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)
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 1
[ Page 6235 ]
The House met at 2:03 p.m.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: I would ask the House to help me welcome 45 students from Walnut Grove Secondary School in Langley township. They are here today on a tour along with their teacher, Ms. J. Lauber. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are two friends, Faith Hulbert from England and Kay Hayes of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome to our wonderful city and province.
M. Lord: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming today members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada. Joining us today in the gallery are Ruth Hazlett, Madeline Durjata, Margaret Beardon and Jacqueline Lenarduzzi. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.
L. Reid: I'd like the House to welcome 27 students from Garden City Elementary School in the riding of Richmond, as well as their teacher, Ms. Gilbert.
A. Warnke: In the gallery today is a former student of mine, whom I taught ten years ago at the University of British Columbia, Rob Guzyk; and Carolyn Jones, who works as a television journalist in Adelaide, Australia. Would the House please make them welcome.
W. Hartley: Visiting here today is a group of students from Davie Jones Elementary in Pitt Meadows. Please make them welcome.
H. De Jong: From the beautiful constituency of Abbotsford we have with us today Diana Pope, who is spouse to another Fraser Valley Credit Union director. We also have with us Lil and Ross Jersey, who at one time were neighbours to us in Abbotsford. They are accompanied by Rosemary Juby, who is from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.
F. Gingell: In the precincts today is Patti Bruce from Delta. I hate to outdo the Minister of Government Services, but she has with her two visitors from England: her aunts, Maizie Watson and Elsie Standen. I ask you please to make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, Mr. Garth Gislason, our chief of Hansard and television services here in the Legislature, will be retiring from his duties at the conclusion of the legislative proceedings today. Garth began his legislative career as a sessional reporter in 1973, so I guess he's seen a lot of d�ja vu all over again.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, but that's not why he's retiring. By 1976 he was appointed chief of Hansard, where -- I'm sure all members who've had an opportunity to interact with him will agree -- he has done an outstanding job over that time period. Garth should be especially congratulated for successfully overseeing the installation of our television system in 1990, which the previous administration, in conjunction with the other parties in the House, brought forward. I would add, hon. Speaker, that our televised proceedings here in B.C. stand second to none in Canada, for the obvious reasons.
I know that Garth is held.... Maybe some of you didn't get that. I know that Garth is held in high regard by his staff and is respected by his colleagues, both here and right across this country, for his wealth of knowledge with regard to these matters.
I also understand, hon. Speaker, that Garth will be retiring to the sunny climes of Mesachie Lake, an area I grew up in. It's a small community just outside Lake Cowichan, where I was born, and in the old days it was where one of the first Sikh temples in British Columbia was situated. It's an area that is now, of course, full of golf courses, beautiful lakes and access to remarkable fishing. I'm sure that Garth will enjoy the climes of Mesachie Lake, and it's something that is well deserved. On behalf of all hon. members, I am certain that I can convey to Garth all the best in his future endeavours and thank him for a job well done.
Hon. Speaker, Mr. Peter Robbins, our deputy chief of Hansard, will begin as acting chief of Hansard. I'm sure that Mr. Robbins will continue to ensure the high quality of Hansard service which hon. members presently enjoy.
J. Dalton: I wish to endorse, on behalf of the official opposition, the remarks of the Government House Leader. Garth will certainly be missed. I know you're watching, Garth, and I presume you're going to take a tape of this session with you in your retirement. I think perhaps also that Garth may not be watching too much television from now on, if he wants to enjoy his retirement. He may not wish to sit down -- as many people were told to do; and well they should -- to watch these sessions. But, Garth, we do wish you well. I know that all members and all the people of this province do so. We owe a lot to that gentleman.
C. Serwa: I, too, welcome the opportunity, along with the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, to recognize Garth and to congratulate him on his 20 years of service not only to ourselves as legislators but also to the people of the province.
I hold Garth and the entire Hansard staff in the highest regard for their accuracy, the amount of activity and the rather trying conditions they often have to work in, whether in the field or here in the Legislature in the rather congested quarters that the expanded group has. There has been a great commitment to accuracy on the part of Hansard, and we're all the beneficiaries of that commitment. The attitude of Garth has been transmitted to the staff, and again, we have benefited well from that. I would encourage the communicators
[ Page 6236 ]
of the Legislature, the scribes who sit in the balcony, to strive to match the accuracy and objectivity that has been exhibited by Hansard. I think it's an example for them to strive toward.
On behalf of the Social Credit caucus, I congratulate Garth on his contribution of 20 years' service not only to this Legislature but also to the people of British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: Just very briefly, I'd like to add my words of thanks to Garth Gislason, someone I've known for many years. I know that his staff in the Hansard service regard him as a sea of calm in the hurricane of words that emanate from this chamber every day during the session. His staff works for 16 hours a day, every day, when the House is sitting. Their commitment to maintaining what is the best Hansard verbatim reporting service in Canada, as well the finest television production of legislative proceedings in the country, I think is testimony to the leadership that Garth has shown as a pioneer in Hansard in British Columbia. I'd just like to add my words of congratulations to him and hope that his retirement in the Lake Cowichan area, to his dream home that he's building there, goes very well.
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE
Hon. G. Clark: I rise to make a ministerial statement. The government announced this morning that Mr. James Matkin has been appointed under part 2 of the Inquiry Act to review the regulation of the VSE and its market participants. Mr. Matkin, who recently left the Business Council of British Columbia, has been given six months to recommend how to improve the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I would like to tell this assembly why the government has commissioned this review. It is generally accepted that the VSE should strive to be a fair and efficient venture capital market and could make a significant contribution to the development of a strong and internationally competitive financial services sector in the province.
Since its establishment in 1987, the British Columbia Securities Commission has made great strides in improving the regulation of the VSE. With its highly dedicated and professional staff and new legislation, the commission has built a strong and well-deserved reputation for tough but fair enforcement. This government has every confidence in its work. I have no doubt that its regulatory reforms have greatly improved the reputation of the VSE. I don't think anyone would disagree with this assessment, but the VSE can't seem to shake its reputation as a haven for fraudulent and abusive practices. The VSE's troubled reputation is one of the obvious reasons for commissioning the review, but it is only a symptom of the VSE's problems. The VSE is caught in a kind of catch-22. It won't be able to overcome its reputation until it can attract and retain more good listings, but its reputation makes it difficult to attract those listings. This is one aspect of the problem.
It is clear from Mr. Matkin's terms of reference that the purpose of his review is to give us a fresh, independent look at the underlying cause of the VSE's problems and show us where we are on the right track and where we could think about refocusing regulatory resources with respect to the VSE.
I would like to read the terms of reference. Mr. Matkin will inquire into and make recommendations on the responsibilities of the VSE to regulate the various participants in its market and the adequacy of its powers and activities in meeting those responsibilities. The responsibilities of the British Columbia Securities Commission are to regulate the VSE, various participants in the VSE's market, the adequacy of its powers and activities in meeting those responsibilities and the civil remedies provided under the Securities Act to parties to securities transactions in B.C., the effectiveness of the offence provisions of the Securities Act in providing a deterrent to illegal activities in the securities market in British Columbia, and the allocation of resources to criminal prosecution of securities-related offences in B.C.
[2:15]
Mr. Matkin's review will help us assess what new directions might be taken to regulate the Vancouver Stock Exchange. That should also help the Securities Commission to fulfil its mandate effectively and efficiently. I cannot overemphasize that the review is intended as a positive step towards helping improve the regulation of the VSE and investor confidence in that regulation. That kind of turnaround could enable more British Columbia companies to seek public financing through the VSE, making the VSE a key factor in the development of British Columbia's financial sector and overall economy.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, capital markets are a critical and important component of a successful business infrastructure. It is important that our exchange be well regulated, well policed, and so, well respected in the business community. But respect can only be earned. I hope that this inquiry and the recommendations flowing therefrom will be a foundation stone in creating a market that has investor confidence. I'm very pleased that the minister has seen fit to call this inquiry, and the opposition looks forward with interest to the results therefrom.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise.... I would like to thank the minister for advance notice of this, but I shan't, because we didn't get any advance notice.
The Vancouver Stock Exchange has been a very important focal point for the raising of venture capital in the province of British Columbia. In fact, a great deal of the strong economic activity we have in this province is dependent on the ability to fund and finance all sorts of projects throughout B.C. I know that we as well as the government are as concerned with jobs and opportunities for people as anyone else in the province.
There is no question that this is a welcome initiative. Certainly, when the Minister of Finance and the
[ Page 6237 ]
Minister of Labour and Consumer Services were in opposition, they spoke long and loud of their specific concerns, and it's nice to see that after almost two years they're starting to take some action on this. The credibility of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is really required to maintain the faith, trust and confidence of investors. So we agree to that. We're also well aware that the Minister of Finance has an incumbent responsibility to make these recommendations and the review available to the public, and we look forward to the release of that information.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, in response to a point of order raised yesterday relating to the conduct of question period, I have examined the Hansard Blues for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. This examination of Hansard discloses that several of the questions and many of the answers do not comply with the limitation expressed in standing order 47A(b), which I will repeat for the guidance of all members at this time: "...questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion...."
Question period belongs to all members of the House and is not the exclusive property of the opposition, nor is it the exclusive property of the government. If preambles to questions are inordinately long or contain provocative material embodying argument or opinion, it might be expected that answers to such questions would tend to be disorderly. If answers to questions are excessively long and likewise contain argument and opinion, dissatisfaction and calls for order will undoubtedly follow.
While a robust exchange is the hallmark of a good question period, if members on all sides of the House are uncomfortable with the present status of question period, I would ask members themselves to take the time to examine the Hansard Blues and measure the propriety of their questions and answers against standing order 47A(b), which I have quoted. Members will understand that while the Chair does not wish to continually intervene in question period, thereby interrupting the natural flow of questions and answers, it may be necessary to do so if dissatisfaction continues to be expressed.
Finally, all hon. members will recognize that there are extensive rules in the parliamentary authorities limiting the scope of questions and answers during question period. If these limitations were strictly enforced by the Chair, it seems that question period would be unduly restrictive. The Chair will restate the most useful guideline which can be found in the parliamentary authorities: questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion. The Chair seeks the cooperation of all members in this matter.
Thank you, hon. members, for your attention.
WELFARE PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Will the minister, in the name of open and honest government, briefly tell us when in fact she first read the "non-existent," "speculative," "inaccurate" draft of the project to monitor administrative error and fraud that was prepared by her staff in November 1992?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be pleased to answer that question. I read it the day before I tabled it in the House.
V. Anderson: A question back to the Minister of Social Services. The minister initially denied that the report existed. Then she dismissed it as speculative and inaccurate. Next she acknowledged that the staff had implemented changes from that report, apparently also without her knowledge. How can the citizens of this province now believe the minister in what she says? Will the minister please tell us who is in charge in her ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: To the member and his extensive question, let me start by telling you that I am very proud to be a part of this government and in charge of this ministry. Now let me answer the multiple questions that you put to me.
First of all, I have publicly said that it is regrettable that this report was not brought to my attention prior to releasing it in the House. I regret that very much and have registered that with our ministry staff. This is a priority area for me. It is an area that I have been working on actively for the last 18 months, since we came into government. The beginning of this work commenced on receiving the auditor general's report, the audit that was done in 1991. The recommendations from that report are recommendations that we are acting on. The report that you are talking about, hon. member, is a report that was commissioned by ministry staff as an administrative tool to carry out the task that I set out for them.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister will be concluding soon?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The opposition critic asked me three or four questions. I am treating those questions seriously and intend to answer them.
The administrative tool, the report that I tabled with this House, helps guide the work of the enhancement of the auditing section within our ministry. It was recommended and directed by the auditor general's report of 1991. I have said that this report is speculative.
V. Anderson: The auditor general, the clients of the ministry, representatives of the RCMP, 200 of the minister's own staff and the public at large have all stated there are problems with the social assistance system in this province. Will the minister commit today to an official independent inquiry, a total review of this welfare ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me say that we agree with the auditor general. We are acting on the auditor general's recommendations. It is the second time that
[ Page 6238 ]
the auditor general has brought this to the attention of government; in 1980, with the previous government, the auditor general said the same thing. We are acting on his recommendations, and we are bringing this system under control.
A. Warnke: My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Social Services -- who, incidentally, has increased her budget by over $900 million in the last two years, and not only that, had the audacity to come in here just weeks ago with the biggest budget overrun -- first denied a report addressing extensive fraud and error, and even denied it to the Premier's own staff, then doubted the report's findings and then tabled the report, adopting 16 of the 58 recommendations. How can the Premier accept a member into the cabinet who withholds information from him and from the public, and who has exhibited no credibility in handling her portfolio?
Hon. M. Harcourt: It is unfortunate that there are a number of British Columbians who want to work -- who are in industries in towns throughout this province that are suffering through some changes in forestry, mining and other areas -- and have to apply for social assistance. But that safety net is there for people in need. According to the Canada Assistance Plan, if people qualify, they receive social assistance.
I think people are aware that at least 20 percent of the caseload in this province is a result of people moving to British Columbia from other parts of Canada. Those people find that the generosity of the people of British Columbia has been tested by a federal government which has off-loaded over $500 million of extra social assistance taxes onto our taxpayers. I think most people realize that that's the situation we face.
It wasn't the minister who increased her budget. That is an entitlement received by people in need. The minister has made it very clear over the last few days, and the members unfortunately don't want to listen. They just want to ask the questions they have prepared. They haven't listened to what the minister has said about this government establishing a fraud squad to search for people who are trying to defraud the system.
Where there is administrative error, there are administrative problems that have been identified by the auditor general. This government and this minister is prepared to move on that, too.
A. Warnke: My question is again to the Premier, because evidently he missed the point completely the first time around. We are beginning to see, in this administration.... Just a week ago the Minister of Agriculture, and now the Minister of Social Services, clearly demonstrated: "Oh, I was just uninformed, and now I'm going to blame my staff." By publicly expressing that, the Minister of Social Services has clearly demonstrated that she does not trust her staff, does not understand her staff, does not respect her staff and has lost confidence in her staff. Therefore, hon. Speaker, will the Premier, in the name of good government and ministerial responsibility, replace this minister in order to restore the credibility and confidence of this disastrously run ministry?
[2:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I heard most of what the member had to say between sputters, and even the last of what he had to say. I will repeat what the minister has said: fraud and administrative errors in the welfare system did not start on October 17, 1991. The auditor general's report, which this staff report was asked by the minister to look into, was based on findings from 1991. The minister has moved from the beginning to take the fraud artists out of the system and into the courts and jail system. She has said that where there is administrative error and we can improve the system, we will improve the system. I have confidence that this government, with this minister, will be able to deal with fraud and administrative errors and problems effectively.
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. It's obvious that this minister is living proof that the Peter principle is the only principle that's working well within this government. She's in charge of a budget of $2.8 billion and doesn't even know where the money is being spent. She talks about the auditor general's report and trying to act on that for 18 months. She's been told many times about fraud within her ministry. She commissioned a report and it's been there for five months. Why did she not know that some of those recommendations had been acted on and that the report was finished?
Interjections.
Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member who asked the question would like to listen, I would really appreciate the opportunity of once again putting on the record that from the moment we took government, from the moment the auditor general tabled his report, we began the process of dealing with the accountability of the system. We did not wait for a report that was tabled in November. We have been working on enhancing and protecting this system since day one. A week ago in this House I stood up and brought to the attention of the House the initiatives that we have progressively put in place over the last year, before we had additional resources in this budget to dedicate to our enhanced fraud squad. That's one, Mr. Member.
Two, in recognition of the enhancements needed to our auditing system, we sought and received support from Treasury Board and from members of this government, during a very difficult fiscal time, to enhance the ability of this ministry and to give them the additional tools needed to be able to account for that system.
Let me tell you that the people in our ministry are doing an admirable job, and it's about time that a government backed them up for that.
Deputy Speaker: On a supplementary, the hon. member....
[ Page 6239 ]
R. Neufeld: I would say to that minister that increasing her budget....
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please wait until you're recognized.
The hon. member on the supplementary.
R. Neufeld: Well, it's about time that minister.... She increased her budget by $900 million. She ought to be able to take care of those issues and know what's going on within her budget. She doesn't know what's going on within her budget.
Last fall in this House I asked for an investigation with regard to the fraud that was going on within the ministry. The minister scoffed at that idea and said it was groundless and that there was no fraud. Why do we now find in this report $100 million in fraud and another $36 million in administrative errors?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Mr. Member, batting numbers around in such an irresponsible fashion doesn't deserve a response.
The member asked about the increase in this budget. Let me share with the member the legal requirements of this ministry. The provincial legal requirements....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: It would be very helpful if the hon. minister would try and answer the question.
In light of the appeal to all members, this is....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members! I think it's a matter that we should all reflect upon, because clearly members are not pleased with the questions or the answers because of the length of time they have taken. Members should realize that if questions are provocative, as I've pointed out under section 47A(b), they're likely to induce a similar response. The rules, if strictly followed, would not involve members bringing information to the House but simply asking questions, with ministers responding to those questions. The idea is that this exercise be as efficient and exacting as possible. Clearly, we do have a problem, as all members will recognize, I'm sure.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll be as short and concise as possible.
The increase in our budget is driven by a legal requirement to meet need in this province. It is legally required of us both provincially and federally. In addition to that, enhanced resources and support to the hard-working staff in this ministry have been made available to be able to control and account for those tax dollars. That task is one I take seriously and am dedicated to, and from day one I have said that any fraud is too much.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, because of the time that was taken by the Chair's appeal to members, an extension will be allowed. The Chair is prepared to allow one more question.
FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
K. Jones: I can assure you that this is not a provocative question.
To the Minister of Social Services. The taxpayers of this province are carrying millions of dollars of financial burden for fathers who refuse to pay child support. In order to reduce the burden to taxpayers, will the minister commit to revisiting this program to ensure that mothers get the much-needed money and protection from these delinquent fathers?
Hon. J. Smallwood: For the member's information, our ministry is actively working with the Ministry of Attorney General to look at the enforcement program, which is in the purview of the Ministry of Attorney General. We are very supportive of this province's children and single parents.
Deputy Speaker: That concludes question period, hon. members. I must say that substituting for the Speaker does have its shortcomings. Thank you all.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply, and wish to advise all hon. members that the Ministry of Attorney General estimates shall convene in the Douglas Fir Room as Section A. Section B, the Ministry of Health estimates, will convene here in the chamber.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 47: minister's office, $419,400 (continued).
R. Chisholm: A decision has been made within the Ministry of Health that any health care facility that will be opening a new program or service during the 1993-94 fiscal year cannot receive any funding for changing demographics. Can the minister explain to this House the equity of such a decision when in my riding, for example, the acute care hospital continues to need to respond in the emergency room and in other services to a population base that has increased by approximately 6 percent? The acute care hospital is already at the government's desired size of approximately 2.75 acute beds per 1,000 population. The new services coming onstream during '93-94 -- 100 multilevel care beds on a geographically distant site from the hospital -- are intended to meet a totally different need than existing acute care services. This policy decision unfairly penalizes the budget base of the hospital. Can you tell this House what steps the government will take to review this seemingly arbitrary policy decision?
[ Page 6240 ]
Hon. E. Cull: Far from being arbitrary, the funding allocation formula this year was worked out cooperatively with the B.C. Health Association, which represents hospitals, and with the representatives of the employees from hospitals. The formula was not arbitrarily determined by the Ministry of Health; it was determined in consultation with workers in the industry.
R. Chisholm: A few months ago this minister stated that 100 acute care beds were going out to Chilliwack, and these 100 acute care beds were extended care beds. I'm just wondering how the minister assumed that these were acute care beds, and when these were authorized as extended care beds.
Hon. E. Cull: The beds that are being reallocated to Chilliwack are, I believe, extended care beds. I don't have the information here, because we dealt with this the other day, and I had already set aside the Shaughnessy briefing material. In any event, the message from the royal commission wasn't so much in terms of acute care beds, extended care beds or others, but it was pointing out that we have too many people in acute care beds that really do need to be in multilevel care beds. The need in this province is not for more acute care hospital beds. With some exceptions in the fast-growing parts of Surrey, Delta, White Rock and central Fraser Valley, the need is to provide an alternative for people who are stuck in acute care hospital beds because there isn't any place for them to move into multilevel care beds. Chilliwack General Hospital will be benefiting from 100 new multilevel care beds.
R. Chisholm: When will the hospital be getting these 100 multicare beds? They are not installed already, or in the new building that is being built in Sardis.
Hon. E. Cull: Earlier this year I made the announcement about the entire capital budget for '93-94 and the 436 multilevel care beds that will be built throughout the province. Individual announcements will be forthcoming in the months ahead.
R. Chisholm: It's a different sort of situation there, hon. minister. The Chilliwack General Hospital received a budget increase of $3,000, which is 0.001 of a percent. This is to a hospital that had a growth of 6 percent this year. You have made agreements with different organizations which this hospital cannot meet. It is already facing a million dollar deficit without even considering the new labour accord. With this new labour accord it's going to have another $800,000 added to that deficit.
How do you expect this hospital to be able to operate economically without any deficits if you do not give them the increase they need to fulfil all their duties?
[2:45]
Hon. E. Cull: Chilliwack General Hospital isn't any different from any other hospital in this province, in that they're all facing very challenging budgets. I'll remind the hon. member that he has been calling for spending cuts, not for more money in general -- except when it comes to his riding, and then he wants a spending increase. The amount of money provided to hospitals this year was done in consultation with the hospitals. I will also point out to the member that the hospitals, through the HLRA, negotiated their contracts with the unions. If there is no labour accord they will have to pay wage increases of 4 percent retroactive to April 1, 1993. With the labour accord, they are only obliged this year to pay 1 percent in wage increases. They are then obliged to deal with the reduction in the work hours starting July 1, and the hospitals themselves have told us that they do not believe they will need to backfill any more than 50 percent of those hours. Hospitals are learning all over the province, as they work out their budgets with or without it, that they are better off with this accord.
R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister misunderstood what I said. The hospital received a $3,000 increase. As I said, that's an increase of 0.001 of a percent. I will quote from the chairperson in charge of the hospital, and they were calling for financial responsibility: "The local board soundly rejected the tri-union labour agreement last Thursday, saying it was too rich for the Chilliwack General Hospital to swallow. The primary reason for the board voting the way it did is money. Board chair Casey Langbroek said: "We simply don't have the money for this agreement."
How do you expect this hospital to have a balanced budget or not be in a hole, where you have to bail them out a couple of years down the road, if you're going to keep on making these agreements that hospital boards cannot take into their budget and pay?
Hon. E. Cull: It doesn't take a great deal of thought to realize that if you have a very small percentage increase in your budget, which Chilliwack and many other hospitals have to face this year, you're better off if you're facing a 1 percent increase in your wage bill rather than a 4 percent increase. I assume those hospitals knew what they were doing when they negotiated and ratified their collective agreements with their unions in the last year and that they understood what 4 percent meant.
R. Chisholm: I guess the minister isn't about to address the problem. Like I have said to you before, there has been a 6 percent increase of population. If you add that to what I've been trying to tell you, it adds up: we are going into the hole -- it is a deficit. When you go from a 371/2-hour week down to a 36-hour week, you're giving them a raise, too, I might add.
We may as well go on to another subject. Maybe we'll gain some ground here. This one is a reference to an individual who is a long term care patient. He is married. You've raised it to $34 dollars a day from $23.10. This individual is now going to have to pay $13,000. His wife has Huntington's disease, and his only option right now for keeping himself in extended day care facilities is getting a divorce. That is the only option you have left him. This is unreal; it's unrea-
[ Page 6241 ]
sonable. The man is working; he's only making so many dollars. You've increased it so that he cannot pay his bills and survive with his wife and family. When are you going to take these individual situations into account with your budget and your board?
