations communities in the development of heritage legislation. A summary of the recommendations drawn from this consultation is now being circulated throughout the First Nations community for further input. Through its consultation with First Nations people, the Provincial Heritage Advisory Board and heritage groups throughout B.C., the ministry remains committed to a program of heritage legislation which will offer additional protection to both native and non-native heritage sites.
If any of the legislative members in attendance today were among the 14,000 people who visited the Royal British Columbia Museum's open house a few weeks ago, they will have experienced the open door philosophy which is guiding the direction of the museum futures project. A museum futures team headed by RBCM director Bill Barkley has been touring the province in recent months to talk to communities about how B.C.'s flagship museum can best serve the regions through enhanced regional programming and the sharing of museum collections and resources. The futures project as a whole is designed to bring the museum into the twenty-first century by providing a clear direction for the museum based on public access and accountability. The work, which is conducted by the Ministry Responsible for Culture and the Ministry of Tourism, is done by a number of professionals who have brought years of expertise and commitment to the public in their areas of endeavour.
[ Page 6067 ]
I've greatly enjoyed working for this last year with both sides of the ministry. I do believe we have developed and are working on a quality of service to the people of British Columbia which is unprecedented. That concludes my opening commentary, hon. Chair, and I look forward to hearing questions or comments from the opposition and the third party.
The Chair: Thank you hon. Minister. Before I recognize the opposition critic, would you introduce your staff for the benefit of the committee and Hansard please?
Hon. D. Marzari: On my immediate left I have our director of administration, Ms. Rhonda Hunter, and the deputy minister, John Walsh, and behind me is Barry Kelsey, who is the ADM of Culture.
C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister is able to sit down, and I have the same problem. May I sit down too?
The Chair: By leave of the committee I think we established that early on -- thanks to you, hon. member. Please proceed.
C. Tanner: I should say, for an opening statement, that the similarities between us stop here as far as our problems are concerned, because I feel that this ministry has a great number of problems.
I thought maybe we should set out the parameters of where we're going to be in the next two or three days. I was going to suggest that perhaps for the rest of today we should discuss Tourism and that tomorrow we should discuss Culture, as a general rule, and I think that's with the agreement of the third party. Also, there will be members from both his party and my party coming in from time to time, so we're probably going to jump around when we have the intervention of the other members, Mr. Chairman.
On the matter of how I intend to proceed -- and I haven't discussed this with the member from the third party -- I was going to go through the debate that we enjoyed last year, pick up where we were then and where we are today through the Votes and Proceedings, and follow-up on some of the questions asked and some of the answers given to see if we've made some progress.
As a general opening statement, I would say that -- unlike the minister -- I am not happy with the way the department's gone this past year, and I don't think the industry is either. What I hear is a far different story than what the minister's telling us, particularly in the tourism side of her portfolio. Generally speaking, it seems to me that all factors in the industry are saying the same thing: they don't feel they're getting the attention they deserve; that if there has been an expansion in tourism this past year in numbers, it hasn't been what it could have been; and that the decisions taken by the department in the past year have been detrimental to the industry.
As an example, I would specifically draw the minister's attention to page 1221 of the Hansard of May 5, last year, when she was quoted as saying: "...our strategic and long-range planning capacity must be upgraded; service delivery to the tourism industry must be improved; the range of tourism products that we deliver to the market must be upgraded and updated; and the resource itself, the very essence of our environment for tourism, must be protected." I get the very distinct impression -- and I read in the budget confirmation of this -- that the industry doesn't agree with the minister, and that none of those things are taking place. I wonder whether the minister, having had a further year in the department, might comment on what success she has had in those four areas that she identified last year.
[3:30]
Hon. D. Marzari: In the area of service delivery, and in the area of upgrading the quality of service in this province, we can easily point to a number of major initiatives which have been taken inside a very limited financial budget. What I would point to most, with greatest pride at this point, is the partnership agreement that we are developing and will be announcing soon with B.C. Tel, which will be a quantifiable objective analysis of how well we can do with our short-haul marketing capacity. The 1-800 number, which will be instituted this summer in the interior, will for the first time be able to connect people, both in British Columbia and in the United States, with not only information about the tourism services that are provided here but actually be able to provide an accommodations network so that with one phone call a potential customer or tourist of ours will be able to connect to a hotel room in the city or region of their choice.
This is a major and significant leap forward, and it was through the good offices of a number of professionals inside the ministry and B.C. Tel that this was pulled together. It is now being canvassed throughout the province, with the whole industry reacting with tremendous enthusiasm; in fact, the industry itself forms part of the technical advisory board, which will work the kinks out in this new system of long distance telephone accommodation.
In terms of sustaining the resource, I have some pride in the fact that tourism sits at the CORE table, and is the very industry that we're talking about. Representatives from the industry are tackling the serious problems that our province has with land use decision-making, which is a natural result of a province which is in economic transition itself, moving from a resource-based economy into a shared economy with the service industries. The CORE table sees tourism representatives sitting at it, and when solutions are found, or when processes are developed leading towards long-term solutions, tourism and tourism operators will be there front and centre helping create the climate for debate and being involved in the final solutions.
The member spoke to two other items. Long term planning. In the elucidation of the two items I brought forward, I can assure the member that the ministry is in fact engaged in planning, whether we label it as
[ Page 6068 ]
strategic planning or long-term planning. I can assure the member that one of the major initiatives that we've taken in the last year has been to produce that business plan which gave the industry some indication of where we might be two years, five years or ten years from now, so that the ministry itself has within it a planning capacity, not just an ability to greet potential developers on the doorstep with some enabling assistance and connections with other ministries, but some actual data which can be delivered to the industry, whether that data be a computer-based printout or a mapping of the Inside Passage, or whether that data simply be some long-term tourism statistics to suggest to a potential developer or a region or municipality what their best bet might be in terms of who they might attract five years from now. This is the kind of statistics, this is the kind of research that the ministry is developing a real capacity to pull together. I do believe we've scored heavily in all three areas in the last year, and it's with some sense of accomplishment on behalf of the ministry that I sit here today.
C. Tanner: The minister mentioned in her opening remarks that her department was spending $500,000 on the B.C. Tel 1-800 number, which is coming into effect, I assume, fairly shortly -- hopefully for this season -- and for which I congratulate the minister. I saw that amount in the budget and I was going to get to it later. She's already solved that problem for me. But how much, first of all, is the industry investing and secondly, how much is B.C. Tel investing?
Hon. D. Marzari: I will take a few seconds and confer with the deputy. I'd be pleased to bring back the specific numbers on the nature of the agreement with B.C. Tel. It's a long-term agreement, but I believe our investment this year of $500,000 is being matched with B.C. Tel at the rate of three to one. But that is not the nature of the agreement as it goes through time, and I will present those numbers to the House.
I should also add that part of the agreement being signed involves profit-sharing so that the ministry or the province will benefit in the last analysis from the commissions which will come forward through this system.
C. Tanner: Could the minister then expand just a little bit further? I appreciate that she's either negotiating or has negotiated and is about to sign an agreement. Could she just expand a little on how it works? If there's revenue generated, I assume that the public will be paying something for the call.
Hon. D. Marzari: The revenue which is being generated will be generated through the actual industry as it allocates certain blocks of rooms into the system. They will then be treated by the B.C. Tel system as part of a room registry basically and payment will be made by having a percentage of the retail value of the room coming back to the reservation system itself.
C. Tanner: In that case, I assume the public pays nothing.
Hon. D. Marzari: One can only assume, then, that the room rates reflect the value of what goes in to create and to rent a room, so that as in any reservation system, whether it be through a travel agency or through this new B.C. Tel accommodations system, the costs will be covered by room rentals.
C. Tanner: The last part of the first question -- there were four parts to it, not three -- the fourth one, quoting again from the minister last year: "The range of tourism products that we deliver in the market must be upgraded and updated." I appreciate that with the B.C. Telephone initiative, that's one very obvious one. Again, I congratulate the minister for it. Are there any others -- not maybe quite as successful as that -- that the minister hasn't pointed out?
Hon. D. Marzari: The member will see, reasonably soon, a complete list and inventory of aboriginal first nations tourism products. It has been the vision and a goal of this ministry to try to ensure that first nations people benefit from and derive some wealth and development from the development of their potential tourism products. The work that has been done to this point, in fact, has taken us in the direction of working with quite a number of first nations bands and councils, and in the next six months we'll be able to see the results of that product-development strategy.