Hon. E. Cull: It's unfortunate that the hon. member wasn't in the House yesterday when we talked about this. I explained that in cases where there is a spouse, either inside or outside of an extended care or multilevel care unit, the continuing care staff are calculating their increase in fees, if any, both ways -- with their own individual income as if they did not have a spouse, and in a joint income as if they did have a spouse -- and giving them the best rate of the two. If someone has a spouse who is living outside of a multilevel care facility and making an income, the individual within the multilevel care facility can declare themselves to be involuntarily separated and have only their income treated in this case. In other cases it might be more advantageous to consider the spouse jointly, because it could be that the person who's in the multilevel care home has the income and is maintaining a spouse at home on that. It's very important that we make sure we give the people who are in couple relationships the very best and lowest rate possible. We took that into consideration right from the first day that the policy was announced.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, maybe you should be telling that to staff at the hospital level, because they don't seem to understand it the same way you do.
I'd like to go on to another area. This is a question on representation on local health councils for seniors. Are you going to have seniors represented on these councils?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, this matter was canvassed earlier in the estimates. The answer I gave was to point out that when the councils are fully in place in 1996, they will be more like municipal councils. There will be people who will be elected or appointed to these boards; they will not be there representing particular segments, caregiver groups or any part of the population. They will be there representing their community, as municipal councils and school boards do.
R. Chisholm: The monitoring of medication for seniors seems to be a problem. Do you foresee in the near future a provincewide central organization or computerized system to monitor medications, especially for seniors?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, hon. Chair, we discussed that yesterday. Yes.
L. Reid: There are a number of issues I wish to visit this afternoon. The first is whether or not there's been any action taken from the minutes of the extraordinary Vancouver City Council meeting on April 27. Let's add some history to the record: "At its meeting on March 23, 1993, council approved a request to address it concerning the proposed closure of Shaughnessy Hospital, subject to the representative from the Ministry of Health agreeing to attend," etc. Those individuals were present. During the course of the meeting the mayor indicated there were 31 delegations on the speakers list -- again, a very decent reflection of the level of concern from the city of Vancouver as to the future of medical services within their area. There were a number of individuals who spoke to the question. At the conclusion of the meeting: "The delegations requested council to urge the minister to take a further look at the proposed closure of Shaughnessy Hospital and the redistribution of services."
Some of the points raised by the delegations: 50 percent of the patients go to Shaughnessy because of specialized services; the closure will not save money, as money will have to go to the receiving hospitals to enhance services and to assist specialized services; the Shaughnessy site and its related services are unique in Canada; Shaughnessy is one of the best teaching hospitals in North America; the sexual assault program and the women's health centre will not be able to operate as efficiently as on the Shaughnessy site, as no other location will offer the necessary related services; and in order to be effective, the sexual assault program has a series of protocols for collecting evidence, which can only be maintained by ensuring the availability of staff trained in the collection of evidence.
At the end of the meeting the mayor asked the council for some response. It was moved by Councillor Wilson that Vancouver City Council urge the Minister of Health and the provincial government to establish a Shaughnessy Hospital task force to review the present services provided and the impact of their proposed relocation, that the task force make recommendations to the minister on what services should remain at the Shaughnessy Hospital site, and that the transition team planning for closure be deferred pending the report of this task force.
It seems to me that the extraordinary meeting of the Vancouver City Council has asked the minister for a specific action: that the decision be deferred pending the receipt of this report. Certainly, in that we are in the process of Health estimates and I know it is the minister's wish at some point that these estimates conclude, it seems to me that we cannot continue to have individuals in the community still wishing for information, still wishing for a decent decision to be delivered at the time that these dollars for Shaughnessy Hospital are being allocated elsewhere. It's not prudent decision-making, in my view, hon. minister; it's not even showing any healthy respect for process. It simply says that we're going to plow ahead regardless of what communities believe and feel, regardless of what practitioners in the field believe. It's not a decision that can be supported by this caucus, and it's not a decision, frankly, that was supported by the community members for the city of Vancouver on that particular evening, April 27. It's not a decision, as I'm well aware, that's supported by members of the larger community, the province of British Columbia.
Certainly I know the minister will rise up and say that the task force is operational and is making its report, etc., etc. The issue that I want this minister to
[ Page 6242 ]
address is deferment of the decision -- and certainly discussions today to look at something as important as the spinal cord unit not being moved till after this summer, because May to October is the most frequent and trying time for spinal cord injury. I think what all the groups are asking, hon. minister, is that some time be allowed for consideration of all of these issues. Rather than have something that goes forward in September or October, at the very least this should be allowed to percolate and be examined in some detail by all the reasonable caregivers in this province, so that the stresses of what people perceive to be an urgent move are not allowed to continue. This is not helping the delivery of health care.
The decision that you have been asked to reach is to defer. I would hope that there would be detailed consideration of a reasonable deferment of six or eight months to allow the spinal cord unit to be operational through the autumn, which is indeed their busiest time, and for other programs to truly be evaluated as to their best relocation or their future at that site. I'm asking you specifically to respond to the Vancouver City Council's motion to defer a decision on the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital.
Hon. E. Cull: I am aware of the motion that was passed by Vancouver City Council. If the clerk of the council has sent that to me, I'm not aware of it yet; I have not yet received it in my mail. But I do have a meeting on May 20 with the Mayor of Vancouver. I'm sure that he will bring it up with me then.
The member talks about all the people who have been opposed to the decision. I would like to remind her that the mayor of Vancouver, one of the candidates for the leadership of her party, is in favour of the closure of this hospital. The chief medical officer, Dr. John Blatherwick, is in support, as is the dean of the medical school, a number of hospital chief executive officers -- too many to enumerate -- and many health care practitioners who happen to take a different point of view in this.
There is a task force in place; in fact there are many task forces in place right now. People who want to participate in decisions about the relocation of Shaughnessy Hospital are more than welcome to get involved in the task forces that are looking at this. Indeed, many of the people who provide those services in Shaughnessy Hospital now are actively working with our transition coordinator to sort them out.
Finally, I would just like to point out that if the member wishes to continue to lobby for deferral of this decision, perhaps she will talk to her colleague from Chilliwack. Ask him what part of the hospital budget, that he already feels is inadequate, Chilliwack is willing to give up. As I have told this member before, the savings that we expect to realize from Shaughnessy Hospital have, to some extent, already been reallocated in the budgets that have been given to hospitals. So I guess she will have to sort out with her colleagues how we would work that out. If we're talking about a deferment, we're talking about having to take back money from other hospitals to keep that one going.
L. Reid: The question was: is the minister listening to the report of Vancouver City Council with reference to deferment? I'm well aware of all the other items you've raised in debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I've heard the point of view of the people who presented their issues to Vancouver City Council. I'm aware of the resolution, although I have not yet seen or had it sent officially to me. I'm meeting with the mayor; I've certainly been listening to him. I've been listening to all of the people who have something to say about this issue.
R. Chisholm: The funding letter sent by your assistant deputy minister to hospitals states in part that there is need to downsize the acute care hospital in relation to other health services. The budget for most hospitals will be insufficient to permit the maintenance of existing staffing levels. This funding letter goes on to state that in all cases hospital management staff and union representatives, representatives of other ministry programs and common community stakeholders will be active participants in both the process of the review and the implementation of agreed-upon recommendations. The consultation contemplated in the budget letter to the hospitals and the tentative framework settlement require time. Hospitals should be involved in careful planning and infrastructure in our health care system before radical surgery is carried out on their existing programs and services. But a carefully planned infra-structure cannot be achieved in a few weeks or a few months. It is unrealistic to expect hospitals to balance their budgets within a short planning horizon before the government takes steps to downsize hospitals. There should be a clear, agreed-upon plan in place among all of the stakeholders in each community on what will be offered in place of hospital services. Then and only then should an orderly transference of hospital workers to these new programs and services occur.
[3:00]
What steps can you assure this House will be taken by the government that will address these concerns that I've addressed right now?
Hon. E. Cull: For the information of the member, the hospitals and my staff and the B.C. Health Association and myself started discussions about the '93-94 budget many months before it was brought down. They had a very clear indication of how much money would be available. Indeed the information they were working from at that time was less generous than the final budget allocation. We were very conservative in the information that we gave to hospitals. So they have had many months to prepare for this. Indeed many hospitals did start their preparations earlier this year -- as early as January in some cases -- for making decisions about the future of their hospital.
The cost of maintaining the acute care sector this year, without changing any of the services and also recognizing the growth in population, is a 10 percent increase. I would like to ask the hon. member if he is supporting a 10 percent increase in hospital funding.
[ Page 6243 ]
Because if he's not, there is going to be some change in hospital funding and in hospital services this year.
L. Reid: I want to respond directly to a news release of today's date: "Pharmacare Panel to Review B.C. Drug Plan." It talks about being given three and a half months to come back with some recommendations. It talks about moving in a new direction to emphasize the promotion of good health, spending smarter and local decision-making.
My question refers directly to the estimates debate of last year, when a Pharmacare program review was announced with a number of recommendations, which apparently were to focus on ways of managing costs without compromising the purpose of the program. That was June of last year. I would be interested in knowing what transpired from the report which you announced during the estimates process last year. Was it put in place? Why is a second one necessary within less than a year?
Hon. E. Cull: The report the member refers to, which I did release last year, is the report of the Pharmacare Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee, if you like. A panel of experts provides advice on the Pharmacare area on an ongoing basis to the ministry. They issue reports from time to time.
We've implemented a number of the recommendations in their report, including the delisting of some drugs that were recommended in that report, which occurred earlier this year. Also, we have put in place some of the programs they recommended, such as a trial prescription program, and some of the management techniques they suggested.
Some of their other recommendations have a tremendous public impact, such as recommendations they made with respect to seniors and the seniors plan. Prior to launching any changes in the overall benefit structure of the six plans that make up Pharmacare, we believe that it is important to have a public consultation and involve not only a small group of experts but also the wider public and the professional associations, which have a lot to say.
For that reason, I was absolutely delighted today to announce the Pharmacare review panel, which will be chaired by Howard Petch, former president of the University of Victoria and current chair of the B.C. Seniors' Advisory Council. He will be assisted by Dr. Janet Martini, a geriatric specialist at St. Paul's Hospital, and Derek Dawes, a pharmacist and a director of the drug and poison control centre.
L. Reid: The minister made mention of the report that was done last June. I understand that 12 recommendations flowed from that. In that we are in the estimates process and discussing the expenditure of dollars, I would be very interested in learning if there has been any progress made on those 12 recommendations in cost management. Has any economic benefit been derived from any one of those 12 recommendations?
Hon. E. Cull: The average annual increase in Pharmacare over the last five years, from 1987 to 1991-92, has been 16 percent. This last year we brought it down to about a 12 percent increase. That's still too high. But obviously some of the initiatives that were put in place by Pharmacare are starting to have some impact.
Some of these changes, though, have just recently been put into place. The trial prescription program, which I think is going to be very effective, has only been in place for a very short period of time. We have not been able to gauge the cost saving for that yet. Certainly the B.C. Pharmacists' Society has supported that very strongly, because there are probably millions of dollars worth of drugs thrown into the garbage every year or flushed down the drain by people who get large prescriptions and discover they are not able to take them and then can't do anything with them. The trial prescription program allows for a smaller amount of the drug to be given to the person initially, to determine whether they have any side effects or whether it's effective. Those things are going to take a bit of time, but I think they will prove to be effective over time.
L. Reid: Again, hon. minister, I'm interested in cost-efficiencies. I trust that all 12 of the recommendations will be effective over time, including the trial prescription program. But this is the estimate process for this budget year. As these new plans have been in place for 11 months, have any cost-efficiencies been recognized? Are there any comments -- other than in the fullness of time -- that you can make about other issues that can be examined in terms of fiscal restraint, good fiscal management?
Hon. E. Cull: I think I already indicated that we'd gone from an average of 16 percent growth to 12 percent growth in this program. While that percentage increase in costs is still too high, that's a 4 percent drop. That is progress; that is cost-effectiveness.
L. Reid: In your press release, you note the impact of an aging population in terms of the costs of this program. My comment would be that we do have an aging population, and we're certainly going to have a more extensive aging population over the next number of years. The research points out that both males and females in our society will indeed have a higher age range, a larger number of years. I don't believe your moves can address that. I think that's a reality that needs to be recognized, as is the drug patent legislation, which you also refer to in your press release. Those are realities we have to deal with.
Now that you've taken care of what is doable, is there any other way -- indeed, recognizing the aging population and drug legislation -- that we can anticipate any cost savings? I don't dispute where we are today, but I certainly want to know what the target is. What is our targeted goal for a decrease in the pharmacy budget in the Pharmacare program?
Hon. E. Cull: In the last five years the average annual rate of increase in population growth in B.C. has
[ Page 6244 ]
been 2 1/2 percent, the rise in the population over 65 has been 3 1/2 percent, inflation has been 4 1/2 percent, the Health ministry budget has been 10 percent and Pharmacare has been 16 percent. Clearly the costs in Pharmacare are running well beyond aging population, growth in population and inflation. In fact, even if you add all of those up, it's still not explained in terms of the pressures from demographics on the Pharmacare budget. The number one cost is the price of new drugs, so there are a number of initiatives that we want the panel to address.
There are initiatives around the effective prescription of drugs -- making sure that physicians are following effective policies and procedures in prescribing medications. Janet Martini, a doctor on the panel, talked quite eloquently about that earlier today. There is the need for us to ensure that patients have better education about the need, usefulness and effectiveness of drugs. As a result of changes in the United States, direct advertising to patients for prescription drugs is now coming into Canada. Patients often go in with a pretty clear idea of what they want, whether their physician approves it or not.
There is the question about the use of drugs. The trial prescription program is starting to help that, but if you talk to physicians there are many cases of patients who are having prescriptions filled, taking those prescriptions home and stockpiling them. They have no intention of taking them for all kinds of reasons. We are wasting money there.
We also have to look at the question of the price of drugs. Certainly the federal government, with the increase in patent protection, has done the provinces no favour. By extending the patent protection legislation under Bill C-91, the cost estimate here in British Columbia for two drugs alone amounts to an additional $146 million over the patent life of those two drugs. In one case it's six years, and in the other case it is 15 years. It's not an insignificant amount of money for just two drugs.
In addition to that we have to look at the whole question of generics. If we have a generic competitor, prices for drugs drop by 20 percent. If you have three or four generic competitors, they drop by up to 60 percent. We have to have a look at the effective alternatives to some of the high-priced drugs.
There are many things we can do in terms of looking at effective use of drugs: making sure that they are making people healthier, effective prescribing and responsible behaviour on the part of patients. Howard Petch, who is very interested in overmedicalization of the elderly, this morning indicated that the latest statistics he had seen -- if he recalled the number correctly -- showed that every senior citizen in this province could take a sleeping pill every night for 275 days of the year. That's an awful lot of sleeping pills. You have to ask yourself if that is appropriate medication for those people. In fact, he questioned whether perhaps a lot of the falls and broken hips have more to do with that than they have to do with anything else that's going on in seniors' lives."
L. Reid: There seems to be a lot of discussion among seniors' groups about the dispensing fee for prescriptions. Is there any discussion within your ministry of perhaps standardizing it so that seniors are not rushing all over town looking for the best dispensing fee? Is that an issue in the ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: Seniors pay 75 percent of the dispensing fee and receive the drugs free. Just in case anyone isn't aware of this, there is no markup on drugs in British Columbia. The pharmacist doesn't get a markup on the cost of the drugs; they're provided at cost. The only money that the pharmacist gets is the dispensing fee. We allow the market to set the dispensing fee. We think it is healthy to have some price competition between pharmacists in setting a fee. The dispensing fee that will be recognized by Pharmacare is 15 percent above the average in the province. The average right now is $6.07.
While it may be inconvenient for people to do some comparison shopping, in a program like this it is much better value overall for the taxpayers of this province to have a little bit of healthy free market competition between pharmacists than it is to establish the fee at the government level or control it in some other way, or to pay whatever anyone chooses to charge without any control on it. Since the senior pays such a small portion of the overall drug cost, there's not much incentive to keep those fees competitive.
L. Reid: In the province of Quebec there is apparently a process that allows pharmacists to receive compensation for providing a medical opinion on the dispensing of a drug; i.e., a patient may come in with a prescription or make a request over the counter that is not in the person's best interest. They may perhaps dissuade the individual from purchasing that product, but they are still able to receive some remuneration. It seems to be working extremely well in Quebec. It's not driven by the product alone; there is actually some dialogue going on between the caregiver and the receiver. Has that reached the discussion stage in your ministry?
D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I apologize for breaking into the exciting proceedings this afternoon, but I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House a group of students, teachers and parents from Edwin S. Richards Elementary on Cherry Avenue in Mission. They're touring the precincts today, and I think some of them are lining up jobs and positions for the future. I wish the students, teachers and parents a good trip to Victoria. Keep your ears and eyes open, and thank you for the questions. I bid the House make them welcome.
[3:15]
Hon. E. Cull: I think it's very important that the skills of pharmacists become better used in our health
[ Page 6245 ]
care system. One of the things that the pharmanet computer program will do is allow pharmacists to play a more proactive role in working with patients and physicians. In some cases physicians and pharmacists have very good relationships. Physicians are quite happy to get advice and further comments from pharmacists. In other cases, it doesn't work quite as smoothly.
The pharmanet program will allow pharmacists to play a more proactive role because they will have the full drug history of the patient there in front of them on the computer screen. They will also be able to identify anything that might be a contraindication, or where somebody has an awful lot of drugs prescribed, you begin to wonder why or whether there's been any recent review of the prescriptions. We have been talking to the pharmacists' association about ways of paying for the professional services beyond the dispensing fee. We will continue to explore the concept of a pilot project with them. No decisions have been made.
L. Reid: The minister made reference earlier to the trial prescription program. The average size of a prescription is typically 78 days. In terms of safe practice, a 30-day prescription is the way to go. The difficulty, once you start enforcing it, is that people bring in their unused excess drugs. What is your ministry looking at in terms of biomedical waste for used prescriptions? Apparently, it's now possible to return your prescriptions to your pharmacist, but what is your pharmacist to do with all this unused medication that is available in communities?
Hon. E. Cull: Not all of the prescriptions would fall into the category of hazardous waste. But in the cases where they do, and with other medical products which can be characterized as hazardous waste, we are working with the hazardous waste commissioner, Dorothy Caddell, to look at not only municipal and domestic hazardous waste but also biomedical waste.
L. Reid: What is the ministry policy on disposing of the medication that does not fall into the hazardous waste category? I can assure you that the pharmacists who visited my office had countless thousands of vials of drugs. Frankly, they need some response in terms of how best to dispose of those products.
Hon. E. Cull: Sorry, I don't have the answer for that. I don't know whether the ministry does have a policy. I'm sure the jurisdictions of waste management come into this, as well as Ministry of Health policies, so that's a question we'll have to take on notice and get back to you on.
L. Reid: For my clarification, hon. minister, what is the current status of remuneration for pharmacists who attend individuals in extended care situations? Are there any anticipated changes?
Hon. E. Cull: The pharmacists are paid a rate per patient, depending on the number of patients or beds that they're responsible for. The pharmacists' association had been asking for an increase in those rates for some time. It's called plan B. We recently made an increase, and I know they're very happy with it.
L. Reid: Earlier in her remarks, the minister touched on co-pay -- seniors paying 75 percent of the dispensing fee. Is there any change anticipated to that under the ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: We've just appointed a review panel to look at all aspects of Pharmacare in terms of affordability, effectiveness and fairness. They will be looking at all of the programs and the structure of the benefits, and until they've completed their work there are not any further changes anticipated in Pharmacare.
L. Reid: For the record, does the ministry at this time have any plans in terms of encouraging research and development? I know the minister takes tremendous issue with drug patent legislation and the like. From the official opposition view, we wish to see some research and development going on in the pharmaceutical industry, because provinces east of us are able to turn some of that research and development money into funding for ongoing drug programs that benefit their citizens. Is the minister prepared to look at research and development in the pharmaceutical industry under the new review that's going forward, or is that a separate issue under the ministry?
Hon. E. Cull: It is a separate issue, and because of the remarks that the member just made, I should make it clear that when I went to Ottawa in November on behalf of nine of the ten provincial Health ministers to speak to the Commons committee on Bill C-91, we were not asking for the bill to not proceed. In fact, in my first remarks to the panel I made it clear that we respect the protection of intellectual property and welcome research and development. But we were asking for a number of amendments to the legislation that would strengthen consumer protection so that the patented medicine prices review board would have some real teeth to prevent price gouging. As I said, with B.C. being able to estimate the costs on just two drugs at $146 million over the next number of years, you can see that it is very important that the patented medicine prices review board has some teeth. They don't right now, unfortunately. Unfortunately, the federal government chose to ignore all of the recommendations from the Health ministers but one very minor one: they moved the review board from the jurisdiction of one ministry to another ministry -- still without teeth.
Some of the research that has been done in Canada under the previous extension of patent protection hasn't been really much in the way of research; it's been more in the area of clinical trials. While it's nice to have the employment, it doesn't do an awful lot in terms of developing scientific knowledge and the expertise that we would like to see flow from this increased cost to taxpayers.
British Columbia's share of research actually went down after the last extension, prior to Bill C-91, despite the promises from the drug companies that we would
[ Page 6246 ]
see more R and D here in British Columbia. I'm more hopeful that as a result of the discussions the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Economic Development have been having with Merck Frosst, we will see a significant research lab for genetic medicine developed at the University of British Columbia. I would really like to see that lab go ahead, because I think it would be beneficial not only from the health care point of view but also from the point of view of really developing opportunities here in this province for our young scientists and researchers. While the discussions are still happening, there has not yet been a commitment from the drug company to that particular project.
L. Reid: With reference to the minister's previous comment, clinical trials can and do form part of the research projects that are underway. They are often the basis for deciding whether or not a particular research project can go forward. In terms of research and development, the minister made the comment that a clinical trial would not have a positive benefit for British Columbians. I would make the comment that indeed it can, and it should be supported in terms of British Columbia hopefully doing more than welcoming research and development projects. It's important that we actually commit pen to paper, so that we work together.
I appreciate the minister's comments about the Ministry of Advanced Education, but I hope that it will be an interdisciplinary project that will look at the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Advanced Education for the very reasons the minister cited. It would be fabulous to have individuals employed in our province who actually graduate as scientists and technologists from our colleges and universities. I would welcome that.
One of the other concerns in the field, hon. minister, looks at product selection, and that came to pass over the last number of months when a number of products were de-listed from a number of different areas. The individuals who prescribe those drugs did not feel that their insight had been sought. Is it your opinion that product selection should remain in the hands of pharmacists and physicians, who hopefully know the best product line to explore and how that product will best benefit the patient in their care. I certainly would speak strongly for the linkage between the pharmacist, the physician and the caregiver, at any level, in arriving at the best possible product.
I know that in the case of my particular riding, a number of seniors had very innocuous products delisted, such as vitamin E cream, which caused tremendous concern. Vitamin E cream costs $8.00 a tube, and for individuals who are bedridden, two or three tubes of that in a day is an expense that is well beyond their means to pay. Yet if we don't look at those kinds of decisions.... The practitioners in the field found the replacement product to be a whole lot less effective, and it ended up costing a whole lot more because they needed to use more of the product. My comment goes specifically to whom we are seeking advice from when a product is de-listed. I would strongly make the case that product selection should remain in the hands of the individuals who can attest to whether or not the product is valuable in the first place. I'd appreciate your comments.
Hon. E. Cull: The member was asking a few minutes ago about whether we had implemented any of the recommendations of the Pharmacare advisory committee. Indeed, those were the recommendations of the Pharmacare advisory committee that she was urging us to implement if we were going to get on with dealing with Pharmacare.
The products that were de-listed included things like diet pills, cough syrups and prescription antihistamines. In the area of prescription antihistamines, we've recently had a look at the prescription ones versus the nonprescription ones. They're equally effective in being able to meet the needs of the patient, and the difference in price is 14 cents a day versus over $2.00 a day. So you really have to ask some questions about some of those products which have been covered because they were prescription but were no more effective and were certainly very many times more expensive than products that were available at the counter in any event. A doctor can advise someone to buy an over-the-counter drug.