On the service side once again: the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. It's not enough just to develop product; one has to upgrade the quality of service. I've been very pleased to announce the development of the new hotel school at the University of Victoria, which will be put together in the next year, and we'll be able to work with and give diplomas and degrees to students who are prepared to accept and work with tourism as a career and life choice. These are major steps forward.
C. Tanner: The minister keeps bringing up these very pleasant surprises, which I would be less than honest if I didn't congratulate her for. As far as the new hotel school is concerned, is there any subsidization by the industry of the students at that school?
Hon. D. Marzari: The selection committee received a vast number of applications for the privilege of establishing a hotel school in British Columbia, and it was the agencies and the post-secondary agencies themselves that are quite apparently prepared to form partnerships with the corporate sector to develop their proposals. UVic was selected because of the superiority of its application. I assume that the industry will be fully involved, but I can't give you any numbers on what that might look like now. I'm assuming, for example, that co-op work, which will be engaged in by students at the hotel school, will be supplemented and subsidized by the private sector.
C. Tanner: Did I understand the minister to say that she anticipated the first students this year, or are we looking at another year down the road?
[ Page 6069 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: It will be over the next year that the school is properly developed and takes shape and form. I do not have a specific number on how many students will be accepted into the first course-work, but I would imagine that the school will be graduating its first students in two years.
C. Tanner: I do appreciate that the minister has started off in a grand fashion, that there are two obviously good initiatives from which the hotel industry and the tourist industry in British Columbia is going to benefit. However, last year she did mention -- and this is my second major question from last year's notes -- and I am quoting directly: "As members of the House are aware, the estimates of my ministry show a considerable reduction in the marketing budget." I notice another small reduction this year, or at least a transfer of funds from one part to another part. In my estimation, since this government has been in power that actually turns around to be a reduction in the marketing budget of the tourism estimates from approximately $5 million down to about to $1.2 to $1.4 million, somewhere in that area. Could the minister tell us what the results of those reductions are and how she feels the department has made up for those changes in policy which were traditional with the tourism industry?
Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the member might be a little confused by the way the vote lines up across the page. Tourism marketing has been preserved in this budget at last year's level; in fact it has been enhanced by $120,000. The reason the member is looking at a reduction is because the STOB or the category in which the tourism marketing dollars have now been placed better reflects the fact that tourism marketing dollars are partnered dollars. They are not direct grants as much as they are dollars that go out there into the market and say to our partners, whether it be Holland America, Canadian Airlines or Air Canada.... We partner those dollars to the tune of four to one to seven to one whenever possible. The partnered dollars are now to be found in STOB 82, which is contributions, and the remainder of the marketing budget, which is a direct grant, I would imagine, to the partners, remains in STOB 40?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, in section 40 in the budget. It works out that the marketing is now at last year's level plus $120,000. So we're looking at $10,140,000 this year.
The Chair: I'll explain to the hon. member from Okanagan-Vernon that we haven't abandoned all sense and reason within the standing orders as far as procedures go, but the critic and the minister have back problems, and by leave of the committee we have determined that the critic and the minister will be able to remain seated in respect of their sore backs. I guess we are on Hansard record for all to read, but to the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon, those of us who enjoy good health today will also enjoy participation within the standing orders and will rise on the questions.
[3:45]
L. Hanson: So in order to qualify to sit down, I have to claim a bad back, is that the idea?
An Hon. Member: Or something else bad.
The Chair: Let's put it this way, we are not asking for medical documentation. Proceed, hon. member.
L. Hanson: Well, I'm pleased to see that my age hasn't caught up to me yet.
The question I have of the minister also has to do with merchandising. I am a little confused in this arrangement with B.C. Tel on the reservation process. I think the minister mentioned that she was looking at a leveraging factor of three to one. I didn't really get whose three and whose one it was, even though I know she has qualified that by saying she'd get the actual figures. I was also led to believe that as a result of that reservation service the minister would expect a commission payment, probably by the booking establishments, much the same as a travel agent gets, which would produce a profit or net revenue. That must be without the cost that you're putting into it in the first place. Would the reservation system actually, through a series of commissions, pay for itself?
Hon. D. Marzari: The reservation system down the road a few years is anticipating an actual profit. The private sector and travel agencies have been fully involved in the development and in the technical discussions that have gone on around this system, so I do not believe that it is hurting the economy in tourism and tourism support services. Rather, this system is considered to be incremental, additional and complementary to that which has gone before. The ability for a potential tourist to pick up the phone in the States not just to get a package of information mailed but to actually be able to lock into a particular room at a particular time, according to the stats and numbers I've read in the business case for this proposal, takes us into a very high fulfilment. It means that rooms will be filled which would otherwise not be filled. On that basis, the service is going to succeed.
L. Hanson: I didn't hear the minister enlighten me as to whose $3 and whose $1 those were. If I understand the minister correctly, she is saying that the total cost, including the amount that B.C. Tel is going to put in as a donation, will eventually be paid for by commissions from the hotels and the various booking services.
Hon. D. Marzari: That is the case, and the 3-to-1 ratio this year relates to their three and our one.
L. Hanson: Following from that, is this part of the federal-provincial agreement?
Hon. D. Marzari: No. The WEPA agreement, which was recently signed, deals with international --
[ Page 6070 ]
what we call long-haul -- markets and does not deal with the reservation accommodations line, which deals with the American, Canadian and local market.
L. Hanson: Then it's three from the telephone company and one from the Ministry of Tourism to get the program underway. I was interested in that particular section of it, but if we've gotten to the issue of tourism promotion in its totality, I suppose, with your indulgence, hon. Chair, we could get started on that -- unless the other member has more questions on this issue.
Last year in estimates, I believe, the minister suggested that, even though there were less dollars, there was going to be a system where the dollars that were available would be used -- I think the expression was -- "more efficiently."
C. Tanner: Smarter.
L. Hanson: Smarter. Maybe that was the expression. As I get older, my memory goes. My back is all right, but my memory is gone.
I was wondering if the minister could give us any indication of the year we experienced last year as compared to other years. The minister had said that the money was going to be used better and smarter, and that means to me that we got more bang for our buck, if you will. Does the minister have any studies or information that might help us to determine what the result was?
Hon. D. Marzari: Quite surprisingly, the total of the '92 season is not firmly within our grasp at this point. In fact, the January-to-January numbers, which generally should come through, apparently do not come through this early in the year. But I am told by the indicators that we use, which are basically accommodations and reports back from hotels, and the satellite account of how many people cross the border and how many people land at airports, that tourism has grown in the number of people who have entered B.C. -- these are with rather gross numbers, actually -- by 2 percent. The European market has been up quite considerably and the Pacific Rim market is doing very well. I don't have at my disposal the actual numbers that are appended to these tourism volumes, but I can certainly bring them to the House or carry or send them to the members opposite when they are available. We are looking at a 2-percent increase in tourism levels.
L. Hanson: Maybe the minister could give me some indication of what the expectation is, then. Will the merchandising that is done this year, or that will be authorized in this budget, reflect on this year's figures or on the following year's figures? What sort of reaction time do you get to the money that's invested in merchandising?
Hon. D. Marzari: Last year, when we talked about spending smarter and spending our tourism dollars in a wiser fashion, and when we signed the contracts with the federal government and started to sign new consultation and partnership agreements with the Vancouver and Victoria tourism associations, we concentrated on moving into very specific, targeted -- demographically and even geographically targeted -- marketplaces. This ministry at this time, in other words, is not investing heavily in general awareness programs. It is investing very heavily in strategically partnered marketing programs.
For example, we have been able to take the money saved by not paying rent on offices which we closed down in Los Angeles and Seattle, supplement it and grow it by forming alliances or partnerships with the Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler tourism associations. The result of that partnership has been a 12-week marketing program targeted specifically into Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. That marketing program looks like neighbourhood newspapers as well as city newspapers having half-page or quarter-page ads, advertising a very specific program -- a weekend or a five-day package at Whistler, a three-day weekend in Victoria or Vancouver -- with what they call in the business a call-to-action phone number right in the ad that gives a price and a phone number. The potential tourist, the customer, can actually complete that contract -- if you want to call it that -- by picking up the phone, calling a number and contracting into the three-day or five-day package.