I'm very sympathetic to the needs of people who are bedridden, but we should not confuse being bedridden with the inability to pay. Some people who are bedridden have quite an ability to pay. Some people who are bedridden happen to be in long term care facilities where all of their costs are covered for those kinds of drugs. So we are having a look at those particular non-prescription products that can be self-prescribed but are then paid for by the taxpayers of this province. There have to be some controls put in somewhere; otherwise we're going to be going down the road of Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick, where we're going to have to make serious cuts to the overall program to be able to keep it affordable. I don't think anybody agrees that a 16 percent increase in Pharmacare expenditures is affordable in this economic climate, so we have to find the most acceptable ways of doing it. In any event, where there are people who have particular situations, we will sometimes make arrangements with their pharmacist that those products be covered under Pharmacare. So while I won't comment specifically on vitamin E cream for the bedridden person, that is not beyond the realm of possibility.
The other products that were de-listed, again on the advice of the Pharmacare advisory committee, were the nonsustained-release drugs of a particular kind. There was a lot of confusion as to whether the nonsustained-release and sustained-release drugs had different impacts in terms of people's ability to tolerate them. It's a misunderstanding that the sustained-release drugs are easier on the stomach. In fact, in all cases, you're supposed to take these pills with meals, with food, so that they are easier to take. In some cases the information that people had about them turned out to be misunderstandings. I think one of the most common causes of prescription medicine abuse is lack of a clear understanding on the part of the patient as to what they
[ Page 6247 ]
are to do with the drugs: how they're to take them, how frequently, when, for how long. We have to find a way of making sure that patients have a better idea how to use drugs effectively.
L. Reid: I very much appreciate the minister's comments. If indeed there are going to be exceptions, I welcome that, because the original discussion did not include creams and lotions, which certainly seems to be a significant issue for seniors and also for individuals who are restricted to using a wheelchair. It seems to be a significant issue that we perhaps can address with some success very soon.
[3:30]
I'll move to the issue of prevention. Certainly the New Directions health care policy looks at prevention of illness and health promotion. From my reading, we're at approximately the same level of funding as last year: $242 million. I also understand from my reading that contained within that are the drug and alcohol programs, the Centre for Disease Control and the office of health promotion. If indeed the majority of recommendations under the New Directions looks at health promotion, and if we're spending the same number of dollars, is that a new commitment? Are there new programs, or are we simply expending the same number of dollars? How does that fit into the overall direction you wish to proceed?
Hon. E. Cull: Doctors do preventive health care and health promotion as part of their regular activities, but it's impossible to determine which part of the approximately $1.5 billion is spent in the Medical Services Plan for prevention and which part for treating illness. So if you exclude the MSP portion of the budget and just look at the rest, we are now spending three times more on preventive health care programs than we were when this government took office in November 1991. The budget for health promotion this year has increased by $2 million -- which is a small amount, but we're dealing with a small program. They are a very effective program with a total budget of $5 million. So there has been a significant increase in health promotion. Many of the preventive health care programs are in alcohol and drug -- although not all of alcohol and drug is prevention; some, of course, is treatment -- in mental health, in community and family health and in public health. The overall package of programs in which preventive health care resides has increased by 8 percent this year, which is twice the rate of increase that the Ministry of Health received as a total. That very clearly indicates the priority that we are putting on preventive health care, health promotion and community-based health care. While we have only had a 4 percent budget increase to deal with overall, we have managed to divvy that up across the ministry to ensure that those areas which are our priority under New Directions are getting the largest increase possible.
L. Fox: I have a couple of specific questions to the minister on specific issues. In discussing the reductions in the waiting lists over the course of the last couple of days, the minister has talked about the success they have had in radiology and radiation, and that what made the issue more complex and difficult was that there was difficulty in achieving highly trained specialty staff in order to meet the demand.
Is the minister satisfied that the conflict with the doctors that presently exists -- in which we have seen some neurosurgeons leave British Columbia for greener pastures, so to speak -- is not hindering the opportunity to recruit the necessary staff and technicians needed in order to increase these types of therapies in British Columbia, even though there is a shortage worldwide?
Hon. E. Cull: The vacancy rate for neurosurgeons in the United States is equal to the total number of neurosurgeons practising in Canada right now. So if they were to fill all of their vacancies, we would lose all of our neurosurgeons. Unfortunately, with the kind of health care system that they have down there -- which fails to cover 40 million people in their country -- they are also able to pay two, three and sometimes four times the annual incomes that neurosurgeons earn in Canada. That situation will be very difficult to remedy, even if we should wish to raise their incomes to that level. We always see wage differentials between Canada and the United States for highly skilled, high-demand professionals.
If you look at the statistics over the last decade for the number of physicians that leave all of the provinces to go abroad -- I would assume that many of them go to the United States also -- the numbers have remained fairly static for each province over time. They have not wildly fluctuated. During the time when Ontario had their doctors' strike, they certainly did not jump up and down over that period. There seems to be a relatively steady pattern.
We do know that more doctors move to B.C. every year than leave the province. British Columbia has one of the highest ratios of physicians to population of any province in Canada. That doesn't mean that we don't have shortages for specialists. That doesn't mean that other provinces don't have shortages for specialists, and we have to address that.
One of our strategies in the New Directions document is to develop a human resources plan to manage the physician human resources, not just sit back and hope that these people are going to arrive here and decide to practise in B.C. or be trained in the appropriate specialty. We actually have to start discouraging people from going into some areas and encouraging them to go into other areas where we have shortages. We have to provide training programs so that we can get them to practise in the geographic areas of the province where we have shortages. We may have to do things about our incentives for physicians to make sure that they go into those areas where we need more people in a certain kind of practice; for example, psychiatrists who practise in emergency rooms, as opposed to practising in their private offices. We have a lot of psychiatrists, but we don't have them where we need them. Even in the cities we don't have them where
[ Page 6248 ]
we need them, in many cases. There are a whole variety of things that have to be looked at with respect to specialists and the shortage of specialists.
Has the dispute with the B.C. doctors affected this? Possibly it has. What is really interesting, I think, is the most recent high-profile case of a physician who announced that he was going to be leaving the province because of bureaucracy. When I investigated and met with this gentleman here in Victoria, the problems he had were with the B.C. Medical Association around the fee schedule and with the hospital with respect to operating-room time. They were internal problems to the profession. They were not problems with the Ministry of Health. Although the announcement was made that he was moving to the United States, to the best of my knowledge, he's still here in B.C.
L. Fox: I ask the question because of a phone call I had this morning from Alert Bay. I also have a faxed letter that was sent to you only today, minister, that expresses some real concern about a family member who has a brain tumour and needs radiation treatments. She has been told by local doctors that there is a waiting list of 200 to 300 in Vancouver, a waiting list at the Vancouver cancer clinic and a waiting list of at least 100 in Victoria at that treatment centre.
This young lady is presently on medication. Her family, for the minister's information, is on their way to arrive at the Legislature tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock because they are so appalled that their daughter is unable to receive treatment. She's presently on Decadron and the side effects of that drug are extremely horrible. She is being told by the medical profession that she must stand in line. Obviously that's a very emotional issue for one particular family.
Having lost a member of my family to that particular disease, I can respect the difficulties and the stress that's on the family. They wait not knowing from day to day whether their daughter will receive treatment, not knowing who creates the priorities on a waiting list and not knowing who to contact. They are also probably not feeling good in taking the political route. While they have their daughter successfully treated, then there is somebody else that doesn't get the treatment. Those are the kinds of difficult decisions that I'm sure this family is going through. The letter that they wrote to you is dated today. I'm quite sure, hon. minister, they will seek to meet with you tomorrow. This is the kind of concern that is really dramatic and very emotional. Waiting lists in those particular areas are extremely important. I recognize that they have gone down.
These people are concerned that the minister talks about the lack of hospital operation rooms or time. I've gotten into those arguments with doctors over the fact that they haven't been able to meet the demand for hip replacements, for instance, because of the lack of operating room time and the lack of beds available to them. They've gotten into situations where they have to prioritize their patients on the basis of need and pain. It's a rather awkward situation for a doctor to be in.
Given the need of families such as this, is there any way that we can look at sending patients outside of the province for treatment? It's my understanding that we're now sending some prostate cancer patients to other jurisdictions to receive treatment because we can't facilitate them. Could we not possibly do here the same kind of program as we're presently doing with the prostate cancer patients?
Hon. E. Cull: When waiting lists get up to a level where they really start to impact on people's lives, not in a life-threatening situation because as we've already canvassed earlier in these estimates that emergency situations always go to the top of the list, when the waiting lists for non-emergency situations start to grow and get to that level, whether it's for hip replacement, cardiac surgery, general surgery or radiation therapy, I too am really concerned.
I indicated very early on to my staff that we had to find some means to address these waiting lists. If we were doing nothing about the waiting lists, if we were not taking any action to try to bring those waiting lists down, then I would say, hon. member, that you have every right to stand up and demand from me that we do something, that we take some action, that we recognize the seriousness of cases like the one you have just talked about. But we have recognized that this is a problem, and we have been devoting resources to it. We have made some tremendous increases in our capacity to deal with radiation therapy particularly. This government has made decisions to enhance those resources. Unfortunately, making the decision doesn't get it there the next day; you then have to build, construct, modify, buy equipment, get staff, do whatever has to be done to implement it. That takes a little bit of time.
Recognizing that it takes some time, we've funded extra shifts at the B.C. Cancer Agency to get the equipment and the facilities that we have now used on two shifts a day instead of only one shift a day. Because of the lack of staffing to do that, we have not been successful in all cases. We've tried to address the staffing issues, both through aggressive recruitment and through long-term training, but again that has only started to have some partial impact. The waiting lists have gone down. They've gone down moderately; they have not gone down enough yet to satisfy me. We still need to put more effort into the overall issue of waiting lists, certainly in the area of cancer radiotherapy waiting lists. There are more things that we can do. There are more things that we are doing.
With respect to your question on whether we can arrange for out-of-province treatment, the answer is yes. We have contracted with Washington State facilities for radiotherapy treatment. Since I don't know the specifics of the case that you're talking about, I think it would be worthwhile to have my staff look for the letter that you say I have received today and see what we can do to address those particular concerns. We have to look at this in both the short term and the long term. It is a difficult issue, but believe you me, we are trying to devote resources to it. We share your concern and the concerns of the family that you mentioned that in some cases any wait is too long. While a certain wait-list sometimes is good for hospital management and
[ Page 6249 ]
surgery, beyond a certain amount you really do start to get into health concerns.
[3:45]
L. Fox: I'm sure the minister recognizes that in my attempt to ask the question in the best way I could, I wasn't faulting the minister for lack of action with respect to the waiting list. I was just trying to point out, I guess, the concern of waiting lists, particularly in this area. When the only treatment for an inoperable brain tumour is radiation, obviously the earliest possible treatment is in the best interests of the patient. I'll leave that, knowing that these people are on their way down to see the minister to see whether or not some action can't be taken. I take it from the minister that she's prepared to review the particulars of that case in an open and honest way, and that's fine with me.
One thing I did want to talk briefly on -- perhaps not so briefly -- is that as I mentioned the other day, I have some problems splitting out at what point this ministry is responsible for the ambulance air service and at what point it falls into Government Services. But I think -- I hope I'm right -- as long as it's being used as an ambulance, it falls under the category of the Health ministry, but when it's being used as a government service or a transportation plane for representatives or employees of the government, then it falls under government services.
Hon. E. Cull: The government air service is administered by the Ministry of Government Services. The Ministry of Health contracts with them as an airline for ambulance services, as we contract with some private air carriers, helicopter services and others, as you know full well. They are the provider of the services and we purchase them via contract and have some priority call on them.
L. Fox: I want to canvass at some length the services in the Prince George region. The minister is well aware there is a contract with Carson Air to provide some alternate services to the Airvac system on an on-call basis. Presently in Prince George, we're running into some extreme difficulties in terms of the actual ambulance service itself. There were 19 incidents by halfway through this month where the ambulance took 20 minutes or longer to get to its destination within the community. Part of the problem is that there are two stations, but there are only 16 full-time people handling 6,000 calls a year. In Kamloops, for instance, there are 21 full-time equivalents handling 6,500 calls a year; in Kelowna, there are 20 full-time equivalents handling 7,000 calls. Manning two stations with 16 full-time employees becomes extremely difficult.
I don't want the minister to assume that I'm just asking for more people or money. There's an opportunity to look at some efficiencies in the system that give you the best of both worlds. We have Carson Air, with a plane on the ground, getting very little work out of the Prince George region. I understand that only last week they were considering giving up the contract because they're not getting sufficient work -- call-time, wait-time, and so on -- to pay for the assets. At the same time, we have all the air ambulances centralized in Victoria. There are many good reasons for that; I'm not here to debate those. But in talking to the ambulance attendants, there have been many occasions where there have been excessive delays because we've waited for an aircraft to come from other parts of the province to pick up a patient from Prince George. If we had two or three extra employees in the Prince George region who, when not needed through Carson Air, would be able to increase the service within the area, we could get the patient to Vancouver at half the cost through the contract of what it costs to bring the jet up from Victoria. My request is that some consideration be given by the ministry to reviewing whether or not some efficiencies could be achieved and still improve the service to the residents of the Prince George region.
Hon. E. Cull: I don't think that's an unreasonable request at all. As you know, I announced a review of Pharmacare this morning, and one of the questions a reporter asked me was: "Why didn't you do this sooner? You were actually asked about it last year." I indicated to him that there have been a few things going on in the Ministry of Health over the last 18 months. We've done the royal commission, brought in a new Medical and Health Care Services Act, made major changes in establishing tripartite commissions for the supplementary practitioners and a lot of things. I'm telling you these other things by way of saying that the Ambulance Service is something that I agree does need some review. We did not get to it earlier because of all of the other items that have been on the agenda in the ministry.
I agree with you. I think there are some puzzling discrepancies between the staffing levels in different communities, even though we are supposed to be staffing based on call volume. I can't tell from the information that I have whether the communities are incorrect in terms of what they tell me are the call volumes and the number of staff they have there, whether the Ambulance Service is not providing the full figures on this, or whether it has some different way of calculating it. There seems to be some real missed communication between communities and the Ambulance Service in a number of cases.
Regarding your comment about the location of aircraft or the use of contract services, I think that's something that would be worthwhile having a look at. As I said earlier in these estimates, the B.C. Ambulance Service has a world-class record and an international award, so I'm not in any way suggesting that they don't do a fabulous job for the people in this province. Since I have been talking about cost-effectiveness and efficient management, eventually we will have to look at all parts of the ministry to ensure that we are getting the best value for our dollar there. The Ambulance Service is clearly one of those areas which should be looked at in the near future, as opposed to something that's off in -- we are in year two now -- maybe year three or four.
Some things are more urgent than others; some things have more impact on the health budget than others. As I think you can see, we have been trying to progressively work our way through hospital
[ Page 6250 ]
efficiencies, Medical Services Plan efficiencies, now Pharmacare, and there are others on the list. I think people in the Ambulance Service would welcome some administrative efficiency reviews. Many of the paramedics have talked to me about things that they think could be done to improve the system, so if we can find a way to have another look at it and get some more efficiencies in place, I'm totally behind it. Your suggestion of having a review is a worthy one, and it is one that I am considering. It's a question of timing and resources and making sure that we have everything we need to start it.
L. Fox: I thank the minister for her most encouraging comments. I talked very briefly about this last year in estimates, and the minister might recall -- I doubt it, though; it's a year away -- that I am concerned that we don't go a year down the road and do a review. There might be a real opportunity here to have a very small review of the delivery of service in the Prince George region -- the efficiencies and so on. These attendants tell me they are under extreme pressure. They are facing very angry patients because of delays in getting there, and I am concerned.
Last week I got a call from a lady whose husband collapsed in the driveway, and literally lay for 20 minutes because there was no ambulance available. I think that's too much to expect. The minister and I both know that we have a better service than that. Going along with those kinds of concerns -- and the history is there -- it would be very easy to pick up. I spoke to one of the duty officers last week who was investigating that lady's concern and they confirmed that up until that point there were 19 calls which were over those kinds of time frames.
I think it's a very emergent problem in Prince George for those reasons, as well as the fact that if we don't look very seriously at whether or not we can utilize the private airlines that are on contract, we're going to lose that airline. And we may have a very difficult time achieving another one -- at least at the cost that this one is prepared to do the job for. I would urge the minister to consider doing something on a regional basis. I look forward to her comments with respect to that.
Hon. E. Cull: The other thing that occurs to me, in terms of pursuing the Prince George issue, is the task force that we will be establishing to look at northern health issues. Some of the concern in Prince George isn't just simply a local problem; it could also happen in Burnaby or Sooke. It is related to the fact that the populations are sparser and more spread out; the distances are longer; and the winter conditions that ambulances have to travel through are different from the conditions they travel through in the lower mainland and Victoria. I would expect that some of that would be addressed as part of looking at how we could provide better health care services to people in the north and in isolated communities. But I hear you.
I think the commitment we have is, in a consistent way, to sequentially start to look at those areas of the ministry or the health care system where we feel there are some changes needed and some efficiencies that can be realized. We have to approach it as thoughtfully as we can without trying to do everything all at once, because we wouldn't be able to accomplish that. I think the ambulance service is one of those areas that we will see some work done on before we get back into this system a year from now, when you will ask me these questions again, with another twist.
L. Fox: While I appreciate the minister's intent, I am concerned that the emphasis could be lost in that huge task force's mandate and that it wouldn't deal with the concerns to the extent that it should, given all the other issues out there. I would ask her to give consideration to something a little more specific. I think the findings would probably be something which could be utilized around the province.
I just want to comment very briefly on the review of Pharmacare which was announced by the minister today. It's a review which I certainly support. Although I don't know any of the individuals on the task force or on the review panel, when you look at their backgrounds, they certainly have the expertise to deal with the issues. I only hope that they are going to be able to go the regions of the province. In the very quick time that I had to go through it, I was unable to actually find the terms of reference or in fact a list of locations that this review panel would go to. If the minister could enlighten me a bit on that, I would appreciate it.
[4:00]
Hon. E. Cull: They are going to be travelling the province and holding public meetings. We are hopeful that public members will come out to these meetings, not just pharmacists, physicians and stakeholders. We want to see some general people from the communities who are interested in where health care is going in B.C. They will be travelling to ten different communities. I don't have the list in front of me, but Prince George will be one. We can get the list for you, if you'd like. I know they are going to be out and about the province quite a bit. I guess if there's a real demand for them to go to a community that isn't on the list, because there are people there who are interested in discussing it with the committee, I'm sure they will consider that request.
We have also established a 1-800 number so that no matter where you live in British Columbia you can call and get information about the review panel, have information sent to you or submit your opinions or advice. We will be taking written submissions as well.
L. Fox: I want to get on to one other issue from the Vanderhoof region, which I've spoken to the minister about, and that's the Kingsley case. I gave a copy of a letter from Kabi Pharmacia -- I guess that's how it's pronounced -- in which they're requesting a meeting to deal with cases such as Mr. Kingsley's. This letter was sent to the minister March 24. The Kingsleys are still waiting for an answer. I think the minister is aware of the situation where in order to stay out of the hospital, which would cost something like $500 to $600 a day in that particular hospital, he is presently renting a pump and buying the medicine at a cost of $647 on a bi-weekly basis. He is in extreme hardship trying to meet that
[ Page 6251 ]
expense. Perhaps the minister can tell me if there's been any movement with respect to this particular case.
Hon. E. Cull: I know the member brought this to my attention a couple of weeks ago. I immediately asked the people in my correspondence unit to locate this particular response and light a fire under the staff that were investigating it. I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you right now. I'm certainly not making excuses about this; I will go and have a look at it. However, we get 400 letters a day in my office. While March 24 seems like a long time ago -- and it's starting to get to be a long time ago -- sometimes staff do get totally swamped, particularly if they have a lot of correspondence on one area. I will commit to getting an answer for you for Mr. Kingsley by the end of this week. I hope the staff who are watching this on TV right now are paying attention to this and scurrying about to see if we haven't got an answer on its way to me.
L. Fox: Thank you. I hope it's an affirmative answer because here's a situation where this man and his family could put a huge demand on the medicare system. A cost similar to what he's paying every two weeks personally would be a daily cost should he be hospitalized and have to get the IVs on a daily basis in order to achieve his treatment. This individual is one of those individuals who fall through the cracks of our network. He can't qualify for social assistance because of his assets and can't go to work because of his illness. His family's been placed in a condition of extreme hardship just trying to meet the demands of his medication.
Has the minister decided whether or not the issue, in the copy of the letter that I gave her from this company, is something in which she would see some benefit by she or her staff meeting with the representatives of the company?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes. As I indicated to the member when we spoke about it the other day, it sounds like a very interesting proposal. Certainly I'm always interested in anything that allows people to maintain more independence and be out of hospital. We, or certainly I, would be interested in learning more about this. I'm saying this about my staff assuming that they don't know anything about it; perhaps they do. That's part of the problem in trying to answer your question right now. I haven't had the information back from staff to find out whether they have met with that company, are aware of it, have any other considerations along this line, or whether the Kingsley family is one for which we could make arrangements. I don't have any of the answers, but as I just said, I'll make a commitment to getting this one resolved promptly.
L. Fox: I'll leave that then. I recognize the end of the week is only tomorrow. Perhaps the first of the week would be more than ample, and I will expect it at that time.
I want to get back, very briefly, to the issue of extended care. I have a concern -- and I started to get into it the other day when we ran out of time -- over the level of care that is in fact given and the consistency of that from one complex to another, recognizing, of course, that societies have boards and that some of the determination is done at the local level. I have a letter from an individual who is extremely concerned that (a) the rising cost in the housing portion of the long term care facility is going to provide extra costs; and (b) the level of service now applied within this particular facility -- I hesitate to mention the name of it, but I'll make the letter available to the minister later -- is less than desirable. A further issue is that because of policy within that particular facility, she cannot provide extra service for her mother by hiring an assistant to help with daily things such as brushing her teeth more often or giving her baths more often, or whatever. She's limited by the policy and by what's acceptable within the union contract and all those other good things.
She has a further concern, and I believe I do too. I think I mentioned to the minister before that my wife is an HEU worker in an intermediate care facility. Given the fact that this new accord, albeit not in place at the present time, would limit the work hours to 36 from 37.5, there's a great concern that the effect will be a reduction in service, given the limited amount of staff that a lot of these facilities have. Could I ask for some reassurance from the minister that this in fact isn't going to happen?
Hon. E. Cull: The accord, as it stands right now -- and as it hopefully will be ratified -- applies to the acute care sector. But you're right that because the unions and the employers are involved, there are implications, obviously, for the continuing care part of the ministry.
On the question of reduced work hours, when we've looked at it in the acute care sector, the hospitals have estimated that they would have to backfill approximately 50 percent of those reduced hours. I would guess that in the continuing care sector it's going to be a larger percent because there isn't as much flexibility there. If this report is ratified, and if it is extended to continuing care, then we will have to start to work with those particular institutions to resolve what the flow-through would be -- how it would affect them and their budgets.
Like all the facilities right now, the continuing care facilities are, I guess, very pressed with their budgets. We do try to work with them to realize whatever operational efficiencies we can. I don't believe there are any institutions out there that don't have some operational efficiencies that can be realized. Some of them will probably be very small, but some might be considerably larger. Our responsibility has to be to work with those organizations to see what we can do to assist them to manage their operations as efficiently as possible. Having said that, I'm fully aware that the staffing guidelines provided by the ministry are not fully funded in all cases. There is a shortfall in terms of the continuing care guidelines in the funding. That's something we inherited; it isn't something that was created as of November 1991. We have been trying to address that within the abilities of our budget over the
[ Page 6252 ]
last two budgets. We paid particular attention to the IC 3 level.
As I'm sure you are aware, people are coming into intermediate care with a higher level of acuity all the time, which means that they need more services. We have made small increases to the funding formulas to recognize the higher acuity level of those IC 3 patients. As we start to reallocate funding in the health care system, we're going to have to make sure that we continue to reallocate into the continuing care area. If we want to be successful, as I do, to get that 25 percent of patients out of the acute care beds into the continuing care, intermediate care and extended care beds that they need to be in, we're going to have to not only build the beds but make sure there are sufficient resources to provide an adequate level of care there. That's the objective, but there are cases where we're not there yet. We have been moving towards it, but we're still not fully there yet.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
L. Fox: I know that the minister canvassed the accord to some extent early in the estimates, but one has to be concerned, and I'm pleased that the minister has shown some concern with respect to the level of service in the long term care facilities.