This kind of very specific, targeted marketing has worked for us. The numbers are not completely in, but I've been told by the Victoria association that never before have they had such a successful and completely related -- between the act of marketing and the act of seeing a realized customer walk through the door -- program for doing that, and the numbers are bearing out that promise.
With the federal and overseas marketing, once again, we are not concentrating so much on a general awareness program. We are concentrating very heavily on being there at trade shows, on being there for tour operators, on being there for receptive operators and organizers. That kind of work, which we are continuing to do -- as you might know -- in Los Angeles and Seattle, we are carrying over to the overseas markets at this point, with reasonable success. The image of British Columbia that we project in the print media.... When we do project that image, it is generally partnered with one of the airlines or with Holland America, for example, the cruise ship line which has eight or nine ships now using Vancouver as a regular port. There are about ten other cruise ship lines as well, but Holland America was our first partner. So the image that we carry to Americans is a TV image with the Holland America partnership, which is a 30-second clip of the shoreline of British Columbia. It is explicit and we are there, and it's basically an awareness campaign, but it is through Holland America that we are carrying that message. It's successful; it works; it stretches our dollars in a way that they've never been able to be stretched before. It partners with the private sector, with credible corporate partners, and it carries our message farther than we could do it by ourselves with direct singular advertising.
[ Page 6071 ]
L. Hanson: I guess I'm a little confused by it. The minister suggested that there was an agreement with the Victoria tourist association and the Vancouver tourist association. Is that an agreement that also brings in the private sector on $3-$1 sort of idea? What about the other tourism associations in British Columbia? You haven't arrived at a deal with them yet or....
Hon. D. Marzari: The reason that I speak of the Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler tourism associations is that they are three of the now seven municipalities which basically have opted into the voluntary 2 percent hotel tax the province brought into effect some three years ago. These tax dollars -- basically, that's what they are -- offer Vancouver about $4.5 million a year, bring about $1 million into the Victoria tourism association's coffers, and about $500,000 into Whistler. Smaller municipalities, such as Smithers, which is about to opt into the program, make about $25,000 a year out of this program. These are basically the partners that we've been looking to, especially the big ones -- Victoria and Vancouver -- because that voluntary 2 percent they bring to the table adds to the total complement of dollars, which you might call provincial dollars in that sense, and enables them to become partners with us. It stretches all of our dollars farther, and the private sector, of course, belongs to all those tourism associations -- Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler.
[4:00]
Whether we move towards extending this 2 percent hotel tax on a voluntary basis to other communities remains to be seen. Some communities are very happy without that 2 percent and would be interested in becoming partners with us, and I'm sure we'll be having discussions with areas like Prince George down the road. But right now, those dollars go a long way with the Vancouver and Victoria markets. I have a report in front of me that says that the objectives for Tourism Victoria, in the campaign that we're just in the middle of, is to promote awareness and to generate sales.... Victoria estimates that by the end of the campaign they'll have generated $200,000. That's just in Victoria. Overall, Tourism Victoria is very pleased with the results, noting an increase of 12 percent in bookings during the first quarter of '93 over '92. So that dispels some mythology about Victoria's bookings.
L. Hanson: Do I understand the minister, then, to mean that the agreement that is in place with some of the major tourism associations is predicated on their application of that 2 percent hotel tax?
Hon. D. Marzari: No, the 2 percent hotel tax is not a prerequisite to becoming partners. Becoming partners is something that our marketing division in the ministry is prepared to do with virtually any municipality or any region that wants to walk in and talk about such an arrangement. We certainly did the same last year with the Okanagan, and intend to repeat it this summer with the Okanagan, because of the interest expressed and an infrastructure there to be able to put together a coordinated budgetary package.
L. Hanson: There's just one final question, and then I'll turn it over to my partner. The minister was talking about the agreement as far as reservations were concerned with the Okanagan -- B.C. Telephone, the hotel industry and the Ministry of Tourism -- and that there would be a profit. Was she suggesting that that profit being generated would be dedicated funding that would go back into tourism promotion, or not?
Hon. D. Marzari: I would like to think that that in fact is where it will go, but I don't believe we have a business plan for what that profit will look like or where it will be allocated when it flows through the door.
C. Tanner: I was very interested in the answer the minister gave there, and I think she suspects why. We've just had an illustration in the House of setting up an authority, and there was a suggestion a few years ago of setting up an authority or a Crown corporation to run Tourism. You can't do that unless there's an income stream, and the income stream just might have been identified. Maybe two years down the road we can expect this ministry to put itself out of work and suddenly find itself as a Crown corporation. Can we anticipate that from the minister?
The Chair: With some difficulty, a caution: we're being asked to theorize, and it falls out of the bounds of standing order 61, this blue page that was passed around for the reference of all hon. members. Hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, do you have a new question?
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the annotation -- is that the word I am looking for? -- or the restriction on the discussion that you're advising me of. But the fact of the matter is that the minister has identified a very unique occasion, in that she's instigated a system which will generate revenue for the Tourism ministry. As a consequence of that, can she see into the future sufficiently far to say that might lead to a Crown corporation for Tourism? Does the Chairman have trouble with that question?
The Chair: The Chairman does. But I will offer a caution on your answer, hon. minister, if you choose to answer this. The Chair feels we're approaching an area that's far out of the bounds of the administration of the minister's office. If the minister feels like offering us some enlightenment around the edges of this, a caution from the Chair: if we get into the heart of it, it will be out of order.
Hon. D. Marzari: Perhaps I can just put a few thoughts on the floor. Governance of the marketing budget has been controversial, apparently, because taxpayers want to know where their money goes. Marketing budgets are discretionary and do not readily prove themselves. It's certainly the intention of this ministry and this minister to do the best we possibly can to prove the value of the marketing dollar. If you cannot prove that value, using whatever criteria or
[ Page 6072 ]
variables we can pull into the mix, the taxpayer will not be interested in promoting the industry.
It's very important for the ministry, and I believe for the government, to see tourism as a viable diversification mechanism to improve the wealth -- and the regional wealth -- of the province. Insofar as governance is the question here, it is my personal wish -- and I think the ministry's goal at this point -- to ensure that we prove the value of the marketing dollar and account for it back to the taxpayer. Setting up a form of governance that put that dollar at one or two removes from the taxpayer would not be altogether fair. So I will not comment on future possibilities. All I will say is that at this point it is important to hold the agency of marketing close to government.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the indulgence; it does give me an indication.
Thank you, hon. minister, for answering the question in a peripheral manner. The industry, though, is not saying the same as you are, and it's partly because, I suspect, they've always been into advertising dollars traditionally. As they're living that life every day, they feel they've got more experience than the minister and her ministry as to how one should invest public money, particularly when they hear sentiments expressed by the Minister of Finance, the chairman of Treasury Board, on which this minister sits. He strongly suggests in his statements that he does not like to see money spent on advertising to promote hotels and the tourist industry. Without being specific, it has been noted on a couple of occasions that, when deputations have come to meetings with the minister, the Minister of Finance and the various leaders, they haven't had a great reception, particularly from the Minister of Finance. I assume he expresses the opinion of the government as a whole, though -- let me frankly say -- from what I've heard, not the opinion of this minister.
You've reduced the budget in two years from $5 million to $1.25 million in round figures. It's a large reduction -- irrespective of the fact that you've moved some of the money into another area -- in the way you approach tourism. The justification in the minister's mind, in answering the last three questions, is that there's spot advertising and there's geographical advertising, and that it's difficult to get results. In actual fact, it's even more difficult to ascertain the results you're getting in that respect. It's easier on a consistent basis to know where your market's coming from. Could the minister elaborate not only on why they've made such an extreme change in the way they're marketing the partners, but also on the fact that they're marketing differently in the United States and Japan -- a different trend in Japan -- than they have in the last ten years, since we've had such large increases in tourism in B.C.?
Hon. D. Marzari: The reason that the numbers appear the way they do in the accounts book and in the estimates book is not a dramatic shift in the thrust or focus of marketing. It was a minor administrative moving of numbers from STOB 40 over to STOB 82 for greater accountability basically, so that the public, which has a right to know how money gets spent, can see more clearly how advertising and marketing dollars are partnered. The bulk of our marketing dollars are now recorded under the partnering contributions category in the estimates.