Given the fact that in most homes there is resistance against the hiring of an outside nurse or help in order to give a particular family member a little better quality of life -- perhaps someone that can spend a little more time in a very compassionate way with some of these people -- there is a great concern by families of the seniors who are in these facilities about the level of service. I ask the minister to consider that in her deliveries and in her thoughts over the negotiations of this accord.
Perhaps I have some misinformation or a lack of understanding as to how this regional seniority process works within this accord and I wanted to talk a little bit about it. It says that you can seek other employment and look at other jobs of a similar nature within the region. Could an HEU worker or an HLR or BCNU worker within Vanderhoof bump somebody in Prince George should they not be a full-time equivalent or a full-time employee but a permanent part-time employee? Is that kind of thing possible?
Hon. E. Cull: We did spend a bit of time exploring this earlier in the estimates debate. It seems like we talk about this one at least once every day in some form or another. The region under the accord is left for an arbitrator to determine what the region is and what the comparable job is. That's what the parties agreed to at the time. In this case, the definition of region and comparable job was to be determined by a third-party arbitrator.
[4:15]
The answer to your question is that once the region is defined -- I can't tell you what the region is -- someone can only move into a job and port their seniority into that job if a job is vacant. A job is declared vacant by the institution. Someone in Vanderhoof can't bump someone who's in a job in Prince George. Prince George would have to say, "There is a vacancy here," and then that would be part of the pool available to employees in that region, and they would be offered those positions. If they were offered a comparable position in their region, they would have to accept that position or no longer be employed. Your job security doesn't extend beyond being offered a comparable job in the region that has been defined for you. Positions in hospitals or institutions are only declared vacant and part of the accessible pool once the hospital itself says, "Yes, we have a vacancy here," which means that if there is a vacancy, there can be some shuffling around within the hospital, and the vacancy might end up being over here rather than where it started off. The hospital does have management ability to determine how they may first of all redeploy their own staff to fill those vacancies.
L. Fox: I appreciate that clarification. I had heard parts of it, but with everything I've been trying to consume through these estimates, I lost it. Now that you've reminded me, I recall the discussion.
I was concerned, though, about the issue.... For instance, Prince George Regional Hospital announced that they would have to lay off 31 extra employees in this budget year. Given that there are no openings in the region for those 31 extra employees, and given the fact that last year they had to lay off 61 employees and opportunities from attrition are extremely limited, under the accord who pays the cost associated with keeping those employees on the payroll until they find a comparable job in the region?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, Prince George Regional Hospital is undergoing a review to look at its financial situation. It was a commitment made to the hospital last year. If it hasn't started yet, it will be starting very soon, because the promise was to do it very early in this fiscal year. So with respect to the 31 employees, that may change depending on the outcomes of their operational review.
The attrition rate continues even with those direct layoffs; there will be some attrition taking place. So whatever number of employees are laid off by the hospital, there will be other opportunities for them within the community. Obviously they don't have to be in hospitals; they may be in the community health sector. With the 8 percent increase in funding, we will be doing more hiring in parts of the community health sector. There may be jobs in that sector, in long term care facilities and in other parts of the health care system in that region.
But if a hospital goes through everything it possibly can in terms of trying to manage and they still can't place those people, they still can't rejig their existing budget to keep those people, part of the accord was to provide a fund to be managed by the hospitals and targeted to assist hospitals through a short-term period of less flexibility, so they could continue to operate and have the extra time they needed to allow attrition, early retirement or other job opportunities in the community to become available. So that kind of flexibility was
[ Page 6253 ]
contemplated in the accord. It was calculated as part of the $57 million funding over three years and continues to be part of the arrangements. As you know, right now Vince Ready is working with the two parties to see what can be resolved in terms of renewing or reviving the accord, and I'm sure the hospitals will be making those concerns known to Mr. Ready.
L. Fox: If I were an employee of a hospital, irrespective of what union or what area I was in, if I could be guaranteed that I wouldn't lose my job or a job equivalent to what I had, the last thing I would do is volunteer to be part of the attrition numbers by accepting early retirement or anything else. As long as I have a fully paid job guaranteed to me, there really seems to be very little incentive to get into an early retirement program. That's one observation, and I wouldn't mind your comments on that.
There is some other information I wouldn't mind having. The minister talked about $57 million as being part of a package to address those kinds of interim concerns. Does that include the $10 million for the early retirement, the $22 million for the educational training program and the $9 million for the labour adjustment program? Are those part of that $57 million dollars?
Hon. E. Cull: The $57 million is the total wage, benefit and other costs, over the three years of the labour accord, that are in excess of the costs that would have been under the currently applicable collective agreements that are in place. The agreements that are in place recognize the 4 percent increase this year, the 9 to 11 percent that will be required to deal with the HEU comparability as a result of the arbitration in 1994, and assumptions about the collective agreements required to continue those agreements for another two years. So yes, the $57 million includes the early retirement fund and the labour adjustment fund. The $22 million that you are referring to with respect to education, I think you are confusing with the doctors' education program and with the liability and disability insurance program. There isn't any $22 million for education.
The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, I would ask the committee if they would permit me, with their indulgence, to make a brief introduction.
Leave granted.
The Chair: Hon. members, I had the privilege this morning of meeting with some very special guests who are from the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia. They are here in British Columbia on a 14-day study exercise. They will be finding out as much as they can about training and counselling programs that we have in this government. They are members of the ministries of labour from their countries. One of the things that they are very interested in is entrepreneurial programs for women.
The delegation is being guided by Paddy Randall and Catherine Thompson of Klohn Leonoff, a British Columbia firm in Richmond. I would like the House to make this very special delegation welcome. I was deeply honoured and felt very privileged to meet with these people who are, as you know, in a transition in their country. They are moving toward a free-market society, and it was very enlightening and very helpful to have them share their comments with us.
A rather long introduction, hon. members, but I think you will agree that it is a rare opportunity to have people with us from that part of the world. I'd like you to join me in making them welcome.
K. Jones: I would also like to ask leave to extend this type of greeting.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: On behalf of the official opposition, and I'd say on behalf of all members of the opposition and all members of this House, we would also like to extend our greetings to the delegations from both the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia.
It's good to see the continuing harmony with the people who have come out here sharing their desire to learn about the entrepreneurial process and to find out more about how women can be involved in establishing new jobs in communities. It was also a real pleasure to talk to these people. We had a pleasant luncheon and I had the opportunity to meet several members who have come from the country which is part of my ancestral heritage. I found it a great opportunity to learn more about my roots.
Thank you very much for coming, and I hope you have a very successful visit and learn as much as you possibly can while you're here.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm privileged, as Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and Minister Responsible for Science, and on behalf of the government, the Minister of Labour and the Minister for Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, to officially welcome the delegation and acknowledge my delight in seeing Klohn Leonoff here escorting them, as well.
The Chair: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca. Thank you for your patience, hon. member.
L. Fox: By all means, hon. Chair. I think a delegation such as this is certainly worthy of recognition.
But if I can get my train of thought back, we were talking about the $22 million for retraining. Earlier in the estimates, when I asked the question with respect to what we were going to do to retrain nurses to fill the vacancies and about the home care and layoffs, I was under the impression that there was a $22 million retraining.... But perhaps I misunderstood that or there was some misunderstanding between the question and the answer. Is there no money within this accord to look after the retraining of employees to fill vacancies in other areas?
[ Page 6254 ]
Hon. E. Cull: That's exactly what the $9 million labour adjustment fund is for. It includes retraining and relocation.
L. Fox: At this time, I will allow the member for Abbotsford to ask a few questions.
H. De Jong: I was just wondering whether the minister can enlighten us a bit on whether there has been a stepped-up program of inspections by the health department in senior citizens' homes, particularly in the area of dietary needs.
Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't confirm that.
H. De Jong: If there is any inspection done in that particular area, is it fostered by the local health office or is it because of complaints it receives? Has the minister got any idea about that?
Hon. E. Cull: I would guess that there are a number of areas of jurisdiction. The first would be that the community care facilities licensing board, which licenses facilities and therefore can unlicense them or pull their licence, would have the ability to investigate that. I would think that with respect to kitchen facilities, there probably is some jurisdiction of the medical health officer. I'm sorry, it's a technical area; I'm not familiar with the different breakdown in jurisdictions, but that would seem reasonable to me in terms of licensing. There's also the continuing care manager for those institutions that we provide funding to, which doesn't involve all of the continuing care facilities. But for those that we do fund, we have a quality assurance group which does inspections and looks at the services and service levels.
[4:30]
H. De Jong: The reason I'm asking these questions, Mr. Chairman, is basically following a concern -- I wouldn't say necessarily a complaint -- expressed by the chairman of the Ebenezer Senior Home Society. The Ebenezer Home has been in the Abbotsford area for the last 25 years. I suppose you could call it a home. It was initiated by people from the Netherlands back in the fifties and sixties and has been accommodating not only people of Dutch background but also of Canadian background. Whenever there was room and it couldn't be filled, then of course they would accept other people. It has had, and is still receiving, a fair amount of financial support from churches throughout the lower mainland, from the Dutch community basically; but it also receives other funding, of course, and people are paying a per diem rate. It does have some sort of a cultural background, and that cultural background is reflected in some of the dishes that are cooked for these old folks. A number of my uncles and aunts stayed in this home for many, many years. In fact, there's one in there now who has been there for the last ten years and is 96 years of age, so certainly people are having a good long life in that home. I think that can be said for many of the people who have stayed there. They've enjoyed it, and they have done well there.
It would appear that they have been advised by someone in the Ministry of Health that they need to have a full-time dietitian on staff. That is a concern to the board, because they are always on the border of making ends meet at the end of the month in terms of providing the care. The care goes far beyond the normal care that's given in a senior citizens' home. There are people there who perhaps should be in a home of greater service to them because of their health needs, but they like to stay in that particular home because they've been there for some time. To have this additional cost pushed onto them, because apparently the push is pretty strong from whoever made that inspection and that particular suggestion.... It was not only a suggestion; it would appear, if I sense the concerns of the chairman of the board correctly, that it was basically a demand by the Ministry of Health that they have to have a full-time dietary person in that facility.
I wonder whether the minister has any knowledge of this and of the cultural background that may, in terms of dishes served, vary from the Canadian types or standard of foods being served in those facilities. Certainly I have had no complaints from any of the citizens of that home, and I know a lot of them in there. They're happy there, and they seem to be thriving. Everybody seems to be as healthy as can be expected at their age, and this particular demand from whatever person in the Health ministry seems a bit unreasonable to me at this point in time.
Hon. E. Cull: The particular care facility that you're referring to is not one that's funded by the ministry, so our jurisdiction extends to licensing under the community care facilities licensing regulations. I don't profess to be an expert in the regulations. Certainly I'm not an inspector, so I don't know all the details. I can assume that if they're being asked to have the services of a dietitian, it is to meet regulations and standards established through guidelines that are enforced in all facilities.
I don't see any reason why a dietitian would have any difficulty dealing with what different cultures eat. We're not talking about imposing a particular cultural diet on people, we're talking about making sure that there is an adequate diet. I've been sitting here trying to think about what a Dutch diet would include, and I can't. I'm sure that within the various foods that are part of that culture they would be able to find a balanced and appropriate set of menus to meet the needs of the people who live there.
I can't give you any more details than that at this time. I have to assume, though, that the care facilities licensing board is following the regulations and making sure that they meet the standards. The whole purpose of having such a board is to ensure that care facilities are licensed and, once licensed, are inspected and maintain a certain level of standards.
H. De Jong: My final comment on this is that during the war years of '40-45, there was very little fruit in the Netherlands; there were no bananas, oranges or apples. The availability of those fruits after the war was
[ Page 6255 ]
very welcome to all of the Dutch people, and I'm sure that they get lots of fruit and vegetables in the Ebenezer Home too.
I recall a situation that occurred some years back when I was serving on the MSA Hospital board in the early seventies. A letter came from the Minister of Health at that time stating that they had all these people within the operations of the hospital. That was in the spring of '74, I believe, and by the time the fall of '74 came along the Ministry of Health all of a sudden realized that all of these positions were not affordable within that hospital setting. I'm talking about the MSA Hospital now, but I just want to make a comparison. While a home is run well and the utmost is given in the type of care, I find it rather difficult to accept -- while finances are limited -- that an organization or health board would come in there and say you have to have such a person on staff as an additional person, because that person has to be paid, and that's another $30,000 or $40,000 a year which they haven't got. My point is that without having gone through it very thoroughly -- which has not been done in terms of what is being provided for the seniors at the Ebenezer Home -- and then to come up with that demand of an additional cost is not acceptable, in my opinion.
L. Reid: I would like to wrap up a number of comments in terms of health promotion. We talked earlier about the recommendations and about $242 million being an equivalent sum of money under the budget. In terms of your remarks, I'm hearing that there is an amalgamation of programs that will address the 38 recommendations of the New Directions policy. Other than the amalgamation, are the new directions truly reflected under the $242 million? As we canvassed earlier this afternoon, it is a very similar sum of money.
Hon. E. Cull: There isn't an amalgamation of programs for program delivery purposes, although there may be some programs coming together. Earlier in the estimates we were talking about restructuring the ministry, so there may be some changes in the way branches are organized. For budgeting purposes this year, the programs of alcohol and drug, mental health, health promotion and family and community health have all been included into the family and community health programs so that they are part of the overall vote that we were discussing, but they're not amalgamated in a program sense.
The overall amount of funding available in that vote is going to address -- to some extent, because not all of the 38 actions in the New Directions document are falling into the community and family health portion of the ministry.... But those that do have an implication there are being funded through that additional funding. So if you look at the document on the priority actions for New Directions and look at any of the 38 items, you will see what we are doing with them, what the progress is, who is responsible and what their status is. There is funding provided in the ministry to ensure that that will happen.
The vast majority of the funding that is going into the programs, though, is to enhance services in the community health area. For example, back on health promotion, there has been a $2 million increase this year to their budget, bringing it up to $5 million. It includes enhancements to programs such as: seniors' health promotion; the tobacco reduction strategy, Healthy Workplaces; youth health promotion; the Healthy Schools program; and Healthy Communities, one of the best programs in the country, here in British Columbia, and I think that's an excellent program in and of itself. It also includes some work on the social determinants of health -- and I believe that's new in terms of the New Directions strategy -- and health impact assessments. The last two I mentioned, the determinants of health and the health impact assessments, are new initiatives this year. If you're interested in the dollar amount for the determinants of health, it is $525,000, and it's $225,000 for the health impact assessments. We are also providing funding to initiate the provincial health council, which we talked about earlier.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to come back with some more questions for the Minister of Health. I'm sure the minister has been having quite a full day. She keeps on dealing with all these questions that people have as we represent the health care needs throughout the province. The people of British Columbia have a series of concerns about their health care system and what's happening to it. Through their representatives in this House, they've had the opportunity to bring forward those matters of concern. As you've made reference to, there seems to be some repetition. I hope you will recognize that there are those repetitions because there are concerns out in the ridings. People throughout British Columbia, probably in every riding, are concerned about their health care, about the direction in which specific sections of the heath care system is going and about what's happening to them. People are very concerned that some of the programs might not be available.
[4:45]
One of the areas of concern is with regard to the waiting period for such things as CAT scans and certain specialized medical tests and procedures. My constituents -- and constituents who have called me from other ridings represented by this government, who have found that they didn't get a satisfactory response from their offices, so they came to me with their concerns, and I want to make sure that the minister is aware of them -- have stated that there is a real problem out there. The extended waiting times have been very critical. In many cases they're concerned that they might not get crucial CAT scans when there are tumours or cancers involved, and the families are very upset. Their alternative is basically to pay to go down to Bellingham and get the services there, because of the long waiting periods they're faced with here in British Columbia. I'd like to ask the minister what plans she has to try to relieve this problem and give assurances to these people that when their doctors have indicated a need for a quick response to a CAT scan, an MRI or to a specialized test, that those tests and scans will be available within a timely period so that they will have a
[ Page 6256 ]
chance of maybe surviving the result that they're concerned about.
Hon. E. Cull: Can I ask the member if he has specific questions for his riding?
K. Jones: I would be happy to bring forward the specific areas to the minister. I don't feel that it would be appropriate to bring some of these to this forum because of their private nature. They are available and we have brought them to the attention of your ministry. There are past situations that have been dealt with, not necessarily in the best way; but they did eventually get dealt with. It's to those concerns that I'm asking the minister to see whether she can do something about improving the times required.
Hon. E. Cull: The reason I asked the question is that in the member's introductory remarks he asked for some patience on my part with respect to different members bringing up the same subject at different times during these lengthy debates. I fully appreciate that members have issues that are of concern to their riding. While we may have dealt with the subject area earlier, riding-specific issues should be given some time in the House. The questions I have been asked, though, are of a very general nature. We had quite a lengthy discussion about CAT scans and MRIs earlier. So I'd urge you to go back and have a look at Hansard for the answers that I gave.
Very quickly, I will tell you that all emergency cases are treated first. CAT scanners have waiting times that vary from one to two weeks up to 13 weeks. We have just announced new CT scanners in Terrace and in Peace Arch hospital in Langley, and, I believe, one was installed this year and is shared between Vernon and Penticton. So we continue to expand those services.
With respect to MRI, the waiting time is from five to 12 weeks. We have the second-highest ratio of MRI units of any population in Canada. There has been a dramatic expansion of these services over the last six months. Six to nine months ago the waiting time for elective cases was as high as six months and now, as I've just said, it's five to 12 weeks. There are future plans for additional MRIs to be located in the interior and in the Fraser Valley, and we are working on those. There have been significant improvements made to both areas in the last year. There was a much more extensive discussion on this earlier; in fact, I believe the critic asked the questions.
K. Jones: I appreciate that this has been addressed on a general level. I was really interested in what the minister had in mind with regard to the south Fraser Valley area -- Surrey, White Rock, Langley and North Delta specifically. I am aware that the CAT unit has been promised for the Langley Memorial Hospital, but it's supposed to be shared with White Rock. I'm not quite sure how the people in White Rock are supposed to share it, because it's not very convenient to the Peace Arch hospital. Perhaps the minister could indicate what she had in mind when she said that there were plans for an MRI facility in the south Fraser Valley area.
Hon. E. Cull: What we're doing right now is looking at the impact that the increase in services in the last six months is having on waiting lists and the demand for such services. It's going to take a little more time to see what happens -- whether the waiting lists stabilize, drop or go back up again. So we're monitoring it. We do know that the interior and the Fraser Valley area are the two priority areas in terms of population demand.
With respect to the specific location of a Fraser Valley MRI, it would have to be worked out in cooperation with the hospitals in the area. Logically it would be part of the south Fraser Valley planning process that the hospitals are involved in there. There is a regional planning process that hospitals have been engaged in for some time, and that would be the logical body to make recommendations on the appropriate location and the priority for such equipment over other things that they also will be evaluating and that they know they need.
K. Jones: Does the minister have an indicated date as to when the MRI units will be available in the south Fraser area?
Hon. E. Cull: No.
K. Jones: I'd like to go into another area, and it's the new taxation that the ministry has levied on restaurants and various food processing areas with regard to water and health permits. They're tied somewhat to the water and health permits, although the people often don't quite know what the connection is. They seem to have to pay this fee without even getting an inspection. Could the minister perhaps explain to us why businesses have this extra taxation placed upon them when all they're getting is a little sticker? They're really not getting any inspection, which is the usual reason for the health department to visit them.
Hon. E. Cull: If all that the restaurants were getting is a sticker, then the people in this province could not be assured that there is safe food preparation going on in the kitchens; they would not be assured of safe drinking water; they would not be assured of safe conditions in swimming pools. Those institutions are indeed receiving services. They may be getting the sticker at this point as an indication that they've paid their operating permit fee, but there are ongoing inspections. In fact, restaurants should be glad to be inspected less often, because those that are inspected most frequently are the ones that have some real problems.
Through things such as the food safe program we train restaurant and food preparation people to do their own self-evaluation so that they can have inspections less often and still ensure a high quality of food. Those organizations that have food safe training receive a reduction in their fees. The overall purpose for having the fee for operating permits is to recognize that public health doesn't come out of the air. It is provided by environmental health officers around the province. It costs a significant amount of money to have those
[ Page 6257 ]
people there, and a certain portion of that cost should be borne by the facilities that provide the services. The more they get into things like the FoodSafe program, the less it will cost them for those permits.
K. Jones: Is the minister able to tell us whether her ministry does inspections on seafood or seafood processing plants?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't know the answer to that, I'm sorry. I don't know if it's Health or Agriculture, but I suspect that since I don't know the answer, it is probably Agriculture.
K. Jones: Could we ask the minister if her adviser said whether or not they are in the business?
Hon. E. Cull: My adviser said that he doesn't believe they are; it's Agriculture and Food. While I saw the critic laughing at my answer, I know most of what is covered by the huge Ministry of Health, although I would never risk saying that I know every nook and cranny of this 5,000-FTE organization. I'm aware that we do meat inspection; I'm not aware that we do fisheries inspection. I assume that it's done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
K. Jones: I'd like to express to the minister that people in my riding are concerned with the degree to which abortions are going on in our community. I want to get an idea of how many abortions are going on in the various hospitals in the south Fraser area.
Hon. E. Cull: If you give us enough time, we'll find the stats for the province, but I don't think I have them broken down by hospitals.
K. Jones: Would it be possible for the minister to have someone on her staff look into the statistics that hospitals must keep, identify that information and bring it to us at an appropriate time?
Hon. E. Cull: Certainly it would be, and it may be possible that before we adjourn this afternoon I'll find the appropriate documentation here with us. I don't have anyone from the hospital sector here with me today, because we were not going to be canvassing hospitals. But it seems that we canvass every part of the ministry every day anyway. Unfortunately, I can't afford to have seven assistant deputy ministers here full-time in case they do get questions asked of them. We do have the briefing books, and I'll see if I can find something on that before we adjourn. If not, we'll get it for you.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us some follow-up to her statements at the time of last year's budget that funding was going to the establishment of abortion centres and that money was going to be allocated for education to try to prevent abortion? I think she indicated that something like $300,000 or $400,000 was going to be directed toward the prevention of abortions. Does the minister have an indication of how that money was spent and what progress has been made to reduce the number of abortions in the province?
Hon. E. Cull: It's $300,000 that was allocated. I read the list into the record earlier, so you can find that in Hansard. No, I can't tell you whether there is an impact yet, because I haven't found the statistics with respect to total abortions.
You are aware that we have appointed a task force to look at contraception and abortion services and to see what we can do to make sure that contraception services are more widely available to people in different parts of the province, particularly to groups that happen to have a higher teen pregnancy or unwanted pregnancy rate than average. Some of that has to do with sheer physical access to the services, some with cultural barriers and some with language and education. All those areas are addressed by the $300,000, because that covers all those things I was just mentioning.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate whether any of that funding was directed toward the male population, which I think has some influence on the ability of women to become pregnant and perhaps have undesired pregnancies?
[5:00]
Hon. E. Cull: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the details of what type of programs were developed in that area and how they were disseminated?
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated, the breakdown of the $300,000 was canvassed earlier. But the types of programs promoted by the various agencies that are doing it involve education -- sometimes of school populations, sometimes of street people and sometimes of multicultural populations. They are aimed at both men and women, recognizing the role that men have in pregnancy.
K. Jones: Could she indicate what kind of approach was made to the male population in that education program to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that would lead to abortion?
Hon. E. Cull: It would vary, depending on the kind of material that was prepared by the various projects that were funded. I can't remember the exact number, but there were six, seven or maybe even more projects funded under the $300,000. For example, printed material for groups in another language would be made available to members of both sexes.
K. Jones: Hon. minister, I would think that the majority of people who have abortions are probably white females, because they make up the largest proportion of the population. Would that be the case, according to your statistics?
[ Page 6258 ]
Hon. E. Cull: As I indicated earlier, I don't have the statistics here, so I can't confirm that.
K. Jones: I ask that question because approaching that target population would probably give the greatest return or value for the investment of taxpayers' dollars and therefore would be the one the ministry would want to target. By my information, which is probably not nearly as good as the minister's, it seems that a large number aren't really being convinced that they should take responsibility to prevent the unwanted pregnancy which leads to an abortion. Therefore I'd like to ask the minister if she would take a serious look at that area and find a means of addressing the concerns that are generated as a result of those unwanted pregnancies.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, hon. member. The member for Prince George-Omineca just handed me some material, and I got distracted at the end of your question.
The most effective place to deal with the vast majority of people in this province is in education in the schools, which is why we work with the Ministry of Education in the "Learning for Living" curriculum to try to reach young people prior to them becoming sexually active and to educate them about responsibility for their sexual behaviour so they can avoid pregnancies and disease. One of the consequences of the additional information we have been giving young people, and indeed adults of all ages who are sexually active, about preventing sexually transmitted disease is the increase in the use of condoms and other methods of protecting oneself from unsafe sex. It is leading to a reduction in gonorrhea, syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately, we're still having problems with some of our younger population, which is why it is very important to focus on the youth. When you're talking about STDs, you are also talking about pregnancy, since they are created and happen in the same way. We end up having an impact there also on unwanted pregnancy.
K. Jones: Hon. minister, I was wondering if you would be able to give us some idea of the demographics that your ministry has developed to identify which persons are the most likely to have an abortion.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry to have to keep giving the member less-than-complete answers. Unfortunately, the agenda topics that I was given today were aboriginal health and mental health, so I am prepared to answer those. I don't have the person from family and community health here with me. He was here earlier in the week when we were canvassing those subjects. It's part of the difficulty that people who are not the critic have in popping in and out of estimates like this. I don't have those figures here with me. I would be happy to see what information we have on that in the ministry or what or through vital statistics.
K. Jones: The reason I think that's important to know is that your educational program was addressing young people in high school with the concept that they were the most at risk with regard to unwanted pregnancies. The information that has come to me is that that is not the case, but the woman who is a little older -- in her twenties or early thirties -- is the most likely to have an unwanted pregnancy and to turn to abortion as a means of addressing that problem. That's why I was asking whether you could give us some further information that might be more current than the information that I have in that regard. If that's the case, then I think it is important that we target the educational programs where the return for that would be most beneficial, and that we do our utmost to reduce the number of abortions, which are a continuing cost to this health care program and to our country.
It reflects very closely the facts that are coming out as we get into the adoption program -- the fact that there are such long waiting lists for adoption, because there aren't children available. That is being indicated by the recognition that people have with regard to the move from private adoptions to a government-run adoption program, and that has caused a lot of concern within my riding, as well as the issue that I've just canvassed.
I'd like to move into the area of psychiatric patients or persons with mental disabilities in our communities. Both areas have some serious problems, and I was wondering if the minister has looked at the problems that come with both the growth of our community in the South Fraser, and also the fact that a large number of people who have been moved from the secure facilities of Riverview -- the ones who had a protected environment -- have been moved back into the community without adequate facilities; and how the ministry is going to address this problem, which is really growing in our area of Surrey, Langley, and probably North Delta as well.
Hon. E. Cull: I commend the member for being concerned about the mentally ill in the Surrey area, but I urge him to read Hansard. We canvassed mental health quite extensively in terms of the new dollars in the program, the additional people who were funded, the whole downsizing of Riverview, the commitment of programs available to those people who are being released, the mental health initiative, the newly restructured Riverview board, the consumer input and the family input. There was a lot of discussion on this. I'm sorry you missed it, but I don't think that it's particularly productive for us to repeat it all here. It's there for you to read in Hansard at your leisure.
K. Jones: It is really important, because from what I was able to locate in Hansard, your comments didn't really, address the Surrey situation specifically. It is the Surrey area that I would like to address.
I understand that there are no funds for psychiatric bed facilities in the current budget for the South Fraser area.
Hon. E. Cull: That's not accurate. There are plans to downsize Riverview so that there are a core number of beds located in the lower mainland, in the interior and on Vancouver Island. We did discuss that yesterday,
[ Page 6259 ]
in terms of where those beds were going, particularly the concerns that people from the north have about a decision made two years ago about not having any beds there.
We also talked about the fact that hospitals, through their regular planning, do provide psychiatric beds. In fact, we dealt with Surrey Memorial Hospital. I urge you to have another look at the record.
K. Jones: Does the minister have a formula by which she determines the number of psychiatric assessment beds, based on population?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just having a look at the figures for Boundary health unit, which is the area that includes Surrey and that you are probably most interested in. Last year there was a 48 percent increase in funding to Boundary health unit for mental health services. That increased from $7.14 million to $10.56 million. It funded an additional 64 FTEs in the mental health services in that area.
There were also 59 grant-funded jobs. These were not direct employees of the ministry, but were funded through grants provided to agencies. Additional funding this year has been provided to continue those services. There were 54 individual semi-independent living apartments developed and supported by support workers and clinicians. So there was community support available for people who were being released from Riverview.
There was a $15,000 funding increase for sexual abuse treatment for children in Delta and $36,000 for children in Surrey.
I'm just trying to pick out.... There's quite a long list here. I'm not going to read the entire list into the record, but I'm looking for the things that might be of particular interest to you.
Surrey was included in a crisis response team program that is jointly funded by four hospitals, alcohol and drug programs and Social Services. There are multidisciplinary teams that are serving the elderly. They were augmented last year and continue to be funded with additional funds this year. Services for women who are survivors of violence were also enhanced.
[5:15]
K. Jones: Thank you for that information. I just wanted to go back to the question that I did ask, but you were distracted in getting that information. That was whether there was a formula based on population that was used to determine the number of psychiatric assessment beds in the hospital catchment area.
Hon. E. Cull: It would be oversimplifying it to say that the hospitals make their decisions based strictly on population criteria. Hospitals have to work in cooperation within a region, particularly a region like Surrey in the lower mainland. If each hospital were to look at its catchment area -- that's very difficult to determine in the lower mainland anyway, because they all overlap -- and then provide all the services that their populations needed according to some population formula, it would be a very inefficient way of providing hospital services. It makes far more sense for some hospitals to provide psychiatric beds, others to provide a specialty in another area in the same region, and for them to do some planning and cooperation with one another. The South Fraser Valley hospitals are very good at doing that planning. I know that psychiatric beds are part of the planning that's going on at Surrey Memorial.
K. Jones: If, as you say, Surrey Memorial is the designated psychiatric facility for the South Fraser area, could you tell us how the psychiatric assessment is to be dealt with in that region, specifically by Surrey Memorial? I understand that they did not receive any funding for psychiatric additions this year.
Hon. E. Cull: Hospitals would not receive additional funding for psychiatric services. That's not the way hospitals are funded. They're funded on a global basis, and they do their program planning. But through our mental health services in the mental health initiative, we do planning with hospitals to ensure that the right components of acute care services and community services are there. We try to assess what is needed and to move towards that ideal.
In the area of Langley-Surrey-Delta last year, an eight-bed emergency residential short-stay facility was developed. A crisis response team for adolescents was developed. In this year's priorities for 1993-94 there are after-hours emergency response teams, again in the Surrey-Delta-Langley area, as well as other issues that are not related particularly to assessment. There are other funding areas that you might be interested in. I can't put my finger on the assessment services, but last year money was put into increasing assessment services in the Surrey-Delta area.
Again, if you look at Hansard you will see that my general comments about mental health are very clear. I think we've made tremendous progress. You can't knock a 48 percent increase in funding to an area or the overall increase of $52 million last year to mental health. I would be the first one to stand up and say that there is still a lot more to do in this area. The decades of neglect that mental health services have suffered are going to take more than 18 months to turn around.
K. Jones: That's exactly right, hon. minister, and that's why we're concerned about it. I understand, from my conversations with Surrey Memorial in the last day or two, that they have a need for ten psychiatric assessment beds, including one secure room, and it would have been desirable if it had been addressed in this year's budget. I know from my own personal experience that presently the only secure facilities at Surrey Memorial are two secure rooms with individual beds in the emergency area and two secure beds in the psychiatric area. We had the experience of trying to hold a person who was at risk in the emergency area in the custody of two RCMP officers from 10 o'clock in the morning till 3 o'clock in the afternoon. It was only as a result of going directly to the ministry and to the mental health directorate that we were able to find a
[ Page 6260 ]
place for this person to be taken. The only place that was available was the Colony Farm forensic facility. I appreciate the fine work of the ministry in making the arrangements quickly to get that done, but it did tie up two police officers, who are really needed in our community, for five hours, because there was no secure holding facility for that person, so that they could be assessed and placed onto a control basis. They really didn't belong at the Colony Farm forensic centre, because that isn't quite the atmosphere that was needed for this person. What was really needed was some supervised administration of the medication. It was of great concern to the people associated that that person ended up being taken to the only secure place that was available.
That is only one of several cases that is occurring. In my conversation with the RCMP, they said that this situation occurs quite regularly in Surrey. It is causing them a great deal of trouble and a great deal of expense. It reduces their ability to protect the community, which is their primary responsibility. It's a result of inadequate facilities provided by the provincial government in the health care area.
Could the minister indicate to us what she will be doing this year within her budget to address this very serious problem?
Hon. E. Cull: As I just indicated to the member, our priorities for '93-94 with respect to mental health services in the Boundary health unit are for a support after-hours emergency response team, which is exactly the service the member is calling for; funding for rehabilitation programs developed by non-profit agencies; augmenting child and youth services; and respite vacation programs for families. Those are our priority areas, in addition to the work that was introduced last year, which will continue. The number of new initiatives last year runs to at least 20. So in 18 months we have made a significant stab at improving services for the mentally ill in the Boundary health unit.
We are looking at an area that has been chronically underfunded. When Riverview downsizing began some time ago, there was a promise of funding for community services by the former government; it was not provided. We have made a commitment that Riverview patients will not be transferred into the community without appropriate services. But there is a backlog out there of people who either never went into the institution or who went out many years ago, and those services aren't there. With a 25 percent funding increase last year, we made a start on it. I don't know how much more could be provided and actually absorbed into the system -- probably not any more. But we have to continue to fund mental health services as a priority. As I said earlier in the estimates, it remains this government's number one priority in the area of community and family health. It will receive the highest increase in funding of all areas in the ministry.
K. Jones: I was a little surprised when the minister said that the provision of support after-hours response teams was exactly what I was asking for, because that wasn't what I was asking for at all -- at least not from what I understand that to mean. I was asking for hospital beds and secure facilities within the hospital area for psychiatric patients. Those facilities aren't handled by response teams; they're physical plant facilities and the staffing required to accommodate that.
We also understand that at Surrey Memorial they need something like $160,000 in renovations to provide the adequate security required for that psychiatric unit.
Perhaps the minister's associate could give the Minister of Forests the appropriate answer to that question so he can respond to us in the absence of the minister.
Hon. T. Perry: While the minister is attending to the call of nature, I'll just take her place in the debate.
I am very pleased that the minister announced a review of the Pharmacare programs today, and I'd like to simply take....
Interjection.
Hon. T. Perry: I have a local riding concern in this issue as well. Pharmacare dollars are spent in my riding also; taxpayers in my riding also pay for the Pharmacare program. I'm sure that when the hon. minister returns in due course, she will be delighted to address the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's questions.
I'd just like to say that I'm pleased to see the minister has announced her review of Pharmacare. It's long overdue. The Hansard debates will register that I raised such questions when I had the august privilege of sitting on the other side of the House. It's going to be a very constructive review. It's going to help us ensure that we maintain Pharmacare programs for those people who really need them and the ability to prescribe very good, new drugs to people who can benefit tremendously from them.
I note the member was talking about mental illness. In recent years we have seen some very powerful and effective new drugs introduced for the treatment of schizophrenia, which are generally too expensive for the sick person to pay for, were they obliged to pay out of pocket. It's very important that we maintain the universal social program and ability to buy the very best drugs that money can buy for people suffering from schizophrenia. In order to do that, we have to be sure that we're not wasting money on drugs which people don't need or on expensive drugs when a less expensive version could be effective. We know from very expert advice that some people think as much as $50 million per year could be saved within the Pharmacare budget if we were to substitute generic drugs more effectively, if we were to prescribe good old standard medications like aspirin for the treatment of pain and inflammation rather than prescription drugs in some instances, and if we were sometimes to use the slightly less glitzy version of a therapeutic agent that can work as well or better than the newer version.
If we do that increasingly, we'll be able to buy those wonderful, brand-new drugs that are coming out, the product of intensive basic and applied research in companies like: Merck, which we hope will soon be announcing a new research institute at the University of
[ Page 6261 ]
British Columbia; Sandoz, whose president I hope to be meeting next week to discuss further possible collaborations in British Columbia; some of the large European companies like Astra, which is investing money at the University of Victoria in research on peptic ulcer disease, because they found one of the best scientists in the world in that field to help sponsor it; or many other companies that are bringing us wonderful new products like clozapine or the new risperidone, just licensed in Canada today for use in schizophrenia.
[5:30]
So I think it's a very exciting thing that the minister has announced her review of Pharmacare. I look forward to hearing the results of that review. I think that the individuals she has chosen -- Dr. Howard Petch, the former president of UVic; Dr. Janet Martini; and Mr. Derek Daws, a pharmacist very experienced in drug utilization review -- are going to do a bang-up job. I'd like to ask the minister, once she's resumed her seat, whether she thinks the opposition will be taking a constructive role in that process and contributing some constructive ideas to the Pharmacare review, as I very much hope they will. Now that she's had a chance to refresh herself, I look forward to hearing her answers both to my question and to those from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
Hon. E. Cull: We're all human, hon. Chair, and from time to time, sitting in here for three and a half hours at a stretch, everyone has to get up and go out for a while. I thank the members for their patience.
I think the Pharmacare review is going to be a very productive process. I was very impressed this morning with the comments made by the panel. I hope that the opposition, because they have said they're interested in cutting waste and promoting better health, will become involved and will go to the meetings in their communities, encourage their constituents to show up at those meetings and make a positive input to the process.
K. Jones: Going back to the question I put before, can the minister give us some indication of how she's going to address the needs of Surrey Memorial? It represents the psychiatric needs of the entire lower Fraser Valley and there is really a very limited amount of secure facilities there. In fact there is a need for additional assessment beds, which will require around $160,000 in renovation of existing facilities to provide the proper security. This is not for the direct holding units but for the general basic security upgrading of the hospital. I wonder if the minister could give us an indication of how she's going to address that very serious need in Surrey and try to improve the situation we have with regard to psychiatric patients' care.
Hon. E. Cull: As I was leaving the chamber a few minutes ago, the member was saying that we didn't need the people; we just needed the safe, secure spaces. Providing programs involves staff, resources and space. We don't plan any of these things in isolation. They are all part of the same thing.
We will continue to work with Surrey Memorial Hospital. As you know, they have a master plan that they have been working on for some time; we support it. We will be funding it in terms of the capital developments that are needed there.
We will continue, through the initiatives that have already begun through regionalization in the Fraser Valley, to start to address those high-priority needs in communities. One of the things that we have been talking about doing is ensuring that communities have a greater ability to set priorities and direct their dollars towards the priorities. If those priorities are hospital beds and community-based programs for the mentally ill, youth programs, seniors' programs, eating disorder clinics, or whatever it is in the spectrum of health care services, then those are the priorities that we will be directing funding towards.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
K. Jones: For a long time the Colony Farm forensic centre has been a concern to any person who has had an awareness and a concern about the mental health area. I would like to ask the minister what plans she has for the replacement of that facility, which has long exceeded its capability of being an appropriate facility for the treatment or holding of persons who have forensic as well as mental health problems.
Hon. E. Cull: I concur with the member that that building is in need of replacement. When the royal commission looked at that particular facility, I think they said that it wasn't fit to keep animals in, let alone human beings, so it's obviously a priority to replace that building. We now are planning for the replacement and have provided planning funds to the forensic institute to do the planning for a replacement structure.
L. Reid: In keeping with canvassing psychiatric issues, a concern has been raised with me in the last number of days regarding the psychiatric day program at St. Vincent's Hospital. It suggests that it's an urgent and serious concern because the program is up for elimination. We currently have two separate day programs and three evening groups, all filled to capacity with a three- to four-month wait-list. Each program is tailored to a specific client population.
I understand your comments about hospital funding and where they consider their priorities to be, but in terms of moving to a Closer to Home model, it seems to me that this is a program.... If we are moving individuals from Riverview and different centres, we need to have some programs in place that will look at how these individuals occupy their days -- what kinds of positive interventions are in place so that they actually feel a part of a community. This day program looks at people with affective disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress, and it looks at individuals who have severe thought distortions that impair their ability to work, to live successfully with other people, or to live safely in their communities.
These are individuals who are leaving some kind of residential setting and coming to the communities and who still require ongoing care during the day to allow them to exist in their communities in a safe way. I
[ Page 6262 ]
would like the minister to take a very careful look at the psychiatric day program at St. Vincent's, because I believe that it's just one of many that will, hopefully, not fall by the wayside.
I believe that the services they offer in terms of being an outpatient service, in terms of fitting in beautifully with the New Directions in health care is an issue that we must address. If we're going to be seen as supporting New Directions in health care, community service and the shift to the community, all of these things would, I trust, become a priority. Are you aware of the planned closure of the psychiatric day program, and are there some plans in place to ensure that this type of programming remains in the community?
Hon. E. Cull: I agree with the member with respect to the importance of these kinds of day programs. I'm not aware that St. Vincent's has any plans to change its program. I certainly won't dispute what the member has said, but I'm not aware of it. Hospitals are, of course, autonomous bodies and do make decisions, but it surprises me somewhat, as we have been working with St. Vincent's on their role as a geriatric facility as opposed to another general all-purpose acute care hospital. If I recall correctly, I was there last year for an official opening that pertained to just such a program. I don't know whether the information is incorrect, or what the situation is. I've made a note of it, and we'll certainly look into it.
L. Reid: I would be pleased to share the information with you, because I'm not convinced that this type of program would coincide with geriatric programming. It may be that these individuals are very young. In fact, a lot of them are in their early twenties and thirties. That doesn't lessen the need for such a program. I believe that they need to ensure that those facilities are available in the community -- not there particularly, as long as there is some service that supports them.
I want to move, in the last minutes of debate this afternoon, to a consideration of the legalization of midwives in British Columbia. I'm absolutely delighted that midwives will be a legalized profession in the province. Some questions and concerns have been raised over the last number of days in terms of how best to move to implementation. I refer specifically to the Health Professions Council's recommendation on the designation of midwifery. One of the issues that caught my eye, in reading the report, was that the council made an attempt to address issues regarding the practice of native midwifery but was unfortunately unable to do so.
Does your ministry have any plans to ensure that native midwifery is a focal point? It certainly seems to me that the issues surrounding native health begin very young. If we were able to have trained midwives working with native populations -- and, I trust, native midwives working with their populations -- I think we would go a long way toward resolving some of these issues. I'm intrigued that they were not part of the original study. Can you perhaps comment on why? And what plans are in place to ensure that native midwifery becomes a focus?
Hon. E. Cull: I couldn't agree more with the member about the importance of the role of midwives in aboriginal health, because aboriginal communities have the highest rate of infant mortality. There are other complications that start very early in life that might be avoided or at least significantly reduced if we had trained midwives working with those women throughout their pregnancy, and indeed postpartum as well. In fact, our pregnancy outreach program, which obviously doesn't provide the delivery services or the services that a midwife would provide, does provide the outreach around counselling and education, and it has been focused, in many cases, on our native communities. Those are the kinds of educational and support skills that midwives, of course, provide only too well.
With respect to the Health Professions Council report, I released it on Monday of this week. I received it about a week and a half before that. So in all fairness, I haven't had time, nor has my staff had time, to fully review all the recommendations in there and, more importantly, to develop the plan to implement the various recommendations. I have asked the ADM responsible for policy and legislation to present me with such a plan, with an indication of how we will follow up on the recommendations, what the time frames would be and what the staff resources are. I share your interest in pursuing the one on native midwifery. When I get this information from my staff, I'd be happy to share it with you so that you could pursue it as well.
L. Reid: In terms of training for midwives, and again with reference to the aboriginal question, it talks about a multiple-route entry, a bachelor's midwifery program and three universities that are going to be providing that service: McMaster University in Hamilton, Laurentian University in Sudbury and Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Toronto. Five of the total number of seats are going to be reserved for aboriginal midwives. That warms my heart. Was there any particular reason for not ensuring that there was a midwifery program in operation in one of our universities? Was there any interest expressed by our schools?
Hon. E. Cull: The Health Professions Council has a very defined role in terms of what their job is. In fact, the terms of reference are in the beginning of the report that the member has there. Those terms of reference are the same in every health profession application they see. The job of the Health Professions Council, under the Health Professions Act, is to receive applications from groups that wish to become self-regulating bodies and to determine whether it would be in the public interest for them to do so. There is a set of criteria they evaluate with respect to that, such as whether it would be unsafe if this group was not regulated.
Anyway, the Health Professions Council doesn't get into the implementation of the program. All they have done is recommend that midwives be legal and autonomous in terms of having an autonomous college and multiple routes of entry. They had a number of
[ Page 6263 ]
other recommendations with respect to consulting your doctor in your first trimester, etc. What they don't get into is how you implement their recommendations. Should we have an educational facility here in British Columbia that trains midwives? If so, should it be a university, a college or an independent institution? They don't get into things like what the educational standards for midwives would be. Should it be only an approved training program? Is there a way for people who have experience and were midwives for 30 years in another country to come here and become licensed? All of those need to be sorted out as a result of the decision of the government to legalize midwifery. As I said to a reporter the other day, the Health Professions Council leaves more questions unanswered than it answers, because it's all the details now of how to do it.
We have a big job ahead of us, which is why in Ontario -- I was trying to remember when they made their announcement about legalizing midwifery; it was in the last 18 months -- they still don't have everything up and running, because they have had to put out a call to the educational institutions about educational programming and do the legislation and work with the college. There is still a lot of work to be done with respect to this.
[5:45]
At this point, I suppose this is a very good opportunity for the opposition to make useful and positive input into the process, because we haven't made decisions on many of the questions that you're asking. Your opinions will be sought, along with the opinions of others in the province.
L. Reid: My comment was simply to understand if any institution in British Columbia had expressed any interest. If they have not, I trust we can lobby heavily, I hope, for the University of Northern B.C. as a possible home to a midwifery program. In terms of where we go from here, I have some questions to the minister about billing, payment to midwives and obstetrical insurance. They are a significant concern to the community at large. I would be happy to relay the most accurate information on those questions if the minister would share it with us today.
Hon. E. Cull: These questions are in the same category as the ones that we were just talking about. The steps that we have to follow at this point, as we have to follow with all of the Health Professions Council's report, is that I and my staff will analyze the recommendations, look at some of the questions that fall out of those recommendations and make a recommendation to cabinet that will eventually become government policy. The decision about whether it will become a covered service is one that has not yet been made, although if it were not insured, one would ask a lot of questions about its real advantage to women in the province. But that decision has not been made.
With respect to the way that midwives would be paid, there are a variety of alternatives -- everything from fee-for-service to capitation to salaries. I suspect that at the end of the day there will be more than one method. Some midwives will be on salary. Others will be independent practitioners, and how they will be paid is still unclear. My objective in this regard will be to ensure that not only do we provide the choice of midwifery to women in the province in a safe and effective manner but that we don't add to health care costs by doing so. Not all of the methods of payment and all of the options that are answers to the questions you've posed will meet those criteria. We will be looking for cost-effective ways that do not add to health care costs but provide women with the option of midwifery and, hopefully, with better birth outcomes in the long run.
L. Reid: What is the status of the insurance in terms of the midwives who are currently operating out of Grace Hospital? How does it work? Is there any possible carryover to insuring midwives practising in other locations?