To reiterate, the marketing budget has not been decreased one whit. In fact, it's a point of pride that the marketing budget has been increased slightly this year. The impression we leave in the long-haul market overseas and around the Pacific Rim is going to be better, because the dollars we spend are being spent smarter while we're there. The fact that we have an increased presence in terms of bodies on the floor, if you want to put it that way, in the Pacific Rim right now and the possibility of having an increased presence over there next year should tell the member and the House that we're doing better with the limited dollars we have, rather than worse or differently.
So for reasons of accountability, we have moved the numbers from one STOB to the other. They're easier to read, and we have increased our ability to do business on the Pacific Rim and in the European markets by signing the WEPA and by preserving the marketing budget.
C. Tanner: The minister is actually contradicting herself to some extent because I prefaced what I said with "over two years." If I might, I'll read to her again what she said last year: "As members of the House are aware, the estimates in my ministry show a considerable reduction in the marketing budget" -- which last year took place. This year, at first blush, it appears that you've reduced it a bit. There's an explanation of this year, but the question I'm asking the minister is: what is the effect of the considerable reduction from the previous year? So we're talking two years ago. Further on she said that the ministry would implement changes in activities in close coordination with the B.C. tourism industry. Virtually every one of the associations involved in COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C., is writing and telling me that they're not happy with the marketing budget. That's particularly true of the interior associations, but it's also true of the industry as a whole -- all campgrounds and hotels, and the food industry. They're not happy with the decision that the department has made. The minister is saying that there's a small increase this year and that there was virtually no increase a year ago; but by her own admission there was.
Hon. D. Marzari: Last year there was a $3 million decrease in the amount that went into tourism marketing. The tourism marketing budget moved from $13 million to $10.1 million. It was a $3 million decrease, and as a result of that, a number of programs and partnerships in our nine regions were cut considerably. Despite those cuts, the regions, although they complained bitterly -- and I understand their reasons for complaining -- put together their usual high-quality brochures and books, their partnered accommodation guides and their regional advertising campaigns. In the course of that year we worked closely with specific regions, such as the northeast for Rendezvous '92 on the Alaska Highway opening, to
[ Page 6073 ]
ensure that they had the kinds of marketing dollars they needed to see their programs through. We also worked closely with the Okanagan to start developing the brochures and the structures we needed and required to develop a wine tour. This year we'll be working with them again to do further work on the wine tour program that they wish to establish.
[4:15]
Members of COTA this year are still reacting to a misperception that their budget's been cut, when in fact it hasn't; and you might be reflecting their dissatisfaction last year, when partnership budgets in the regions truly were cut. But we're crawling back and doing the best we can here with a quality of service that the regions should be commended for. In fact, we have not seen a decline in actual tourists walking through the gate. I think that speaks for itself.
C. Tanner: The minister is impugning me for the fact that I might be speaking for last year's industry, but I'm speaking for this year's industry. I'm speaking for as recently as the last two or three weeks, when I've received letters saying that they're not happy. By the minister's own admission, one of the most difficult things in business -- and it's got to be equally difficult for the government -- is to measure the results of advertising. I have personally administered a $60,000 advertising budget for the last ten years on a consistent basis -- a little more than that, a little less than that, but mostly it's around $60,000 a year. One always wonders in business whether the money you invest in advertising pays off. One never actually knows, but one assumes over a space of a number of years that if you're successful you're doing the right thing.
The problem the minister is illustrating to me -- and confirming, in my view, the industry's apprehension -- is the fact that she, by her own admission, cannot tell us the results of the decrease in that budget. I thought that maybe, after a year's experience, she'd have some of those results now. But one thing I can tell the minister -- as an advertiser, if you like -- is that consistency is the hallmark of a good advertiser in getting results back. The sudden drop of $3 million in a $5 million budget is going to hurt. It's not going to hurt immediately, because you've got the previous year's advertising covering it. But it's going to hurt in the succeeding years. Frankly, I haven't heard a reasonable explanation from the minister of what the results of the advertising were, nor am I hearing the same thing from the minister that I'm hearing from the industry.
Hon. D. Marzari: As I said before, the industry, of course, would like more money invested in marketing. Both the minister and ministry have said that we are going to ensure that the money we spend in marketing is going to be targeted to those groups, those demographics, those cities, those regions and those parts of Europe, the Pacific Rim and the world that are actually going to be able to return the dollar to us. So we're making business decisions inside the Ministry of Tourism. We're not simply taking money and throwing it at marketing programs that walk through the door, or at great ideas that may or may not pan out. We are taking a careful look at where we market, how we market, with whom we market and how we stretch our dollar.
All these decisions become part of a matrix of decision-making that you have to engage in if you're going to take $10 million and say "Come to B.C." with that $10 million. When you say that, and you put some of those dollars into local associations so that they can do a better book and a better program, and set up a better info centre, for example, then you're investing wisely. But if you take those dollars and throw them into general awareness advertising in Florida where it may or may not be picked up, or fall on ears -- or eyes -- that care to travel to the other side of the continent, then you're wasting bucks.
So what am I saying? I'm saying here that the final numbers are not in on whether or not we had $5.5 billion spent here last year nor on whether or not $2.7 billion was left in the GDP in 1992. But what I can say is that more people came to B.C. last year, and that more people intend to come to B.C. I can also say that windfall events, such as the Clinton-Yeltsin visit, produced $100 million worth of marketing for us -- if you want to look at it in crass terms. Our marketing people were down there, under the sails at the Pan Pacific Hotel, basically marketing B.C. for four solid days. You can't begin to calculate the value of that kind of marketing. You can't begin to calculate the value of the 4,000 kits, disks and videos given to media representatives from around the world. What we might see next year, or the year after that or the year after that, can't be calculated.
So when I say we're measuring the impact and the effect of our marketing, we are doing the best that we can with the variables and the models that we've got. It's true that the models I've read about, particularly one that Florida is using, suggest that there is quite a substantial multiplier effect from a dollar spent on marketing, that it can be quantified to a certain extent. Obviously it is a not a science, but we can look at some of those variables, and this ministry is in the process of pulling together its model for doing some of that measurement.
I hope I'm not confusing the member with this discussion, and I hope that I'm not leading anyone down the line to say that marketing is the be-all and end-all; nor am I saying that there are enough dollars in the marketing budget. I'm just saying that weighing the balance and sustaining last year's level, working smarter with fewer dollars than there were three years ago and -- most important -- working cooperatively with Vancouver, Victoria, Whistler, the Okanagan and the private sector is paying off for us, because there hasn't been a lot of cooperation in the past. How that has happened, I do not know, but now Tourism is seen as a helpful adjunct and a complementary coordinator rather than as a separate entity carrying B.C.'s image to the world.
C. Tanner: I can't find the specific occasion, but I have in front of me the results of a meeting of members of the industry with the minister, other members of her caucus and one other member of cabinet. When
[ Page 6074 ]
members of the industry came out of that meeting, they reputedly told the members that they would like to pass the message on to the Minister of Finance that he was totally out of line in stating that the government shouldn't be spending money on advertising tourism, which he apparently said. By doing so, he broke a historical agreement with the hotel association that has allowed the room tax to exist by an agreement with the government that part of the money would be used to promote tourism. Could the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. D. Marzari: The member has talked in the past about the Minister of Finance's comments to the industry. Let me suggest to the member that the Minister of Finance has ensured that the restaurant business is able to keep its chin above water this year by not bringing in a sales tax on restaurant meals. The Minister of Finance has not even started to think about removing the 2 percent voluntary tax that municipalities cash in on, which we collect for them. The Minister of Finance understands completely how important the business of tourism is in the transitional economy. If the language is a little rough and provocative at times, that is the way the Minister of Finance does his business: to elicit responses, to get people to think it through and to find out what's going on.
I find the Minister of Finance and this government to be completely sympathetic with the business of our economy in transition and with looking for positive places where we can experience growth that is not disruptive of our environment and that plays into the strengths and the resources we have here. So you have a government that is sympathetic to tourism, which last year cut back a marketing budget by $3 million. You have an industry that was angry at that cutback, but which, I must say, this year is relieved and happy to work in a more consultative way in partnership with a ministry that is sustaining and upholding the level of funding from last year.
C. Tanner: I can't let the last comment go without just one more comment on what I understand took place at that meeting. Mr. Clark was told that he was out of line, and he was told right out that the industry was deeply offended and found Mr. Clark's remarks and attitude to their industry offensive. That's extremely strong language; that's more than just trying to provoke a group of supplicants to think differently. It's an attitude that doesn't help the industry. That attitude isn't reflected by this minister, because I haven't heard that from her. But I do know that she sits on Treasury Board, and that the Minister of Finance is chairman of that board. I think that's what people are hurt by. They sincerely believe that what they're doing for the economy of British Columbia is important, and they think the minister thinks it's important. They think her ministry officials think it's important. But it apparently doesn't seem to be of importance to the Minister of Finance, and that's what's worrying them.
Hon. D. Marzari: In my dealings with the industry and in assisting the industry to come to caucus and to speak to cabinet and to government, I have found the industry very happy to be able to put its points on the table. It has been very happy to be able to express to government the fact that certain fees and licences were impeding and holding up its ability to make a go of it, and it has been very happy to work cooperatively with government in dealing with some of those fees and licences in developing a rationale for supporting the industry more fully and completely, not just in marketing but at the level of service delivery and taxation. I think the member is exaggerating what he might have heard, or heard a briefing out of that meeting which may have itself been exaggerated. I remember a meeting that was very positive, very constructive, where a lot of good information was put on the table, and where government's side was able and willing and more than eager to hear about an industry with 12,000 businesses and a $5.5 billion impact on the economy in any given year, and was more than willing to hear and learn from that experience. I did not feel that industry left that meeting, or any meeting with government, dissatisfied or unhappy that it had been able to make its point.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member on this point again, I will caution the members that what the Minister of Finance may or may not have said or may or may not have thought at certain meetings does not fall under the administrative capacity of the Minister of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture's responsibilities. I would just caution the members on that point.
C. Tanner: I appreciate what the Chairman says. While the minister obviously can't account for what other ministers say, it's very pertinent to the conversation because the money all comes from the same place. But I'll let it go.
[P. Ramsey in the chair.]
The minister said last time, last year, that she was doing some joint marketing ventures with Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler in the California market, and that she had had some results. In fact, she's already talked about the results, and she said that while they closed the office in Los Angeles, specific marketing into certain areas had shown increased results in the industry here, in particular in those three places. As we have both agreed, to get tangible results so quickly is remarkable. I've never heard anybody advertise.... Unless you've got a slip on the bottom of the ad saying return this slip to us, and even that doesn't really tell you an awful lot.... Can the minister be more specific as to what the results were? When she made this statement -- it was a year ago that she was going to do it, when I read the piece from a news release on the closing of the two offices in the United States -- she used that as an example of how they could better use the money. Now that the minister's had about nine months, almost a year, can she give us a more specific result as to what that advertising brought to the industry in British Columbia?
[4:30]
[ Page 6075 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: As of April 25, 1993 -- I'm talking about this very specific campaign we engaged in with Tourism Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler -- our 1-800 number, which has been a longstanding service offered in this province, had received as a direct result of that one campaign nearly 700 calls. That means the caller identified the ad in the newspaper, whether that newspaper was in Seattle, Los Angeles or San Francisco -- the vast majority came from San Francisco, especially the San Francisco Chronicle. So we have it, right down to the newspaper, where our best market is and where we should be spending our time and money in marketing.
Operators are finding that more people are calling to make inquiries, with two and three calls for information, than to make reservations, in Vancouver specifically. When the reservation is made it is usually in the more economically priced hotels. At the end of April, it says here: "Vancouver has seen only one week with volumes above last year, but they did note" -- these are our operators -- "that Canadian Airlines are very pleased with the program and consider it to be the flagship product of Canadian Airlines this year." So our partnering with Canadian Airlines has been very successful.
Whistler noted strong surges in call volumes -- the 1-800 line -- following radio and San Francisco Chronicle ads. Whistler is somewhat surprised at the higher volume of calls received from San Francisco than Los Angeles. Whistler too is seeing increases in the number of brochure calls in March and April '93 over the same period in '92. This is not quantifiable; there's no graph and chart to show you the increased volumes of this shoulder season as opposed to the '92 shoulder season.
But I can tell you we did a marketing campaign with a specified number of dollars and involvement with Vancouver, Whistler and Victoria. Those dollars have produced a result, and we can build on that result. There's no way of knowing how many of those people who come for the first time will come again and again because of this brochure or this newspaper ad. But as I say, we are trying to make our marketing smarter, and I do believe it's working.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
C. Tanner: Seven hundred calls is a good reaction, I would suggest, to a series of ads. But we closed down two offices in Los Angeles and Seattle; I'm going to get into that later on. One of the explanations was that you were going to undertake this type of advertising, and the reaction you're getting on the phone, I would say, is a very good indication that you're doing something right. But first of all, was it just a one-shot deal or was it a number of advertising inputs? And what was the cost to the taxpayer of British Columbia for that advertising promotion?
Hon. D. Marzari: The contribution from the province and our advertising coffers for the benefit was $120,000. Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler, I believe, basically tripled that. And it was not a one-shot deal. At least, I see six newspapers here -- in San Francisco, in the Bay, in Los Angeles, here too. The actual program, I believe, started in the middle of February and was still ongoing at the end of April. So you have a product which is a shoulder-season marketing product.
C. Tanner: I suppose that's not a bad return. Is it the intention to try it again in following years, so you can see if you prove those results up again?
Hon. D. Marzari: We'll probably be doing variations on....
The Chair: Hon. minister?
Hon. D. Marzari: Oops, sorry.
The Chair: That's fine, hon. minister. I was just acknowledging you.
Hon. D. Marzari: The answer is yes.
C. Tanner: We're breaking ground here, Madam Minister, in that apparently sitting down and trying to keep the Chair keep us both happy is giving us some difficulties.
Last year on May 5, during the same debate that we're having this year, the minister said: "Attending to community interests is an integral part of a solidly based strategic planning process, and the minister is making consultations with communities, regional associations and representative associations of the tourism industry sectors a major priority." If the minister looks back at the way we proceeded last year, she would see that she wasn't able to tell me what the allocations were that she made to the nine regions. I got that information later in the year, and I don't need to.... I've got it here, thank you. I haven't got it for this year, but I assume it's similar. What was the reaction of the associations to the reduction in their allocations last year?
Hon. D. Marzari: What was their reaction? Partners in Tourism and the associations that administer the program were obviously not pleased to have their administrative or marketing budgets cut. However, as I said in my initial comments, the associations will be secure in their ability to survive and to run an office. That has been guaranteed in this year's budget. The Partners program which they administer, although it was reduced last year, will be maintained this year at last year's rate to give them some security that they will be able to function in marketing their regions.
It is my hope, as I said earlier, that this ministry will be able to work with a specific number of them to promote particular products in their regions and to use financial programs like B.C. 21 to help them develop some of their products, such as the Okanagan wine tour and different products that we worked on last year in Rendezvous '92. There are additional requests for further product development in the northeast.
So we're working at it with the partners and with the associations. More to the point, the associations this year will be given a small bonus in the sense that the
[ Page 6076 ]
comptroller general has facilitated our ability to give them cash up front and to work with them as partners to receive their receipts after the fact. In the past they've had to go through a rather complex bureaucratic ordeal whereby they could not make expenditures until they had received approvals. This year, with the advice and consent of the comptroller general, our nine associations will be able to run a business more effectively and more efficiently with the dollars they have.
C. Tanner: Two criticisms in the past -- one of which you may have taken care of -- have been from those associations. The first is that they didn't have the money, so they had to plan a little later. They had to scramble for the money and then send in receipts to recoup their outlay. I appreciate what the minister said.
The other big criticism was that the money comes too late, because of our budgeting process here in the Legislature, for them to make plans for the current year, and they're really going after the off-shoulder business in the fall. Have the minister or her ministry officials given any consideration to a five-year plan? Is it possible within our financial structure to give a five-year commitment, so they can plan ahead the same way that the ministry plans?
Hon. D. Marzari: No. But in offering the associations a secure budget, in offering them what they got last year and in assuring them that their survival is crucial to the survival of the industry, I believe that this, plus the financial arrangements I've just outlined, gives the industry and the associations the sense of security for future planning that they desperately need.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell the committee today how many of the nine associations she visited herself on the ground -- not in a group down in Vancouver, but actually on their own home turf?
Hon. D. Marzari: I would say five or six of the nine.