Hon. E. Cull: My understanding is that the pilot project at Grace Hospital works because the nurse-midwives are operating under the direction of a physician, so they are not functioning in an illegal way. Technically they are under the supervision of a physician, and I assume there is appropriate supervision that fits in with the needs of midwifery in that particular institution. That's how that one operates.
L. Reid: From your comments, then, I can deduce that no births will be going forward in the province until we resolve the insurance question. That certainly is an issue for practitioners in the field, but it is also a tremendous issue for moms who would love to participate in a midwife-assisted birth but have serious concerns about insurance. They are well aware of the insurance costs that must be borne by physicians who are engaged in obstetrics and gynecology. They need some response and even some reassurance in terms of looking at this issue in more detail. We would like to see many people look at it as a choice, but they need the reassurance that the choice is a legitimate one and has reassurances built into the process.
Hon. E. Cull: The liability is covered at Grace Hospital because a doctor is responsible in that particular project.
Women should know that while we have announced that we're going to legalize midwifery, it is not yet legalized and won't be until the college is established. That is going to take a bit a time. Midwives, I assume, will not be able to get liability insurance in the meantime because I don't imagine that anyone will be insuring services which are not yet legal in this province, despite the intention to make them legal as soon as possible. That doesn't mean that midwives don't practise in this province. We all know there are midwives who help women deliver babies.
Liability insurance is a very major concern. Midwives will have to have it. I understand the Midwives' Association has already approached an insurer and started to make arrangements to ensure that midwives will be able to get the liability insurance they need. One of the conditions of getting a licence,
[ Page 6264 ]
undoubtedly, is that they will also have liability insurance.
L. Reid: How are the women who are practising midwives today in British Columbia and are not affiliated with the Grace Hospital project insured? Is that an issue that we need to discuss? I am aware of the situations that have gone through the court process because of difficulties in midwife-assisted birth. I'm trusting that we can put all of those issues to rest, and I trust that the minister will ensure that all of those items are in place once the legal process is in place. Would that be correct?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes. All of those things will have to be in place before legalized midwifery can proceed. With respect to your questions about what happens now, I have to repeat that midwifery is not legal now. These women are undoubtedly uninsured and they're practising outside of the law.
L. Reid: Are we anticipating a cost savings to the system, or are we anticipating maintaining the current costs of delivery in the system?
Hon. E. Cull: Depending on the location of the birth, the number of women who choose midwife-assisted birth and the method of payment of the midwife, there are significant savings that can be achieved, but one has to make assumptions about how many births that are now doctor-assisted in a hospital will move to midwife-assisted in a hospital, how many might move to a birthing centre, or ultimately, how many may even become home births as a result of the work on the demonstration project.
The figures that I have seen show that for a hospital-assisted midwife birth, it is possible to have savings in the order of about $2,000. It may be more than that in other locations. Those are very preliminary figures, and they have a lot of assumptions built into them that I think they need a little more working through before I'd feel really comfortable making hard statements about the numbers. Clearly there will be some savings realized in the vast majority of cases simply because women should be in and out of the hospital faster, even at the hospital-assisted birth with a midwife. They'll be able to have the support they need at home more readily.
Hon. Chair, seeing the hour, I'm not sure where we are with respect to how many more questions there are on this subject. It's been indicated there are two. Maybe we could get these two out of the way and finish this subject tonight.
L. Reid: In terms of the sections of the report that refer to home birth, it seems to be against the best advice of the day to be exploring it. Why has your ministry moved towards a demonstration project on home birth?
Hon. E. Cull: The Health Professions Council report recommends a demonstration project to determine whether home births can safely be done in this province. I have talked to the chair of the Health Professions Council and explained the approach that I announced on Monday, which is that we do a demonstration project to determine how they should be implemented. I understand that Mr. Epstein was on CBC radio this morning explaining to the public and to the interviewer that there wasn't a great deal of difference between the position we have taken and the position that he recommended. I have discussed that with him and he is quite comfortable with the approach we've taken. The main reason we have decided to move slightly further, but still, I think, within the very cautious framework of a demonstration project, is that groups like the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada have recommended that there is no problem with home births in low-risk, well-screened pregnancies. You've got to have all the conditions there with appropriate backup, which is why we need the demonstration project. What should the screening criteria be? What should the backup requirements be? So when those things are in place, a group as respectable as the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has in fact come down in favour of home birth. The studies that we have from Britain, which have been published in the British Medical Journal, and from the Netherlands again show the same: with low-risk pregnancies that are well screened, with the appropriate backup facilities, there is no evidence of any greater risk to the mom or baby for home births in those circumstances. Indeed, there is evidence that there is less medical intervention: fewer episiotomies, fewer of other kinds of medical intervention -- Caesarean sections and the like -- in those groups of women, even if you take the same group of women and look at what they would get in a hospital. So there's no evidence to prove they are unsafe.
People tend to be very cautious about this in this country because it is something new. I suspect a very small number of women will choose this option. But I think women have the ability to weigh the risks, to sort these things out for themselves. We're dealing with people here who I think are going to be very concerned about their own health and their child's health. I think that they're well able to do that. If we can provide the security of licensing, of screening, of regulations around home birth and demonstrate that it can be done effectively, then I think it will be a safe option for some women.
L. Reid: I would concur with your last statement. I think home births are reported to be requested by less than 1 percent of the population, who wish to have a midwife-assisted birth. In terms of the time line, could you touch on when the demonstration project may be up and running and when you expect the first report, because I'm very keen to support where we're headed in terms of midwife-assisted birth. I think, quite honestly, that liberalism stands for choice. We want to support any direction that would assist in offering as many choices as possible to women, whether it's in birth or other areas of their lives.
[ Page 6265 ]
Hon. E. Cull: As I said a minute ago, we have started looking at what will have to be done to implement it and developing the time lines. But until I get the report back from staff.... They've had a week and a half to consider the report. That's a bit short to know what the time lines will be. But we'll get them sorted out soon, and I'll share that with you.
Given the hour, I would at this point 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. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:46 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 19: minister's office, $419,486 (continued).
C. Serwa: It's nice to see someone better-looking in the chair, and I know that you will try harder than number one.
Just prior to recessing this morning, I asked a question on which I and British Columbians have a great deal of concern: the increasingly obvious incidence of what appears to be a sort of double standard in our system. I asked the question, and the minister started briefly to respond and then didn't respond any further. I'd given examples of that with groups -- whether it's civil disobedience or large groups -- and the reluctance to proceed actively against this. It may be malicious vandalism, in the case of strikes. It may be roadblocks on public highways, where these do not in fact go through native land -- aboriginal reserves, for example. It may be a protest by environmental groups. They seem to be able to flout the law and get away scot-free, and there's a great deal of concern about this. If this activity continues to increase, it will tend to propagate because individuals in society will be less disposed, with the perception.... That perception, I'm afraid, is more than a perception; it is becoming a reality. Perhaps the Attorney General would expand on his concerns and intended direction in this area to control and minimize this sort of dual or split type of treatment under the laws of this province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be useful for me to begin by reading from a note which was prepared by both the legal services branch and the criminal justice branch of the ministry a few weeks ago. I think the relevant sentences are under the heading "Basic Approach."
"The Ministry of Attorney General's policy is based upon a measured response to civil disobedience situations. The ministry has chosen not to criminalize civil disobedience situations as they are usually emotionally charged situations like strikes, protests or blockades, and involve people who are otherwise law-abiding. The ministry policy emphasizes that the civil law process be used. Whenever possible, an injunction is to be used to deal with incidents of civil disobedience."
The member is suggesting by his question -- I think -- that there is some kind of double standard. There are three or four kinds of civil disobedience that we've seen recently in British Columbia. On occasion we've had labour disputes which take on that element, as happened on the way to UBC with the CUPE dispute last year. They include environmental issues; they include native issues; and increasingly now they include people who are concerned around the choice issue. Those are four that come to my mind fairly readily. Our policy does not distinguish in any way between those kinds of disobedience. The RCMP, where they're involved, or other police forces, if they are involved, all operate under a general policy: to act with restraint; to not inflame the situation; and to not, if at all possible, make criminals out of people who genuinely hold a strong view and who are, for whatever reason, going beyond traditional rights in expressing those views. Often the trick is to discuss and negotiate and try to ensure that the access that is being denied is made available to people who need it. In my term in this office, that has happened in each of those four areas that I've mentioned. I have seen no discriminatory practice whatsoever by any police force or by the justice system in how we pursue those particular issues. Each one of them has to be dealt with differently, in the sense that each one is different. Each one requires a different solution.
I don't mind saying this -- this isn't direction to anybody, but let me tell you what my view is. I would rather have an extra day's inconvenience, if in taking that extra day to resolve the issue, we don't have recurring incidents down the road, because we have solved the basic underlying problem, or we have set in place a process to solve the underlying problem, if we can. We can't always do that, but sometimes you can. Sometimes the authorities involved in these issues will move a little more slowly than they might in other
[ Page 6266 ]
instances. But those judgments are made on the spot. They are made case by case, and they have nothing to do with the nature of the protest.
C. Serwa: I was not concerned about the differential in those four types of areas that you mentioned. I'm suggesting that the collective group seems to have far more latitude -- with respect to respecting the law -- than the individual in society, and therein lies the problem. It was not that any of these specific groups are treated differently. There is a seemingly general recognition of a dual standard -- that the differential is not between these groups, with their issues, but rather between the individual in society and the collective. So perhaps you would respond on that. That's the concern, hon. Chair.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before I give a long answer I want to make sure I understand the question, and I don't think I do. If the member is talking about a different response if there is a group of people demonstrating, as opposed to one person, the member is going to have to be more specific with me, in terms of giving some examples where he thinks that's occurred. By that I might be able to begin to try to answer.
C. Serwa: I won't have a specific actual event that transpired. But let's say I was an unhappy landowner and had B.C. Rail running through what was formerly my property, which was perhaps expropriated, and I've always felt that that was an injustice. So I decide arbitrarily to blockade B.C. Rail. As an individual I would be treated very harshly, very quickly and very differently than a group that blockaded B.C. Rail. That is the point I'm trying to make. The reality is that we're seeing a greater degree of latitude being given to groups by the current government. And that is a concern of mine.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't accept that there's that kind of difference. The police always undertake a measured response. They assess the situation -- whether there's one person or ten thousand -- and take action that, in their view, will not inflame a situation but will work toward its resolution. If the member describes a situation that I understand to be a civil matter between two parties, the police may not even be involved, unless events get to a point where that's necessary. I'm not sure where we're going with this.
C. Serwa: I won't belabour the issue; I've tried to make the point. I think the minister has responded to the best of his ability in that particular area. I will continue to hold a concern. Hopefully, the Attorney General will look at that, and rather than having situations escalate we will be able to get some greater semblance of control.
On another issue involving aboriginal peoples, I'd like to talk about property ownership. When I travelled around the province as Chair of the Premier's Committee on Native Heritage, Culture and Language, throughout the province, in many of the representations made to us, the native people indicated that property ownership was exceedingly important to them, and that they felt the rule of law and order emanated from the actual ownership of property. Clearly, with the land claims situation, this is again a concern. The current situation is that the reserves at the present time are federal private land, and the actual ownership of that land is by the federal government rather than the natives of the specific community. I was just wondering what the Attorney General's feelings are on the property ownership the aboriginal people feel is so important. Does he see that individuals will own property, or should have the right to own property? Or should it be a sort of collective ownership? I'd like to have his views on this.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure how far we could get along this particular road in terms of the legal issues involved, which I have to be mindful of. We are awaiting now an appeal court decision, which may be a matter of weeks away, on the Delgam Uukw case, which deals with many of the legal questions around the member's question.
In respect of reserve land, we're talking about the Indian Act, which is a jurisdiction of the federal Parliament, and I'm not sure my views on that are particularly useful in this forum. As for the opportunity for native people who wish to own private property -- real estate, I think the member is talking about -- there is no prohibition whatsoever on native people to go into communities around this province and acquire real estate, should they choose.
[3:00]
We're talking here about an issue at a multiplicity of levels, and I'm not going to get into the issues that are in front of the courts. I don't think that there's much gain by me expressing my personal views on what native people might want. I think that's for them to sort out in terms of their position, and in some parts of it the discussions will end up at the claims table.
C. Serwa: Does the minister agree with the statement that it is an inherent sacred right to own property?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know what "inherent sacred right" is. If it's at all related to sacred trusts that Prime Ministers talk about, then I would be very reluctant to use the term. If the member wants to draw me into a debate about property rights, let me say very quickly that I'm one of those people who is very fortunate in our society to be able to own real property -- in fact, two pieces of real property, which I think makes me among the very privileged in our society. I'm happy to be part of that group in our society, and I wish everybody could be in there with me.
C. Serwa: I think that the Magna Carta in 1215 established and was based on the sacred inherent right to own property.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: For whom?
D. Lovick: What percentage of the population?
[ Page 6267 ]
C. Serwa: For all people as individuals.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Chair -- an unruly lot today.
Nevertheless, it established that particular right. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights also supports the inherent right of individuals to own property -- not the right of individuals to enjoy property, but the inherent right of individuals to own property. Does the minister agree that the inherent right to own property should be emphasized and actually enabled under our constitution?
D. Lovick: Which part of the estimates does this fit into?
The Chair: Relevancy is an important issue here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Can the member indicate the page that this is on?
C. Serwa: I think if we were going to deal merely with the estimates and the accounts.... What I'm trying to establish is some of the philosophical goals the minister has for his ministry. With respect, the practices and the actual events that occur within the ministry are as important as to the dollars and cents. If we were only concerned with the dollars and cents, I'm quite confident that you could have a number of accountants look over this matter. I think that if the hon. Chair will look through the types of questions, there have been a great many inquiring as to the philosophical direction of the current Attorney General. This particular question is indeed relevant and pertinent to the scope of authority of the Attorney General. I would ask that the Attorney General respond to that specific question.
The Chair: The hon. Attorney General -- as you see fit.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have no plans in place, nor are we likely to, to change the current regime in respect of property ownership.
W. Hurd: The hon. member for Okanagan West has opened up an interesting line of questioning on property rights, because they refer to more than just the owners of real property. They also refer to licences of the Crown in the province. I want to ask a series of questions about the Schwindt commission and the considerable public input that flowed into the Ministry of Attorney General. I wonder if the minister could give us any advice.... I realize I can't ask questions about future legislation. But is he continuing to receive public submissions on the important issue of resource compensation, particulary arguments from legal circles that resource rights holders should have the right of appeal to the court system?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The public part of the process in respect of developing policy for compensation for resource-taking concluded some time ago. There is the occasional bit of correspondence on the subject, but most of that happened last year when the process was under review.
As far as where we're going from here, the government is still considering its options.
W. Hurd: Given the interim period we're in between public submissions to the Schwindt commission and future legislation, I assume the province continues to be governed by the compensation commission that deals with requests for compensation. I am speaking specifically of the mining case in Strathcona Park, which was recently dealt with by the commission. A judgment was handed down and an award in the range of $350,000. Can the minister provide the committee with some idea of the work of this commission during this interim period, and whether it will continue to be the arbiter for claims on resource compensation in the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is referring to the Expropriation Compensation Board, which hears questions on the expropriation of property -- it obviously heard the Casamiro case -- and deals with some of those issues but not others. Where that board is not the arbiter, then the courts are, and whatever law is in place will provide -- together with the common law -- the framework for decision-making.
W. Hurd: In connection with the case that the Attorney General has brought up, it is the understanding of the opposition that the plaintiffs in fact went to the courts first. Once the courts had made their decision, it was then referred to the Expropriation Board for determination of damages or costs or compensation.
Since this process is destined to be with us for a while, pending the introduction of new legislation by the government, is the minister satisfied that this process will do the job in the short term and provide resource rights holders with the appropriate level of comfort in terms of compensation claims for licences expropriated by the Crown?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer is that the regime that is in place works -- provides remedies -- which is the important issue, I think. Whether or not a different regime needs to be in place is a question that's being considered, and we'll get to it in due course.
W. Hurd: The Expropriation Board had some rather harsh words for the government in connection with the case that it dealt with in Strathcona Park. I believe it mentioned that the government and its servants were determined to deprive the claimants of the use of their property without paying compensation. In this case, the Expropriation Board seemed to indicate that, during this transitional period, there appeared to be a policy from the ministry of actually trying to thwart or deny compensation claims. Has the Attorney General reviewed that particular comment from the Expropriation Board, and does he think it has any relevance?
[ Page 6268 ]
Should this committee be concerned about that kind of statement from a commission or a board that's there in the interim period to oversee awards or compensation for resource rights holders?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, this is not a commission, and it's not in place on an interim basis. This is a quasi-judicial board which makes decisions in respect of the expropriation of property. It has been happening for years, and I expect it will happen for years to come. In respect of particular cases, I'm not going to get into the details at this point.
W. Hurd: Well, I must say I am puzzled by that response. Clearly the board made a rather strong statement about the role of government in this particular case. I emphasize again that I was struck by the determination of the government to deprive the claimants of the use of their property without paying compensation. I assume that that was part of the decision handed down by the board. I wonder if the Attorney General could enlighten the committee as to.... I assume his officials have read the summary of the award. Could he advise the committee of what the board might have been referring to when it talked about a determination to deprive claimants? Does he accept the language of that report, or does it overstate the case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the same way that I wouldn't comment on a case before the courts or on a judgment made by the courts, I won't comment in this case. It's not for me to comment one way or the other on comments made by judicial officers in this province.
W. Hurd: Unfortunately, that answer won't provide much comfort to resource rights holders who have made submissions to government on the Schwindt commission recommendations and have been advised that legislation is pending. Of course, we know that the only process that's in place during the interim period is the Expropriation Compensation Board. Under that process the resource rights holders do have the right of appeal or the right to go to court and have the damages determined by this board. The fact that the board would make a declaration like that -- which may or may not represent the policy of the Ministry of Attorney General during this interim period -- is somewhat disturbing.
Perhaps I could ask another question regarding the status of Mr. Ace Henderson, the special prosecutor who was appointed by this government in the last fiscal year to look into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Will the Ministry of Attorney General be retaining Mr. Henderson in any way, and will the money paid for that special prosecutor continue into this fiscal year?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mr. Ace Henderson was appointed special prosecutor in the last fiscal year. He is still a special prosecutor in this fiscal year.
W. Hurd: Can the Attorney General advise us of whether there is any reporting schedule on the status of this investigation? Clearly the investigation appears to the public to have gone on for an inordinately long period of time. Can he advise us as to whether the ministry receives any updates on the progress of the special prosecutor's work? Is there any comfort he could provide this committee or the people of the province that the special prosecutor is nearing resolution on this case?
[3:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The comfort that all of us are provided with is that this is an entirely independent process -- completely independent from government. That's the comfort all of us in the province have in respect of how the justice system works.
I would like to suggest to members who don't understand how the criminal justice system works in this province that we would be very pleased to spend some hours in the near future, at the members' convenience, going through exactly how the criminal justice systems works in British Columbia and, in particular, how the recommendations of the Owen report of four or five years ago are actually implemented in this province. The police and the special prosecutor have conduct of this case. I have no knowledge, nor do I want to have any knowledge, of how it's going.
W. Hurd: I have a few further questions in connection with Mr. Henderson, the special prosecutor. If the special prosecutor were to request information from a member of the executive council -- from any member of the assembly, for that matter, but particularly from the executive council -- in the way of documents to assist in the investigation, would that come to the attention of the Attorney General? Would information requested from any member of the assembly, but particularly from the executive council, be expected to be provided to the Attorney General? Or would it flow by the legal terms of the detached nature of the investigation directly to the special prosecutor?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the RCMP or Mr. Henderson are needing information for their purposes, they will seek it from where they need to seek it. They have no obligation to tell me, nor would I expect they would.
W. Hurd: Therefore there would be no obligation on the part of a minister of the Crown to provide to the Attorney General any information that they may have been requested to furnish to the special prosecutor in connection with this special investigation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the same way that the theoretical minister of the Crown wouldn't supply the information to the hon. member, he or she wouldn't supply it to me.
W. Hurd: So I guess what I hear the minister saying is that this investigation could continue for some time, possibly through the entire next fiscal year, without the Crown having the ability to even monitor the progress
[ Page 6269 ]
of the case or report to the Legislature in any way. Due to the inordinate length of the investigation, and because it represents a matter of some significance to the public of the province, would the Attorney General accept the notion that there should be some report to the public under the Freedom of Information Act about the status or progress of this investigation? Or would members of the public, who are concerned about the progress of this investigation, be advised to send their inquiries directly to Mr. Henderson's office?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Clearly my offer of a few minutes ago is essential. I am not being facetious when I say that I think all members of this House have an obligation to understand how the criminal justice system works. The RCMP or any other police force, or prosecutors for that matter, in the course of investigating alleged criminal activity do not give progress reports to anybody, other than when it's appropriate. They may make a report to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General in charge of the criminal justice branch, who has sole and final authority in these matters.
The member suggested a minute ago that he can assume from my answer that this might go into the next fiscal year. He can assume nothing from my answer, because I know nothing more about this investigation than he does -- nor should I. If I did, I should resign.
W. Hurd: I respect the Attorney General's answer. Given the fact that it involves, at least in part, his own party, I commend him for his determination to honour the separation of the Attorney General from the special prosecutor's investigation. He should be aware, however, that certainly members of the opposition are receiving calls about this, particularly because the case does involve funding for upcoming municipal elections and federal elections. It clearly is a matter of public policy and good government, and the two emerge from this case.
D. Schreck: On a point of order, the member's remarks may be appropriate in some other forum, but they are totally out of order with respect to the estimates of the Attorney General. The member should confine his remarks to these estimates.
The Chair: Undoubtedly the member will govern himself accordingly.
W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate that advice from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- which is the reason I asked the question originally -- as to whether Mr. Henderson's stipend or financial arrangement would be paid by the Attorney General and would continue into the fiscal year.
Perhaps I could ask the minister a question about another special investigation that I assume will be funded by the ministerial estimates -- that of Mr. Justice Peter Seaton and the conflict-of- interest allegations made against the endowment fund. My question is whether the Ministry of Attorney General sought an outside legal opinion on the decision to eliminate Mr. Hughes from this inquiry or whether, in fact, the decision was one that was generated within the ministry.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It was a cabinet decision.
W. Hurd: Can the Attorney General advise us whether that cabinet decision was subjected to any legal scrutiny as to whether Mr. Hughes's involvement with the Financial Administration Act legally precluded him from being a special investigator under section 15 and, I believe, section 16 of the conflict of interest commissioner's act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Cabinet was in receipt of legal opinions. Under the freedom of information legislation, presumably in 15 years members will have an opportunity to read it.
W. Hurd: I certainly appreciate that open and honest answer. With respect to the decision by cabinet, could the Attorney General advise us whether this means Mr. Hughes will now be specifically excluded under sections 15 and 16 of his act for undertaking special investigations on behalf of the Legislature that might involve the Financial Administration Act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, each case would be examined on its merits.
W. Hurd: I'm somewhat puzzled by that answer. Clearly the involvement of Mr. Hughes when he was an employee of the Ministry of Attorney General and his involvement in either drafting or approving the Financial Administration Act was cited by the Attorney General as the reason why his office was excluded and an outside appointment was made. Would it not be reasonable to infer from that decision that in fact Mr. Hughes would be unable to examine any case involving the Financial Administration Act in the province? What specifically about the M-B case would be different from any other -- for example, a potential inquiry involving Westcoast Energy or any other share-purchase made by government?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's impossible for me to predict the details of any other potential case, and so I can't answer that question. I can say that one of the things we wanted to ensure, in giving the public confidence about the concerns that had been raised around this issue, was no possible suggestion that there was a problem in any way with an inquiry into the issue that was raised by Stephen Owen. A number of people had raised with the government the concern that at the time the 1988 amendments were made to the Financial Administration Act, Mr. Hughes was the Deputy Attorney General and was copied on correspondence from within the ministry in respect of opinions on that legislation. Because we wanted to ensure that no one could ever say that there was any question around this issue, we wanted it completely separated from any possible taint -- not that there necessarily was any. We're dealing again here, as we often do, with
[ Page 6270 ]
perception. Because the question had been raised, we decided that it would be in the public interest to ensure complete separation from anyone who had been involved in any way with the changes to the Financial Administration Act, which the former government introduced, and which opened the door to the acquisition by Finance ministry officials to purchasing shares on the market. It's for that reason that Mr. Justice Peter Seaton was asked to conduct the inquiry -- so that there could never be any doubt whatsoever about the results of the inquiry.
W. Hurd: What disturbed me about that answer is that Mr. Hughes's office is an office of the Legislature, and under sections 15 and 16 of his act the Legislature has the right, by motion, to appoint Mr. Hughes to conduct a special inquiry into anything it wants to, basically. I realize we're treading slightly outside the bounds of estimates, but I think it's an important issue to explore. Clearly there's a perception that Mr. Hughes's credibility in dealing with some issues on behalf of the Legislature may be compromised by the fact that cabinet has made a determination that he won't be able to deal with issues specific to the Financial Administration Act, because he was responsible, at least in part, for drafting changes to the regulations. I wonder if the Attorney General could provide the committee with some comfort by agreeing that should the Legislature wish to appoint Mr. Hughes, by a motion, to conduct a special inquiry, he would be able to look at any aspect of a conflict of interest vis-�-vis the Financial Administration Act in British Columbia.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the Legislature chose to ask Mr. Hughes to do what the member suggests, then Mr. Hughes would do it. The Legislature is supreme.
W. Hurd: I guess my logical question, then, is: why would the cabinet choose to make that determination of its own volition rather than allowing the Legislature to appoint Mr. Hughes to conduct an inquiry? Of course, the Attorney General will be aware that there was a motion on the order paper to do exactly that. I'm not comforted by the answer that Mr. Hughes is precluded from looking at the M-B share purchase because of his involvement with the Financial Administration Act, but may, according to the answer from the Attorney General, be able to look at other share purchases. Because clearly the implication from the decision of cabinet was that by virtue of Mr. Hughes's involvement as a public servant some years ago, he is in fact not able to deal with a specific request of the Legislature that might deal with the Financial Administration Act. I really fail to understand what differentiation the Attorney General is making here between the M-B share purchase and anything else that might come as a result of the Financial Administration Act.
I'll restate my question: does Mr. Hughes's involvement as a public servant in drafting this piece of legislation potentially apply to other pieces of legislation that Mr. Hughes might have been involved in during his stint as Deputy Attorney General? Is it fair that the past public service of the conflict-of-interest commissioner in principle should preclude him from doing anything on behalf of the Legislature?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I need to remind the member that the legislation under which Mr. Hughes operates is called the members' conflict-of-interest legislation. The legislation includes sections 15 and 16, which provide an opportunity, should it choose, for the executive council or the Legislature to ask Mr. Hughes to take on special tasks. That came about as a result of an incident a few years ago when, because of the previous legislation, Mr. Hughes was unable to take on a special task. It was the desire of the Legislature last year to enable itself or the cabinet to, when it chose, refer certain questions to Mr. Hughes. So whenever the Legislature chooses to do so, it can. Whenever the cabinet chooses to do so, it can. But it doesn't have to.
[3:30]
All kinds of questions go outside. One went outside this morning to Mr. Matkin on an entirely different issue. There are inquiries frequently. Several inquiries are being conducted right now, not by Mr. Hughes. One is the Sarich inquiry in the Cariboo; another is the Oppal inquiry into policing. Inquiries into public matters don't necessarily have to go to one person. They can go wherever cabinet chooses in that case; or if the Legislature chooses, it can send a particular issue to Mr. Hughes under sections 15 and 16.
I can't stand here and predict what the Legislature or cabinet might do in the future. On that issue it was determined that it was in the best public interest to ensure that no one could suggest there might be a problem -- because people had suggested there might be a problem. If we had done what the member suggests, I'd be standing up here today defending and being attacked for that decision. So I don't mind; you'd attack me for this one or attack me for the other way. Whatever we do, we'll be attacked. So carry on.
W. Hurd: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the point has been lost.
D. Lovick: Point of order. The member opposite is not known for his perceptual acuity, but surely even he can tell that we do not have a Mr. Chairman present. I would suggest the member please reshape his language so it is appropriate.
W. Hurd: The governing party changes committee chairs so fast it's almost impossible for the members of the opposition to keep track. I do respect the fact that we have musical chairs in Committee A, and I apologize for that.
Further to my questioning, however, I think my point was lost. The cabinet has made a determination that Mr. Hughes, by virtue of his previous employment with government, is precluded from a certain type of investigation. I guess that's what troubles me, hon. Chairperson, about the nature of the decision by cabinet. I respect the fact that Mr. Justice Peter Seaton was appointed, and that Jim Matkin was appointed as a special commissioner of inquiry. But I'm not aware that cabinet does a multiple choice on potential commis-
[ Page 6271 ]
sioners and goes public in ruling out one commissioner by virtue of something in his past public service. Again I find it somewhat troubling that Mr. Hughes's past public service as an official in the Ministry of Attorney General is the reason why he would not be able to conduct an inquiry under sections 15 and 16 of his act, which one assumes should have been the right of the Legislature. But I recognize that we're not progressing with this discussion.
Perhaps I could ask another series of questions with respect to an issue that came before the opposition just this week: the status of the Beaver Lake lands in the northern part of the Island. I was particularly struck by the claim of certain parties there that the full amount of the land should be in trust and exempt from development. I understand that the Ministry of Attorney General has rendered a legal opinion on the status of that trust and the status of the lands. I wonder if he could amplify for the committee the position of the Ministry of Attorney General with respect to that trust in the Campbell River area.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before we go to the Beaver Lodge issue, I just want to make it absolutely clear -- because it's something the member said on the previous issue -- that Mr. Hughes is not precluded from anything in the future. A decision was made in this instance to follow that course of action. That doesn't preclude anything whatsoever in the future.
Just so the member who was looking for Beaver Lake has more success in finding it, it's Beaver Lodge near Campbell River. It's an area I know well, and it is one of the more troubling issues I've dealt with in my entire term in politics. I don't know how much information the member wants, but yes, it was trust land. It was a gift to the province of British Columbia in 1931. Starting in the late 1950s, successive orders-in-council violated the trust. One cannot alienate land that's gifted to the province in the way this was by order-in-council, and that was done during the fifties and sixties and throughout the seventies by the previous government. When that fact was discovered last summer, we made it clear to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that there was a trust in place and that steps would have to be taken to deal with that fact. Because there had been no apparent knowledge of the trust, the municipality of Campbell River and the provincial government, through a variety of ministries, had embarked on some development plans, some of which were irreversible. As a result of that, the Minister of Environment announced the other day that the Legislature would be dealing with this issue later in this session. Members should know that a bill will come to the House as soon as possible in this session to deal with that trust and the consequences of it having been alienated in some measure.
W. Hurd: I want to add a few further questions in connection with this issue. Can the Attorney General provide the committee with any comfort that while legislation is pending, no further land will be alienated from this trust in the form of development by local government? Are we in any danger of seeing further erosion in this area, which I understand was designated as a demonstration forest? Or is the land base sacrosanct until the government is able to bring forth legislation to deal with the trust?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no legal ability on anyone's part to further alienate the land; only the Legislature has the authority to do that, if it chose.
W. Hurd: Is the minister convinced that the concerns and fears of some of the residents and the protection groups that have been approaching both government and opposition about development by the municipality are groundless, pending direction by the province in the form of legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, the Minister of Environment and I made that clear to those groups six days ago -- last Friday. We made that clear to the municipality, the school board and the college board at the same time.
W. Hurd: I have a final series of questions on freedom-of-information legislation. It is my understanding that many ministries of government have their freedom-of-information departments up and running. Is the minister providing financial support to those ministries for this type of work they are taking on? Or are they basically on their own in terms of their own estimates for dealing with requests for information?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are two answers to that. Firstly, the responsibility for the administration of the legislation is in Government Services. When we get to the Ministry of Government Services estimates, the members will have an opportunity to inquire about administrative matters.
Secondly, every ministry has a budget allocated in the estimates this year for freedom-of-information activities.
W. Hurd: So the only involvement of the Ministry of Attorney General would be in bringing forth legislation, which is now administered by Government Services. Should any requests for information that might not be provided by the ministries, for whatever reason, come to the Attorney General or to the Minister of Government Services?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Government Services ministry has an information and privacy branch, and questions should be directed to that branch unless the questions have to do with Ministry of Attorney General matters. Then they should come to our officials or to me.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us what the status of the plan to bring in cold beer and wine to government liquor stores is?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm prepared to do that. We canvassed this exhaustively yesterday. I think the Blues will answer all the questions. If they don't, I'm prepared
[ Page 6272 ]
to answer further questions the member may have through exchange of correspondence.
C. Tanner: I wasn't aware of that. Thank you.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I have a couple of questions for the Attorney General relating to some constituency issues.
Before that, with respect to the line of questioning of the member for Surrey-White Rock, I was not clear at the end of the discussion on two issues. With respect to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal -- if I might call it that -- I understand what the Attorney General was saying in terms of the independence and separation of powers in his ministry. He indicated that the reports from the RCMP or the special prosecutor Ace Henderson would go directly to the assistant deputy Attorney General. Surely at some point the minister would be made aware of the process.
I'm not talking about the contents of any report but of the process itself. These have been longstanding investigations. For almost a year now these investigations have been ongoing. There must be some concern with respect to the cost of the investigations and the process. Is the Attorney General saying to the committee that he has no knowledge of the process of these investigations through any reports from his assistant deputy?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can tell you everything I know. The RCMP are investigating; they report to the special prosecutor, Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson, by law, shall carry out the mandate as set out in writing by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General and -- leaving a few words out -- report to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General with respect to the approval and conduct of any specific prosecution.
D. Mitchell: Time limits?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member asks if there are any time limits. Criminal investigations have no time limits.
D. Mitchell: With respect to the other matter the member for Surrey-White Rock raised about the Seaton commission inquiry and the fact that our conflict-of-interest commissioner Mr. Ted Hughes was not asked to conduct that investigation, I think the point the member raised initially, which was based upon the justification for not appointing Mr. Hughes, related to the fact that he had been involved with the government in a previous posting as Deputy Attorney General in the amendments to the Financial Administration Act. Therefore that placed him a situation that may have compromised him somewhat. I think that's the rationale that was publicly made by the government for not appointing Mr. Hughes.
I wonder where the Attorney General or the government draws the line on such a policy. Surely many of the Attorney General's staff would be involved in the process of drafting legislation on a whole variety of issues. Their fingerprints would be on legislation at various stages of the process. Does the Attorney General's ministry have any guidelines for precluding members of his staff from being involved in future inquiries that might directly or indirectly relate to legislation in which they've had a part in drafting? Where would you draw the line? Is it just a case-by-case instance that has simply been, at this point, used to apply to Mr. Hughes?
[3:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know where you'd draw the line, because it's a hypothetical question. It's impossible to draw lines in the sky as opposed to the sand.
If a former employee of the ministry had been involved in a particular statute or part of the ministry and then moved on to private life, and the government wanted to do an inquiry around that subject, I think the government would think long and hard before it appointed that individual to do the inquiry if -- as a result of doing so -- there might be a public perception that there could be a conflict. That's the kind of thinking that has to go on.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the Attorney General for that answer. I'm still somewhat puzzled by why Mr. Hughes wasn't appointed. I have no difficulty with the appointment that was made -- I don't think any British Columbian would. Mr. Peter Seaton will hopefully do a fine job. But if there were some other reasons why Mr. Hughes wasn't appointed, I think that would be fine too. If that's the only reason.... The Legislature decides; the government has the majority in the Legislature, and the government made a decision. I'm not sure why we need to resort to excuses about potential conflicts in his previous roles, because I'm not sure any exist.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try once again. The only issue that matters here is that, in the minds of some individuals -- perhaps not member or person in this room -- there was a perception, right or wrong, that Mr. Hughes may have a potential bias. That's what this perception is all about. For that reason -- in order to be absolutely free from any possible suggestion by even one citizen in this province that there might be a problem -- we chose to go the route we did.
D. Mitchell: Just to change the topic, the Attorney General has had some correspondence with me on an issue that I understand his ministry is involved in, with respect to a proposed ski-area safety act. While I don't wish to canvass future legislation in this committee, I wonder if the Attorney General can tell me where the process is on that concept, and whether or not legislation on that could possibly be introduced this year.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The matter that the member raises is in the hands of the Law Reform Commission. I sent it off some months ago. They are examining the particular question raised by the ski industry, to which I think both the member and I are
[ Page 6273 ]
quite attuned. I think we share a concern, and the Law Reform Commission is dealing with that. There are other issues -- the Occupiers Liability Act and other issues -- that flow out of this discussion or concern expressed by the ski operators, and the Law Reform Commission is looking at the whole question. That's why it's taking a little longer. I don't expect -- and in fact I'm quite certain that we will not have -- legislation this session. It will take a little longer than that. I can't promise it for next year, but it is my desire that we try to do something by then.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that. I hope he agrees that this kind of initiative could be very beneficial for a very important industry in British Columbia. While many American jurisdictions have similar legislation on their books -- dealing with liability issues for ski hill operators, at the same time enshrining a code of safe skiing practices for those who use ski hills -- we have an opportunity here to be leaders in Canada in terms of taking this legislative initiative. So I trust that whatever the contents of such legislation, it won't be delayed too much longer, because I think the ski industry is an important one for our province. It certainly is for my constituency in particular.
On another topic, I had some representations made to me -- and I think the Attorney General's ministry has as well -- with respect to small communities which are policed by the RCMP in British Columbia. These municipalities share a heavy cost burden as a result, and local taxpayers in many communities pay a substantial portion of policing costs through municipal taxes. There's a small issue, for instance, when it comes to traffic fines. When individuals pay a traffic fine in a small community, the revenue goes to the government. It doesn't go to the local RCMP police force; it doesn't stay in the community. I suppose it goes into the consolidated revenue fund.
I wonder if the Attorney General has considered or is considering, in the year under review here for spending, whether or not the province will share such fine revenues with municipalities.
The Chair: The Chair will be mum on this one.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Chair is supposed to be neutral.
The Chair: That is true. I am.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not just small municipalities; it's large ones too. I met with Prince George council on Monday afternoon. They made the same request to me, and my answer was no. But I said to them that because we've had occasional difficulty in collecting fines, we could turn over the fine collection to them, and we would reduce the unconditional grants by the same amount. They could have the fines and our problem of collecting them too. They weren't too keen about that. So I think what we've got is a situation that probably will remain in status quo for some time to come.
D. Mitchell: I have another topic for the Attorney General that is important to my constituency. There has been representation made to his ministry for a number of years prior to his assumption of the portfolio. It deals with a small community called Brunswick Beach. The Attorney General knows it well; it's on Alberta Bay. It's about a mile north of Lions Bay, and it's a residential community made up of about 50 homeowners who have lived there for a number of years.
In the last few years a problem has occurred where it's become a noted attraction for nude sunbathers. The Attorney General is aware of this issue, but the issue is actually quite a serious one for families with small children who live in the area. Every summer the area is inundated with nude sunbathers. In fact, the problem has grown so large that Brunswick Beach is now noted in an international magazine that is distributed world-wide as a destination resort for nude sun worshippers. It become a problem in the sense that every summer the residents who live right on Brunswick Beach are inundated with people who are coming there for reasons that aren't exactly conducive to family living. There are problems that have been raised with the RCMP Squamish detachment. I understand that over the course of time the Squamish RCMP detachment has tried to deal with this issue but has not had much support historically from the Ministry of Attorney General.
We're now at the time of year when this is starting to become a problem again for this small community. I wonder if the Attorney General can discuss with the committee today whether he has any intentions to act in a way that will protect the rights of this family-oriented community from a problem. Perhaps the Attorney General might also want to comment on whether or not the government intends to set aside specific areas of Crown land in the province for nude sunbathers. If so, surely this would not be in residential areas....
D. Lovick: Everyone deserves their place in the sun.
D. Mitchell: We have Wreck Beach as an example of an area that isn't adjacent to any residential neighbourhood, and it seems to be quite acceptable, at least by historical practice. Surely if the Attorney General ministry wishes to designate any areas for nude sunbathing, especially when Crown land is involved, these would not be and should not be in a residential area such as Brunswick Beach.
The Chair: This sounds a little like future policy or future legislation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: During the course of his remarks, the member made some comments which I took to mean that there just aren't enough hotel rooms and eating establishments in West Vancouver to handle the proposed influx of tourists that will be coming to his community as a result of all this international coverage -- for a little bit of uncoverage.
First of all -- and seriously -- the Criminal Code deals with this issue. If the police determine that there
[ Page 6274 ]
is, in their mind, a violation of the Criminal Code, they should gather that evidence and take it to the prosecutor's office and the process will unfold. There has been a suggestion that the Attorney General should embark on a civil remedy. The courts have found in the past that where Criminal Code remedies exist, you should not bypass the Criminal Code remedy by seeking leave to proceed by way of civil action. The matter should be dealt with between the RCMP and the Crown counsel.
D. Mitchell: My understanding from the hon. Attorney General is that this in fact has been attempted to no avail. It's an issue that some who aren't familiar with the community or don't have to put up with it might treat frivolously. But I believe it's actually a very serious issue for a small residential community with young children to be inundated by this kind of problem. It's quite serious.
I understand that a few years back the RCMP at Squamish worked very hard to obtain evidence necessary to put an end to the practice. The evidence was apparently submitted to the Attorney General's office -- not this Attorney General, but his predecessor -- and nothing has been done. The RCMP now take the position that for them to go any further would be a waste of taxpayers' money and time, because the issue is simply not pursued by the Attorney General ministry. Surely it's within the power of the Attorney General ministry to take some action on this, and I wonder why nothing is forthcoming.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the best way of proceeding on this issue.... I know it is a real concern not imagined -- to residents in the Brunswick Beach area, and I understand that. I think the best way of proceeding, rather than me going through the Crown counsel policy in respect of nudity, might be for the member on behalf of the residents to meet with the acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the criminal justice branch. The police and the criminal justice branch are always prepared to review matters. It may be that the facts are different today than they were when first examined, and we're certainly open to further discussions along those lines. I would ask that the member, if he chooses, to be in touch with the acting Assistant Deputy in the justice branch.
D. Mitchell: Thank you to the Attorney General. I will follow up on that suggestion. Just one final question on this: does the government of British Columbia intend to designate certain areas where nude sunbathing will be allowed, and if so, are there guidelines planned for such a thing? Or does this simply happen on an ad hoc basis?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was thinking of the rose garden outside the member's window. The answer, hon. Chair, is no.
D. Mitchell: On a different topic, I'd like to ask the Attorney General a question that's come to light about official court reporters in our system of justice. Apparently, there was a situation going back to about 1984 when a decision was made to privatize staff court reporters in Vancouver. At that time some court reporters were privatized and some weren't. There is a kind of hybrid system -- that's my understanding -- where some are and some aren't. Those who provide that service on a so-called freelance basis, it appears, also engage in other activities or businesses that they run on the side. There seem to be two classes of employees here, and the issue has been raised to me that perhaps taxpayers are subsidizing the activities of some court reporters. in terms of providing benefits and salaries to some official court reporters and not to others. We have two classes of employees here, and a serious equity issue has arisen, I understand. Has the Attorney General in his ministry decided to address this in any way, or is this going to be a process that's going to continue?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Quite some time ago we decided to address this. There have been several reports that address the issue, including an ombudsman's report by Mr. Peter Leask. Concerns have emanated from other directions as well. I wish I were, but I'm not able today to give members a solution to the problem. We haven't arrived at a solution to the problem yet. I can tell the members that there are continuing discussions as we speak, almost literally, about this issue. It is one that requires resolution. It is exceedingly complex and it involves a number of parties, and we are working as best we can to resolve the issues raised that are of concern.
[4:00]
D. Mitchell: I look forward to learning what the results of that are. I read with interest the ombudsman's recent report in terms of her comments, and I think there is an internal policy issue within the ministry that does need to addressed.
But we'll leave that aside. I have one other area I would like to canvass with the hon. Attorney General, and that deals with the recent Crown prosecutor's settlement. I'd like to thank the Attorney General for providing me with details of the settlement and the agreement between the government and the British Columbia Crown Counsel Association.
The concern that has been raised is with respect to the agreement itself, and the increase in remuneration for Crown prosecutors in British Columbia. While I don't take a specific point with the salaries that are being provided under the new agreement -- because I believe that Crown prosecutors in British Columbia work very hard and deserve their pay -- I would like the Attorney General, if he could, to justify to this committee the percentage increases and the retroactivity portions of those agreements, which seem extremely substantial by any standards in the public sector in British Columbia. Would he not agree?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Percentages are a terrible way of characterizing remedies in pay and classification issues. I'm sure the member knows, as all members do, that if somebody is earning $5 an hour in a job most
[ Page 6275 ]
people get $10 an hour for, and they get a raise up to the standard, they're getting a 100 percent pay raise. And it might be entirely justified. So percentages really are not an issue here.
What we've been dealing with were historical inequities of significant proportion. I resolved early in 1992 to work toward a resolution of that issue, which had been identified not only by the ministry but also by the Crown Counsel Association. We worked most of a year to reach that resolution. Together with pay adjustments and reclassification, it led in some instances to what could be characterized as large percentage increases. There's no doubt about that. But we were dealing, in some cases, with prosecutors earning in the low $30,000 range when the comparable rates across the country were from the high forties to the sixties for the same position. I think members would agree that we were really remedying an historic wrong. There may have been some large increases in percentage terms, but they're not large increases by any other standard.
D. Mitchell: I don't disagree with what the Attorney General said. I can't anticipate what the Korbin commission might reveal in terms of acceptable guidelines for public sector salary levels or guidelines in the future. Clearly such guidelines don't exist right now. They haven't prohibited this agreement from taking place, where a Crown prosecutor with less than five years' experience has had his or her salary increased from a range of $32,000 to $51,000 in one step -- that's a large increase for one step -- or one with between five and ten years' experience increased from $50,000 to $67,000-plus in one step with significant retroactivity, so there would be a significant lump sum retroactive package as well. Clearly this is a large increase. Perhaps the Attorney General's ministry is trying to catch up and remedy in one step what he considers to be a historic wrong -- very difficult to do. I wonder if the Attorney General, in any further comments he wishes to make on this issue, might also indicate whether or not any consideration is being given in his ministry to establishing a public prosecutor-type system as opposed to the current system with Crown prosecutors?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: To clarify the way in which the increases have been provided, they were not by way of one step. This was a two-year phase-in program from April '92 to April '94. So we're in the middle of a two-year phase-in of these numbers.
As for the other issue, I assume the member is referring to a director of public prosecution -- independent prosecution -- rather than the system we have in this province. Again, that's an issue I expressed interest in right from the beginning not only as an intellectual interest in which is the better system but a practical one to see whether or not -- given some of the troubles that occurred in the previous decade -- some good public purpose was served by changing the system.
The issue is being dealt with by a variety of people in our society -- academics and others -- and there are a variety of opinions on the subject. We have, as a result of Stephen Owen's report of 1988 or thereabouts, built in the protections that the system needs through the amendments to the Crown Counsel Act that were introduced following that report. The independence that is required -- that we've been talking about this afternoon in respect of another issue -- is there. My experience so far in this position tells me that the system works well. It works independently and it works professionally. When that's the case, I don't see a need to change it for the sake of changing it because there might be another model -- which may well be just as good. There's no need to change when this one is working well, and this one does work well now.
R. Neufeld: I have a couple of questions for the minister. Both my colleague for Peace River South and I have written to you a number of times -- and you have replied -- about the movement of 16-wide mobile homes in the north, specifically in our constituencies. You apparently forwarded your letter on to the Minister of Highways, and the Ministry of Highways wrote back to the member for Peace River South. I won't read the whole letter, but I'll read the last paragraph, which says:
"However, the ministry would not be opposed to the movement of extra-wide vehicles, in excess of 4.42 metres, provided that a permit was received from the motor vehicle branch. In addition, the permit would be subject to factors such as transporting during daylight hours, weather, and the provision of traffic control."