C. Tanner: Does the minister plan to visit the other four this year? It's essential, to get an understanding of their individual problems, that she sees for herself what's going on, whether it be in the north, south, east or west.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.
C. Tanner: The minister attended and spoke to -- in fact, opened -- a meeting last year at Whistler, which was an association of tourist groups concerned with ecotourism. I have a number of questions arising out of that. The first one is as usual financial. What did it cost the government to participate in the Whistler meeting?
Hon. D. Marzari: The number that we started out with for the conference was about $30,000 cash straight up. It was an international conference. I believe it attracted somewhere around 750 delegates from around the world, many of them ministers of tourism in developing nations. I believe it was one of the first ecotourism conferences ever held. B.C. stands to take some credit for the fact that it was held here at Whistler, on our turf.
C. Tanner: Last year you said that you were going to be attending that conference which you had been able to have here. In fact, I think it was the previous government that made the arrangements, and you went ahead and followed through on them. This coming year, in September, it's going to be in the Amazon, in Brazil. Could the minister tell the committee whether she or her department's officials intend to attend this year, what it would cost -- and can they take me?
[4:45]
Hon. D. Marzari: Attendance at the conference in the Amazon has not been discussed. I would suggest that with the cutbacks in travel we have had to exact in order to maintain marketing levels, the answer to the question is no, we will not be going -- and we will most definitely not be taking you.
The Chair: Hon. member who just lost a trip to the Amazon.
C. Tanner: Well, I least I've saved the government some money. The minister's not going either, and she knows full well that next year I'll be making sure that she didn't, certainly because I couldn't go.
At that conference the minister designated, I think, seven new parks, mostly along the coast of B.C. Quite frankly, while I personally was impressed and I think my party was impressed by the fact she fulfilled a pledge to allocate a large percentage of the total of B.C. towards parks, I can't honestly say that I've heard much since then. While the designation was announced, have the parks actually been formulated? Or have they gone through the official process of becoming parks since that conference last September?
Hon. D. Marzari: Those parks were parks as of the day they were announced, so they have become class A parks in the inventory of class A parkland in British Columbia.
C. Tanner: Did the minister experience any problems with other ministers in her cabinet to whom that announcement rightly belonged in using this particular occasion to make the announcement?
Hon. D. Marzari: To the credit of the cabinet and of the particular Minister of Environment involved there, I must say that minister offered to allow the Minister of Tourism to make the announcement at that particularly crucial conference at Whistler. It was with a great sense of collegiality that the offer was made, and that is just the way cabinet operates.
C. Tanner: I really walked into that one. Just like I lost a trip to the Amazon, I just got a lecture on how the cabinet operates.
[ Page 6077 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, I would be pleased to send you....
C. Tanner: If the minister was about to say she would be pleased to send me the cabinet minutes on it, I'd be very happy to see them.
The minister said in her address to this committee last year in the other place: "For this reason the province is undertaking, in cooperation with industry, a project to identify those natural and cultural resources which are most important to the tourism industry." The identification of those seven parks at that time was part of that, I assume. What else has taken place, since that meeting last September -- as far as this ministry is concerned -- for parks identification or the establishment of new parks?
Hon. D. Marzari: The inventory work that is presently being carried out by the ministry relates not just to parks but also to land use planning in the province. Consequently the parks issue is not the crucial one here.
The crucial question that is being asked on a daily basis by our researchers is: what products can be developed best in what areas? In what regions does the infrastructure exist to develop a ski resort, a golf course or another amenity for tourists? The computer mapping that has been done of the Inside Passage -- one day the member may be interested in coming in and seeing the computer model -- actually shows where on the south island the most compatible spots would be for a kayaking operation and where you could take a two- or three-day trip from. This is an attempt to assist the potential developer in planning any product or service that might be offered down the line.
When I talk about doing an inventory, I don't mean counting square inches of parkland or golf course. I mean taking an inventory of the physical attributes and compatibility of regions of our province down to a level of detail that is useful for entrepreneurs who want to avail themselves of the information.
L. Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to tourism marketing. The minister mentioned in her opening remarks a new program with the federal program that had recently been signed. I think she mentioned $10 million over three or four years -- I'm not sure which. I'll give the minister an opportunity to enlighten us on how that program actually works.
Hon. D. Marzari: The program that was announced federally was a five-year program. We got into the program in the second year of its development. We now have a three-year agreement with the feds, which will produce a full $5 million per year by the federal government to match $5 million from us.
L. Hanson: Did you say there are three years left of what was originally a five-year program?
Hon. D. Marzari: When the federal government announced the program, it was intended to be a five-year WEPA agreement. The new government got involved with it in year two or three. So we've ended up with the $10 million agreement being stretched across four years, not five years.
L. Hanson: On the minister's reference to $5 million, is $2.5 million provincial funding and $2.5 million out of federal funding?
Hon. D. Marzari: The share is $5 million and $5 million.
L. Hanson: Okay, $5 million and $5 million, which is $10 million over four years, which is $2.5 million a year, and that's shared equally by the federal and provincial governments. My understanding of the program is that it's for overseas promotional issues, not the North American continent.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I'm going to remind all the members of the committee of the necessity to address their questions and remarks through the Chair. Once the individual is so recognized, your question and response become the record in Hansard, and it may be important for the members of the committee to have their questions and responses, and responses and questions, in the record; so through the Chair, please hon. minister.
Hon. D. Marzari: Mr. Chair, each of the four years that this program is in operation, we will be putting $1.2 million on the table. It is true that originally the program was intended to cover the overseas market; however, this program has also covered certain ski packages that we have done in cooperation with ski resorts in B.C.; and the kick-off promotion basically for this agreement was the Holland America deal with the cruise ship line out of Seattle. So, in fact, we are doing some domestic promotion with the program, but basically the program's thrust is to see our image expand and grab attention in the Pacific Rim and European markets.
L. Hanson: Is this the first year of that four-year period?
Hon. D. Marzari: I think this is the beginning of the second fiscal year now of the program, because we signed it last fall.
L. Hanson: The tourism associations of British Columbia, as the minister well knows, have written to the minister and to other members of the government suggesting that the tourism marketing budget be brought back to the level it was prior to the last fiscal year -- I think it's $3.5 million less now. I understand from the minister that the tourism budget for marketing was cut by $3.5 million, and that $1.2 million...
Hon. D. Marzari: Now we're talking marketing.
L. Hanson: ...over and above that was taken out of -- for lack of a better description -- the conventional method of marketing and dedicated to this. So in fact,
[ Page 6078 ]
the marketing for the Partners in Tourism program was down considerably more than the $3.5 million, even though there was a replacement program of a different nature.
Hon. D. Marzari: The tourism budget was reduced from $13.5 million to $10.1 million. Out of that $10.1 million, we financed a comprehensive partnership with a number of partners throughout North America. We financed the associations' marketing programs, and we paid $850,000 last year into WEPA. So the answer to your question is: yes, everyone took a share of that $10.1 million, and to the extent that the $850,000 last year had to be found, it was found within the context of a $10.1 million advertising budget. What made our budget unique -- we should take some credit for it actually -- is the fact that the federal government generally didn't want to deal with anyone who didn't have brand new money to bring to the table. We managed, through some months of bargaining, to encourage the federal government to regard our budget as a whole and took money that was marketing money but wasn't newly allocated out of a contingency reserve.
L. Hanson: The minister then has the association.... The correct name is the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C.? Their concern is that not only have they lost the $3.5 million out of marketing but they've suffered a direct loss, as far as they are concerned, in the control of some of that marketing by the reduction in money that went into the Partners in Tourism program. Now the minister says that this year's figures of entries into the country are up. I guess then it must follow that the advertising, the marketing, that was done last year, will reflect on this year's figures as opposed to on last year's figures. We really don't know the result of that reduction as yet, even though the tourism associations say that it's doom and gloom, and so on. I didn't get exactly the same impression that they were as happy as the minister suggested they might be, when I was talking to them last. Could the minister verify that the results of this year's program won't be felt until next year, the results of last year's program won't be felt until this year, and she doesn't have figures in as yet?
Hon. D. Marzari: I can't really verify that what we do this year has an impact next year but I can verify that the on-the-ground marketing that we've done since February has paid off instantly. There has been an instantaneous response. People are not looking toward where they are going to go next summer; they are picking up a newspaper and saying: "That looks good; I'm going this weekend." That is just for that west coast market down to California.
[5:00]
What happens next year is obviously going to be as much a result of the Bill Clinton-Boris Yeltsin event as anything else because of the strong marketing strategy we carried into that particular event, which cost us virtually nothing but is going to have a mammoth impact worldwide, simply because the receivers of our information are carrying it back to their respective countries. Whether or not we see a huge influx next year from areas we've never even contemplated yet, or which are on the third rung of priority for us, there is no way of knowing. But to answer your question: have the associations lost control because the WEPA sort of stepped in and usurped them? Let me assure the member that the WEPA agreement has a technical committee advising it which is comprised of certain members of the ministry and a strong contingent of partners and local associations. The local associations are represented on the actual WEPA technical committee, which is unprecedented, and I am very proud of that.
C. Tanner: I think you are doing a marvellous job, Mr. Chairman, since we're not standing up and some of us are up and down. I appreciate that you are having some problems and you are dealing with them well.
The minister last year said: "In order to ensure that these divergent interests are addressed in a cohesive and cooperative...framework, the industry will be encouraging a strong representative advisory body that integrates the concerns of all participants in the industry throughout the province sectorally and geographically." In fact, she was talking about COTA, which now I think about it, was subsequently formed, I think, since she made that statement, in May of last year. What happened, as I understand it, is that an association of associations has come together. How does that association compare with the associations that the minister mentioned were in every other province in Canada except ours until now? How does the COTA association compare to the others? Is it working for her? Is it accomplishing what she wanted it to do?
Hon. D. Marzari: How does COTA compare with other associations across the province? Across the country? Oh, it's better. And is the Council of Tourism Associations doing a job? Yes it is. The council is a council of industries, of industry representatives; so skiing is represented on COTA as well as hunting and guiding, resorts and ecotourism. It is the voice of the tourism industry, as far as I am concerned. I gather that over the history of this province COTA has formed and reformed and grouped and regrouped. This time COTA was established not by ministerial fiat, which I gather has happened in the past, but because of the necessity and the strong feeling among the industry itself that it be represented and have a voice. The ministry strongly supported it and wants to assist COTA in developing its conference, which may happen this fall. I have a lot of time to hear representatives of COTA talk to me of their concerns and about their facts, because very often we can get statistics as quickly from representatives on COTA as we can from the machinations of the federal government sending us back numbers.
So COTA is a good voice for the industry. COTA has concerns and it doesn't pull any punches or mince any words. COTA can be very angry and COTA can change -- from an industry point of view -- the life of this industry in this province.
[ Page 6079 ]
C. Tanner: Thank you for that answer, Madam Minister. But I wonder, from her experience with the way they formulated COTA in B.C., how it compared with the way they were formulated in other provinces. Is it an association of associations in other provinces, or is it individual members in the industry joining together? I guess the question was, does this answer the concerns she expressed last year?
Hon. D. Marzari: I am informed that most associations across the country are individuals that come together to form a provincial association. In fact, COTA is a coalition of associations. When COTA speaks, I listen to COTA as a representative group, as a new group that is feeling its ground and feeling its way and developing its membership. I see it as a legitimate voice of the industry.
C. Tanner: I want to go back to a couple of questions that I omitted to ask the minister subsequent to the announcements of the parks. That is, what sort of input the minister and her department have had in the CORE process. I have heard criticism, not of the minister's department, but of individuals who would like to participate not having the funding to do so. Could the minister comment on two things: one, how has the department been involved, and two, does she have any answers for those people in the industry who would like to participate but haven't got the funding to do so?
Hon. D. Marzari: The answer to question one is a great deal easier than the answer to question two. The answer to question one has to do with the full and expressed interest of the Ministry of Tourism to be at the CORE table, and to use whatever planning and community development funds we may have in the regions -- the Kootenays, the Cariboo and the Island -- to ensure that our industry people are there. It is my personal view that having tourism representatives at the CORE table brings an economic and financial perspective, but not necessarily the perspective of the resource industries. I figure -- and I believe I'm right -- that tourism can have a mediating effect in what could be a table polarized between resource and environmental interests, and that tourism can speak to and for both, and use the language of economics to do so.
Are there resources to properly equip and staff our representatives at those CORE tables? I do not believe those resources are enough at this moment. The sustainable development and strategic planning branch of the ministry is doing what it can to provide the staffing of planners and assistants at those tables. But the business of providing intervener funding has not been fully investigated or developed so that Tourism can truly, properly be at those tables at this time.
I have a note that says that over the next month we're sponsoring meetings with all three regions to review our community tourism planning program to ensure that their input is there and collected, and that their input gets to the CORE table. This note lets me know that yet another program we run for communities is going to be used with an eye to developing information for the CORE tables, which is helpful information.
C. Tanner: When the ministry people are sitting there, they are representing the ministry's point of view. When the tourism industry people are sitting there, they are obviously representing a slightly different point of view, but a necessary one, I suspect. But are they sitting there representing the industry or as another spokesman for the department?
Hon. D. Marzari: It is very important that our planners and assistants not sit at the table as spokespeople for the industry. Their job is to plan with the industry, as the COTABC program does, to help the industry present its case. Ministry people do sit at the CORE table as ministry reps, and that is a very different hat. They do not -- and it would not be appropriate for them to -- sit at the table as representatives of industry.
C. Tanner: I'm sorry, but I'm slightly confused as to who is physically sitting at the table. I understand that sometimes representatives of the three areas affected have occasionally sat there, but they've run out of funding. And the minister says, by way of a note she's just received, she might have a solution for that in the future. But the people or the person, besides the planners, who actually sit at the table for the ministry: is it a specific person, or is there nobody?
Hon. D. Marzari: At the actual CORE table, I am told, only one government representative is allowed. That government representative carries the message from government. Industry reps do sit at the table; I do not have the specific numbers of representatives, but it's probably one, and there's advisory backup, I've been told. The financial ability of the ministry to provide some dollars for the industrial backup has become the problem, and we're trying to address that.
C. Tanner: Is one government member sitting there representing all the departments, or one member sitting there representing your department?
Hon. D. Marzari: All government ministries are represented by one government person.
C. Tanner: Thank you, Madam Minister. I understand the process better now. Just to make sure I heard you correctly, the minister just handed me a note saying that she thought there might be some help for those people representing the industry in the future. Am I correct?
Hon. D. Marzari: The note suggests that we are using a program, which we presently take to the regions, called the community tourism assistance program. It goes to the regions and talks to people in workshops about what their communities could do to develop and enhance tourism. This program will be dedicated toward the CORE tables for this year, so the program, as it sends staff into the regions, will be talking to communities not just about what tourism can
[ Page 6080 ]
do for the region, but about how tourism might want to be represented at the CORE table and what ideas should come forward to the CORE table.
C. Tanner: Could the minister identify, if the funding is used in that way, which vote that would appear under? She lost me a little.
Hon. D. Marzari: It will come under vote 57 in the category of tourism policy, planning and sustainable development.
C. Tanner: I think the minister slipped one past you there, Mr. Chairman.
Could the minister comment -- and I appreciate her candour in these answers -- on the Clayoquot Sound decision and what, if any, input she or her ministry had in the decision, other than the cabinet one? Have the consequences of that decision affected her ministry to any noticeable extent?
Hon. D. Marzari: Tourism expressed an interest in being very much involved in the decision around Clayoquot Sound early in the process. Tourism has been involved in the decision and did have input into the decision. In fact, the land use planning instruments that I was talking about previously in terms of our database were useful in the decision. In the final analysis, it was Tourism interests that spoke to the access and retention of visual corridors in and around the sound and the 78-kilometre stretch that runs along the foreshore of the sound.
[5:15]
From a tourism point of view, these are extremely important entities to be maintained and preserved. In terms of the committee work in decisions that involve land use when competing values are operating, Tourism did have its point heard and taken into consideration when the final decision was made to preserve the visual corridors, the inlets and the foreshore. Tourism interests were obviously served by the retention of the Megin, the Sydney and the Talbot in connecting Strathcona Park to the ocean and in preserving four major watersheds in the Clayoquot area. These were all very important for the development of the tourism resource, and to that extent Tourism was involved.
Tourism is also involved, technically speaking, in the sense that our policy planning branch will be working closely with Forests and with Forests instruments. We will be ensuring as best we can with some very expert staff the retention and preservation of those spaces that are important to the tourism resource -- that is, the visual corridors, the watersheds and the foreshore access. We will be engaged in actual decision-making with Forests around how and when some of these areas are logged or selectively harvested.
C. Tanner: I think this is such an important part of the minister's portfolio that I'd just like to quote to her what she said last year: "These considerations are especially compelling in the new wave of international tourism -- the ecotourism product. Ecotourism is defined as travelling to areas of unique natural, scenic and cultural richness for the purpose of observing and absorbing the organic attributes of the region." Is the minister satisfied that in her input, or her department's input, into the cabinet's Clayoquot Sound decision she did protect the vital tourist treasures and the huge potential for ecotourism?
Hon. D. Marzari: I am satisfied that the Ministry of Tourism was vitally involved in a very, very difficult land use decision which ultimately did preserve in perpetuity 33 percent of the landbase in Clayoquot Sound, and an additional 18 to 24 percent of that landbase will be preserved in one way or another for tourism purposes. So I am satisfied to the extent that when a difficult political and technical decision was made Tourism sat at the table and participated.
C. Tanner: Did the minister's department in their research do any comparison -- if it's possible to do any comparison -- as to the potential for tourism as compared to the potential for logging?
Hon. D. Marzari: Early on in the process of decision-making which occurred in 1990 and l991 the tourism industry on Clayoquot Sound, around Tofino, was very involved with the original round table that started the discussions. Some of the numbers that came out of that initial investigation, although they've been questioned and pulled apart and put back together again, are interesting numbers. They do speak to a very viable and growing industry on the west coast of the island. The industry revolves around supplying, working with, guiding and renting facilities to tourists. And yes, a viably industry can be built and is there at this very moment. But in the long term the numbers on the study showed that tourism alone was not going to be the salvation of Clayoquot Sound or of the west coast of the island, but that tourism become a piece of the overall diversification of industry and the economy of that area.
C. Tanner: Do the graphs that the minister mentioned show potential tourism products available along the coast for canoeing or kayaking? Would those sort of things appear in the process used?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, and the member might be interested in actually reviewing some of the database that we have developed in the ministry over the last few years, so that quite graphically it can be seen where new services might best take off and have some success.
C. Tanner: I will take the minister up on that offer. I'd appreciate that knowledge so that I can criticize her department better next time.
The minister last year and today talked about the establishment of a school for the industry here in Victoria. This is good news to this committee because once established, it's going to be an asset to the industry and tourism and, in the long run I suppose, an asset to the public. Can the minister tell us what was the deciding factor in making Victoria the place -- not that I'm knocking the decision -- rather than the Okanagan?
[ Page 6081 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: The reason happens to be a crass economic one. The University of Victoria came in with a full-blown proposal which could be financed completely inside the institution itself. The University of Victoria has its own capacity to go out and raise money from corporate sponsors, or from within its own structure. All other applications actually requested taxpayers' money to be spent on the enterprise, and for that reason I am told they didn't receive the benefit, although there were some very sophisticated proposals put forward.
C. Tanner: I appreciate the decision on two counts. Firstly, of course, it's nearer my constituency; and secondly, the minister made a decision based solely on financial grounds -- or primarily because of the financial one. Just as an insight for the members of this committee, could you tell us if you are proposing a two-year course? You told us that we might see the first graduates two years down the road. Could you repeat that for the committee, please?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm reading the actual note here, and it says that the concept outline is going to be addressed by the end of September '93, and that we don't anticipate the first phase of implementation until at least September 1994. So whether or not we are looking at a two-, three- or four-year program, or a combination of them, I cannot speak to. We are not looking at our first graduate as early as I anticipated in my earlier answer.
I should also add that the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism set up a cross-industry committee to review all applications, and this committee finally made its recommendations to the Pacific Rim Institute. It was not a ministerial decision; it was a decision that came out of the industry in its partnership with the institute.
C. Tanner: What part will the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism play in the organization of the establishment? Does the University of Victoria visualize new buildings, or are they going to use something that's already in existence?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm told that Dunsmuir Lodge is going to feature prominently in the hospitality end of the training process. My guess is that UVic will be using existing facilities on the campus and at Dunsmuir Lodge.
C. Tanner: It's getting better and better. First it came down from somewhere else in British Columbia to Victoria, and now it's moving right into my constituency. The minister is trying to win my favour here, I think. Thank you.
Hon. D. Marzari: Better than the Amazon?
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of my constituency, I'll give up the Amazon. I'll pay my own way down there, and I'm sure my constituency will benefit from the program that's ensured. Now that I think about it, it's a very logical decision, because all the facilities are there. In fact, in Victoria you've got the industry that can provide the practical information and input.
I am changing the subject again as far as taxation is concerned, but last year the minister mentioned -- and it came up in debate on the bill for the capital assets tax -- that the hotel industry was immune from the tax for the first year, and it comes into play on the second year. The minister must understand that the capital assets tax has greater application to the hotel industry probably than any other in that really all they've got is a capital input into the industry they're selling. A hotel has nothing but the assets of itself, which have been taxed. Has the minister had any repercussions from the industry regarding the capital assets tax and how it affects the ability to renew assets in the hotel, particularly in the interior of the province?
Hon. D. Marzari: As a matter of fact, I would have thought that that would be a major concern, but truthfully, to this point in time, I have not received delegations or briefs around the corporation capital tax or the assets tax. I have received a number of concerns expressed by the tourism industry around fees and licences, some of which around water safety are considered by the industry and by any commonsensical thinking person to be rather regressive and unevenly applied. An interministerial task force, along with a small committee, has been working on redressing some of the inequities generated by fees and licences and by other ministerial fiats or bylaws or Crown land policies which have infringed upon the ability of resorts or cabin operators or campgrounds to do their business. These have been the bread and butter issues which the ministry has been working with for the last four or five months.
C. Tanner: I note the time, and I'm at the Chair's discretion as to when you'd like somebody, the minister or myself, to move adjournment. I've got a couple more questions in the same area, if I could continue with those.
The Chair: The Chair took the liberty to set the lights at quarter after, so if we follow the green light and the red light, that will take us within the bounds of the sessional order. So carry on, hon. member.
C. Tanner: The minister said last June that a cross-departmental committee was being set up to see the results of the various impositions, licence fees and minor taxes, that sort of thing, and what the implication was on the tourist industry. I think the minister quite rightly has had some strong representations that they're particularly affecting borderline operations. What's been the result of that committee? Has the committee actually been set up? Has it been effective? Have you been able to roll back anything that was hurting any particular community?
[5:30]
Hon. D. Marzari: In fact, certain of the fees and licences related to water, and distribution of water, have
[ Page 6082 ]
been taken seriously by the committee. On April 25 there was a joint announcement by myself and the Minister of Health to the effect that certain fees and licences related to water safety would be rolled back, and that there would be certain incentive programs -- under the Serving It Right program, I believe -- that the remaining fees and licences would be paid into.
What we've got, I think, is a committee that's done its job. It's continuing to do the job, and as fees and licences are reviewed in committee format, with an eye to what the industry may think of them and what their social and economic impact might be, the committee is able to take a solid look at this and report back. This is a good way of doing business, and it gives industry a sense that it's being heard -- and in fact it is being heard.
C. Tanner: Quite frankly, Madam Minister, I don't agree that it's a good way of doing business. I thought the review should take place before rather than afterwards. I don't really see the purpose of getting a lot of people in the industry upset and then saying: well, we can roll that back and not roll this back. I would hope that the future will illustrate that point. I would have thought it would have shown more experience, if that had been the case in the first place. Can the minister assure us that in future, when these things happen to the industry in which we're both so vitally interested, that there will be input first from the minister before they're imposed by other agencies?
Hon. D. Marzari: That's what my job is. I will give every possible assurance. I will guarantee that from henceforward the reviews will be done in advance of the fact rather than after, so industry can have an appropriate say beforehand, so its cash flow doesn't have to be interfered with by arbitrary decisions, so industry -- which wants to and will pay its fair share if there's consultation -- is involved and included from the outset.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell me whether those sorts of decision go in front of Treasury Board, or do they come directly from the Ministry of Finance or the appropriate health authority? Does that decision go through Treasury Board so you have a second kick at the cat?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that is the route these procedures travel: to Treasury Board and then to the subcommittee for review.
With that, Mr. Chair, may I suggest that the committee rise and report, and seek leave to sit again?
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:34 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]