Obviously we took that as your government's agreement that we could move 16-wide homes in certain areas of British Columbia as long as we met the criteria for pilot cars and all that type of thing in daylight hours. Specifically, when a person in Peace River South who only lives a few miles from the Alberta border went to get a permit at the motor vehicle branch -- I believe it was in Dawson Creek -- the branch would not issue the permit. We wonder if that was a mix-up in communications between your ministry, the Ministry of Highways or the motor vehicle branch.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Ministry of Attorney General is responsible for the issue; we have the jurisdiction. The motor vehicle branch is the branch entrusted with this. I've had correspondence from a number of members, including the two the member refers to. We have spent considerable time looking at the issue. On at least one occasion I asked that staff of the branch go back and re-examine the issue because the concern was being raised persistently. I felt we needed another look. The advice I'm getting back consistently from the motor vehicle branch is that it is not in the province's interest to make the change at this point. I'm aware that the Minister of Highways has sent the memo that the member refers to. His perspective is simply from Highways, which in many ways is a narrower one than we are obliged to bring to the matter. It might be useful if members who are concerned -- I think members all along the Alberta border have some concern -- spend some time talking about the matter with the superintendent of motor vehicles or his deputy, to see it from our perspective. If, following
[ Page 6276 ]
those discussions, there continues to be a view that we're wrong, I'm prepared to look at it again after that.
R. Neufeld: I know that this is not an ongoing thing just since you became Attorney General. I can remember -- long before I became an MLA, living in the north. where I had had a great deal of experience in the trucking industry; that's one of my backgrounds -- trying to get 16-wide homes moved in certain parts of British Columbia. I can understand that there are some areas in British Columbia that certainly cannot or would not handle 16-wide mobile homes in heavy traffic. To continue to talk to the superintendent of motor vehicles and all those people.... We can write letter after letter, and we're still probably not going to get an answer.
The answer has to be politically driven; it has to be a decision made by the minister responsible to allow it in certain areas of British Columbia. At the present time we move equipment in the north -- and have for a long time -- that requires wide-load permits -- wider than 14 foot 2. It's done. These mobile homes will not be moved every two or three months or something -- even 14-wides.
I don't know if the minister is familiar with a lot of people who live in mobile homes, but I lived in one for most of my life. I bought a 12-foot-wide mobile home and moved it probably twice in 20 years. The fear that's always put out that you're going to pick up and move this 16-foot-wide home two months after you set it up is a little ridiculous, to say the least. People usually set those up on a permanent foundation or a permanent structure of some kind. They are usually left in that position; in fact, even 14-wides and 12-wides are. I think it's going to have to come from the minister, because it is done now. Wide loads are moved on the Alaska Highway and on highways around Fort St. John and Dawson Creek -- tanks and drilling equipment.
If you're going to a forest fire, you can haul a D-8 with the blade crosswise -- and that's 16 feet or more -- with no pilot car. If they comply with the law -- a pilot car, all the permits that are needed, the daylight hours -- I don't see why we can't allow the movement of those vehicles. For us to continue to write to the superintendent of motor vehicles won't get us anywhere, to be quite honest. We'd be back here next year asking the minister the same questions.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Fair enough; the member doesn't have to.... I was suggesting more than writing, actually. I was suggesting that we sit down and have a discussion about it, to see whether that led anywhere. That's the choice of the member.
If we make a decision to allow 16-foot-wides to come the seven kilometres to the member's constituency, should we allow the next community and the one after that? And if so, where do we stop? If we allow 16-foot-wides into Dawson Creek, why not Prince George? And if Prince George, why not Kelowna? And if Kelowna, why not Vancouver? And if Vancouver, why not Nanaimo?
It's our considered view -- I have to say that, because I've given this more consideration, I'm sure, than many issues that require this kind of consideration -- that we can't make an exception in a particular part of the province without opening the door to the rest of the province. That's the conclusion we've reached, and that's the decision so far. I'm not so intractable that I don't always keep an open mind about issues. I will do that, but I need to say to the member, so that he doesn't get too encouraged by it, that I have no evidence in front of me to persuade me that I should change my mind on this.
[4:15]
R. Neufeld: I don't want to belabour it any longer, but I will say that when we talk about allowing it in the rest of the province, those decisions would have to be made. There are parts of the province, as I said, that would not be able to handle a 16-foot-wide home because of traffic, narrow highways or whatever.
At the present time there are regulations in place that allow certain weight restrictions; they allow width restrictions in different parts of the province now. Why can't we -- for the north, and specifically Peace River North and Peace River South -- allow something to happen in those areas without feeling that we have to let it happen in the rest of the province? Many things are done by government -- not just your government but by all governments -- that look after the masses in the south but work exactly the opposite for people in the north. We accept that -- reluctantly at times, I must say. All we're asking is to reverse a little to where you could accommodate people, who happen to live in the north, on some of those issues.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
The Alaska Highway, for instance, is dramatically different from Fort St. John all the way to Fort Nelson. It's built by the federal government, and it's really wide. It can handle loads in excess of 16 feet quite easily. We are updating and changing up there. Highway systems are changing a bit; transportation is changing a bit. I would really encourage the minister to please look into it a little further. If he has to say, "I'm sorry, you people in the south can't have it," that would make us feel a little bit better.
I want to leave that and go on to the issue of drivers' licences. I wrote to the minister about young people of 16 getting a driver's licence, and he did reply to me. He said he was looking at some changes. I would like to get a bit of an update from the minister as to whether anything there has changed. Just to refresh your memory, in the north, where I come from, the seasons are remarkably different than they are here in the south. We have anywhere from 30 below zero and snow and freezing rain and icy conditions in the fall and spring, and lots of dust and mud in the summertime in some cases.
What I'm saying is that a lot of the licences are issued to youngsters at 16 years of age only after three months of having a learner's permit -- usually in the summertime. When all of a sudden they hit the fall and they hit the ice and snow, they are not acquainted with it. Maybe we should be looking at doing it more
[ Page 6277 ]
extensively. When I go to the lower mainland, and when I deal with the traffic down here, I find that I have trouble -- and I've had my licence for quite a while. I am sure that a 16-year-old must feel the same frustration down here -- and maybe cause some more accidents. Maybe we should be looking at taking more like a year of learning, with someone along who has a driver's licence. Has the minister looked any further into that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Very much so: we are looking at the whole question of the so-called graduated licensing system. Not so much from 16 -- I just want to make this point -- but for the first two years of possession of a licence. So it can happen at any age; it's the first two years of holding a licence. There are a variety of ways of dealing with it and of progressing from the first day to the end of the 24 months. The motor vehicle branch is actively looking at this issue. As I mentioned the other day in committee, we now have a cabinet traffic safety committee comprised of three members of cabinet. We will be receiving the report from the branch soon -- sooner rather than later -- and will proceed from there to try to make some determinations about how such a policy could actually be put in place. I am quite keen on it myself. I think that we could save a lot of lives. We could make better drivers out of our drivers if we were to adopt some scheme of this kind. We've been discussing the issue with the so-called stakeholder groups. We have to do cost-impact analyses, because there is some cost to the government if we move to this kind of a system, but the net benefit from moving in this direction is positive and worthwhile. We should do something, and we will be doing something, certainly during this term of office -- but earlier rather than later.
R. Neufeld: I want to go just a little bit further on the other end of acquiring a driver's licence. Many of the young people who have written to me have told me that it's not just the young people who cause the accidents. I say I have some difficulty driving in traffic in the city, and I wonder if at the other end of the scale -- when people get a little bit older.... I'm not sure of the process. Maybe you could explain to me what happens to people when their eyes become bad or their reflexes are not what they should be to drive. I wonder how some people can maintain their drivers' licences with the impediments that they have. Is there a process in place that deals with those issues, so we can do that fairly and uniformly around the province and eliminate that part of our problem?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope I heard the member's full questions. If I didn't, please ask me again. First of all, in respect of all drivers, if a doctor -- or anybody else for that matter -- has reason to believe that someone is unable to drive because of some impairment, and that's reported to the motor vehicle branch, the motor vehicle branch will call that driver in and assess their capability. At age 80, and every two years after that, all drivers are automatically reassessed on their driving capability. The system appears to be working relatively well. If I remember the numbers correctly, the accident rate of that age group is very comparable to the 16-to-25 or 16-to-20?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Oh, it's less? The accident rate is less among the old-timers than it is among the youngsters. It's higher than perhaps among those of our age, but nonetheless it's not so much higher that it warrants the kind of expense to do driver-testing in a more rigorous way than we do now. We do it automatically at 80 and every two years thereafter, and we do it whenever there's a suggestion by a doctor, in particular, that someone shouldn't be driving. We get those kinds of reports all the time, from doctors saying that so-and-so really shouldn't drive away from my office and please have a look at his or her capability.
R. Neufeld: So then we rely totally on the medical profession, on the doctors, up until the drivers are age 80, to make a report to government about someone's inability to drive? There is no other process in place? Did I understand that correctly? Up until age 80, the only process that's in place is if someone happens to go to a doctor and the doctor writes in and says that this person maybe shouldn't be driving -- or maybe I misunderstood the minister.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may not have expressed it clearly enough. Anybody can report to the motor vehicle branch. I could report you, and you would then have to go there. Police can do it, others can do it. Doctors do it. I emphasized doctors only because doctors are in a particularly unique position to be able to make that kind of assessment -- if they know somebody's blind and they're still driving, or whatever. But the motor vehicle branch will deal with any and all reports about a driver's capability.
R. Neufeld: I'm jumping around a little bit here, and I'll leave soon. I have just a couple more questions about Bill 3 and Build B.C. There was much discussion by quite a few members of the government about building much-needed courthouses within the province. Could the minister tell me where these are required? Are we looking for a whole bunch of courthouses? Could he expound on that a little bit for me, please?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Should I make the announcement here today about the capital program of the Ministry of Attorney General? I think not. But it's coming. The announcements will be made about this year's capital decisions in the not-too-distant future. So far, I think, across government only the education announcements have been made, but there are more to come. Beyond that, I can say that we are, in the ministry, doing an assessment of court needs. We've done one particular assessment in the lower mainland, and we are doing a similar kind of assessment across the province to make sure we can do the kind of planning that we need to do, to make sure we have courtrooms
[ Page 6278 ]
where they're needed and we don't have too many in some places and not enough in others. So that planning is underway. As far as the announcements go, hang on.
R. Neufeld: I'm sorry I didn't word that right. I'm not asking you to stand here and make your announcement about your capital program. That wasn't meant. What I was really meaning to get at was the utilization of the present courthouses we have already. I'm not familiar, of course, with the Vancouver courthouse; I've never been there, to be quite honest. But in the north, I have been to quite a few courthouses, and the utilization to me seems to be fairly low.
I'm not saying that the courthouses aren't used consistently, but they're not used through the day, to a great amount. I would think that what should be looked at in some of those areas is that -- instead of building more facilities, unless we need facilities for staff to work in those buildings -- we look at more judges or more in the manpower end of it, to get some of those cases tried on a longer day.
I guess what I'm going to tell you is that in Fort St. John I went to the courtroom a few times. It's a beautiful building, occupied for maybe two or three hours a day. I can understand why you can't have a judge sitting there listening to case after case. But, it seems to me that the rest of the time the building is empty. Would there not be a better way, instead of looking at building more courthouses -- unless they say there is need for more staff to work the system -- that we look at more people in the delivery end?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a number of issues around that question. The member's question is legitimate and valid.
The first issue is scheduling. Often cases collapse or get settled on the courthouse steps at 9:55, and it may have been a three-day trial. You're suddenly left without the courtroom being used. That kind of thing happens frequently. To try and overcompensate for that, the trials coordinators try to guess what's going to happen, and they sometimes build in more cases than the courts or the rooms can actually handle.
Beyond that, there is the question of whether a community, say Fort St. John, should have a courthouse when perhaps one in Dawson Creek would be enough. Those are tough questions. For reasons of budget... You just try to close a courthouse in a community; if you want to help me with the political heat from that kind of decision, I'd be delighted to have the help. I think there's some value in having the justice for a community administered within the community. On occasion that may mean a courtroom will not be occupied full-time.
Those are two issues. The third is the same issue that happens in schools: schools sit empty more than they get used. All kinds of public facilities are empty for a large number of hours of the year. Is that a good use of public money? Shouldn't we find ways of occupying the space for more hours during a day? If there are efficiencies and it works, then I'm open to looking at that kind of issue too. I don't know that that's necessarily the answer in the courtrooms.
In summary, I acknowledge that the member's concerns exist. There are some reasons for it, but that doesn't mean we should just sit and do nothing and let it go. We have to constantly evaluate how our courtrooms are being used and whether they are being used effectively. We are also going to have to look at whether or not we are, in some communities, in a situation with excess capacity. We may have to make some tough decisions around that as well.
[4:30]
R. Neufeld: Believe me, I was not saying that we should be closing a courthouse in Fort St. John or in Dawson Creek. Maybe in North Island we could close a courthouse someplace, but I'm not advocating that we close one in either place.
Really, what I was trying to get at is the scheduling and the use of the buildings a little more. A tremendous number of court cases in Fort St. John are put off all the time because of whatever reason; the minister explained some of the reasons. I hope we look at those areas, too, instead of just going out to some areas and building more courthouses. That's all the questions I have for the minister today. Thank you.
A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, I've actually enjoyed listening to the estimate debates. I want to thank a number of members who have contributed in a variety of ways. Mindful of the clock a little bit, we'll see what we can do. I do have a number of issues; I'll have a combination of some issues and perhaps some short questions as well. We'll see how far we go.
One issue that has arisen, which I would like to address, is the concerns expressed about the small claims fees that have been introduced -- resulting from the memorandum from the minister and ministry -- which I believe will apply May 10, or now, as applicable. On May 10 the fee for filing a claim in small claims court increased -- if you want to use percentages -- by 100 percent. It increased from $25 to $50 for claims under $5,000 and to $100 for claims over $5,000. In addition, anyone disputing a claim has to pay $25. Despite the revenue-generating aspect of the fee -- that may be one part of it -- it is estimated that there will be $2 million in revenue, I believe.
Perhaps the minister could tell us why $25 is the fee for filing a reply. The principle that has been brought to my attention is that if someone actually files a claim against someone, the defendant is forced to respond to that. Yet when filing a reply, except when the defendant has agreed to pay all of the claim, the person filing a reply must come up with $25. I suppose some people would argue that $25 is not much, but there's sort of a principle involved here. If a claim is made against you, why should you have to pay if you are forced to respond?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In terms of the direct question, if that reply were in a court other than small claims court, it would no doubt require the assistance of a lawyer. You can bet that it would cost more than $25. We are looking here at what you might describe in comparative terms as almost nominal charges. In fact, if
[ Page 6279 ]
the respondent has no obligation at the end of the day, they're going to think the $25 was cheap at half the price. I don't think it's an issue, frankly, given the way the small claims process actually saves everybody in it a considerable amount of money.
More generally, some of the problems we have come from the change in the limit from $3,000 to $10,000, which was done a few years ago. That was a decision that we as opposition members supported. In principle I very much agree with what was done then. But the consequence of raising the limit has been that people have been waiting -- these are the actual figures -- for five to 11 months for settlement conferences and up to 22 months after that for actual trial dates.
So we have excessive delays in the system because of what I understand to be a 50 percent increase in volume since February 1991 -- a very brief period of time. The system is just overloaded. We're faced with the question of what to do about these delays. What are we going to do with the fact that the system isn't working right now and that people aren't getting the remedies they deserve in the small claims process? We had no more money in our budget to provide additional judges to deal with the situation.
The solution was to look at the fee schedule to see whether or not we could generate additional revenue from the fee schedule in order to provide more judges. We determined that we could and that the additional costs weren't onerous and wouldn't deny people access. We still have the ability to waive the fee if someone is indigent or simply can't afford it, so that still continues. We made the decision to raise the fees by what I would describe as nominal amounts and generate the revenue needed to appoint six additional provincial court judges full-time and five retired court judges part-time to deal with the small claims backlog. Those judges, with one exception, are now in place, and the final one will be in place later this month. We are now beginning the exercise to reduce the delays, and that's what it's all about.
A. Warnke: The suggestion has been made that the role of mediation prior to any court action should be a prerequisite to court action. With the increase in fees, it would seem that the incentive to promote mediation is reduced, or at least that's the argument that's posed. For example, the Better Business Bureau offers a mediation program. Is there any consideration by the ministry to inform claimants of the alternatives to small claims court?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was in the Prince George courthouse on Tuesday and had a look at the area in the courthouse where the public finds out what to do about a small claims issue. In that courthouse, there was one of these machines that us oldsters can't handle -- where you punch the screen, things happen, and it gives you answers, and you punch another part of it, and it gives you another answer. That stuff is all beyond me. I still haven't learned how to use an electric typewriter, so this is all beyond me. Apparently people younger than me handle this really very well. It provides all kinds of information about how to handle your claim, what to do and what your alternatives are. Plus, for those of us who are impaired when it comes to electronics, there's also a whole range of pamphlets available about remedies and alternatives that people might have. All of those exist.
The suggestion that this fee schedule might lead to more mediation, I doubt very much. Mediation is more expensive than any of this is. If it did lead to mediation, I'm not sure I'd have any problem with it. I see mediation of disputes as a preferable course of action to resolution by adversarial means when at all possible. In a variety of areas, we are encouraging a closer scrutiny of alternate dispute resolution, including mediation. I don't think that's a real issue here in small claims.
A. Warnke: Actually, that satisfies that section of it.
I should have followed up on a clarification, and I'd like to pursue that before I forget it. When the Attorney General was responding to a question -- I believe it was the last question posed by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- perhaps I didn't quite hear this, so I'm looking for a clarification. In the response, it seemed that the Attorney General was considering the public prosecutor or public defender model. I seem to recall in the past -- a year ago -- the question was raised, and the Attorney General had expressed no interest in moving to this model. I'm just seeking a clarification here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I would have liked to. In terms of the prosecution side, we are well on our way already by the current system to what a DPP or director of public prosecution model would have. That's a result, as I said earlier, of the changes to the legislation that followed the Owen report. The independence, which is the key feature of a DPP system, is there. There is no interference from the rest of the ministry or from the minister in respect to prosecution. We're there in a way that I'm satisfied with. I don't think we need to tamper with that because it's working well.
The member also, in his question, referred to public defenders, the other side of the equation. I think I've mentioned before in committee that I've made very clear that we are not moving to the public defender system as it is understood by most people who are in the field. The public defender system, the American approach, has the state hiring defence counsel in the same way it hires prosecutors. We are not going to do that. We are, however, in the process of evaluating and making changes in the legal aid system. But legal aid will continue to be run by an independent body -- the Legal Services Society -- which is not under the control of the government, other than in the areas I mentioned the other day. Budget and legislation clearly are there. But the answer is no to public defenders, and changes to legal aid. We're halfway to a DPP system now on the prosecution side, and things seem to be working pretty well, so I am not inclined to touch it.
A. Warnke: Following up another question by a member with regard to Build B.C. and the construction
[ Page 6280 ]
of courthouses and so forth -- I think it was the hon. member for Peace River North who raised that -- I just want to seek a clarification. Will your ministry be receiving any funds from Build B.C.?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Announcements in respect of capital plans will be forthcoming.
A. Warnke: I'll accept that. I know that the hon. member for Chilliwack has a concern about courthouses as well. With regard to the construction of a courthouse in Chilliwack, I guess I have a somewhat personal interest in it as well, because some of my roots are in Chilliwack. My roots are spread all over the place, but that is definitely one of them, considering that's where my parents live. On behalf of the hon. member from Chilliwack, I understand the land has been bought but the actual construction of the courthouse has not begun. In the context of this following fiscal year, what is the status of the courthouse? When may construction begin?
[4:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As a result of a fairly comprehensive assessment of courthouse needs in the lower mainland, I have wanted to examine that report carefully and make sure that we're making correct decisions as we proceed in the development of these public facilities. As a result of that, I am not in the position at this stage to give any direct answer as to where we are going to go or when. In Chilliwack we now have four Supreme Courts, three provincial courtrooms and one that's unfinished, for a total of eight. It's true that BCBC has acquired land in Chilliwack -- as it does in its advance planning for many government ministries. It is true that there has been some planning and some thinking around those issues, but as a result of the lower-mainland assessment, I want to take my time and make sure we get it all right before we get too far down the road.
A. Warnke: So we're not at the stage of definitive time frames or anything like that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right.
A. Warnke: Since we are in the upper Fraser Valley -- and I guess I am asking this once again on behalf of my colleague -- there was some discussion yesterday or the day before about policing in the various municipalities and extra policing that may be needed during the summer months. The member was quite concerned about Cultus Lake Provincial Park where, as I understand it, there is no municipality. The RCMP is responsible for it. Extra policing is needed in the Cultus Lake area, yet Cultus Lake residents are not in the position that other communities are -- Penticton, Kelowna and so forth. I wonder if the Attorney General could make a brief comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I understand the Cultus Lake issue, the provincial policing component of the RCMP is responsible for that area. The RCMP are always assessing their needs, and if a particular community or area -- unorganized as this is -- needs additional policing resources at a particular time, they will ensure that it happens. That's an RCMP management issue; it's their allocation of resources. I have had conversations with the RCMP about issues like this, but I leave to them the actual deployment and management of their resources.
A. Warnke: I have another quick one on behalf of my colleague. The member for Chilliwack was wondering if there's a budget allocation in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General for the enforcement of provincial fisheries regulations. Or does this come exclusively out of the Ministry of Agriculture?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We handle prosecutions, so if there are violations of the provincial Fisheries Act regulations and they go to the prosecutors, our prosecution budget would come into play. That's about the only place I can think of.
A. Warnke: I would like to turn my attention briefly to the Oppal report. Obviously I will be very interested in what is in the report. I'm under the impression that the Attorney General has not received any interim reports from Justice Oppal. If the Attorney General wants to comment on that, I would certainly invite him to.
I was also wondering if there has been any early indication of recommendations that would impact on the ministry between when the final report is received and prior to the next budget. I recognize that.... I'll give the Attorney General the opportunity to respond to that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The terms of reference of the Oppal inquiry requested that an interim report be given to me by February. I received that report in February. That report is essentially an accounting of the activities to date and of intentions beyond February. It does not include recommendations. It will be available to the member in the near future, when we get it into a form that we can make available. If the member wants to see a copy of it even sooner, we can make arrangements to do that. We just don't have it in a form to distribute yet. The member is certainly able to have a look at it, but it is as I described.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the Attorney General for that. I'm most interested in it, so I would appreciate a copy when it comes out, as soon as possible.
I'd like to turn my attention now to some of the controversy regarding AirCare. We have touched on it briefly in question period, and so forth. I want to focus on a few aspects. One we have focused on in the Legislature, involving some controversy, involves the Royal Oak site of an AirCare station. I won't go into any detail on that because I think we're aware of the controversy -- certainly the Attorney General and I are. The fact is, the reason why there is a controversy here is that the location of the AirCare station in Burnaby is right next to Royal Oak College.
[ Page 6281 ]
I'll ask a series of quick questions here. Would the Attorney General indicate whether or not the station will actually be built in that location. There are two obvious issues here, one of public safety and another that the stipulation within the agreement is that Ebco-Hamilton will not locate a station near a public or a private school. So would the minister or the Attorney General clarify why, then, the station will be built on that site?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The municipality of Burnaby is responsible for the zoning issues, and responsible for the approvals. All of that has occurred, and from our perspective our responsibility is to.... Well, I see my responsibility as just making sure that we're doing the right thing, and if we are making a mistake, or if Ebco-Hamilton has chosen a location that creates problems for the community, or even if the municipality had make a decision that the minister didn't feel comfortable with, I feel that I can look at the questions in all of those cases.
We have looked really hard at the issues involved in this site. The company had done its studies in respect of air emissions, had concluded that there was no problem, that in fact there would be fewer air-emission problems at the site following the establishment of the testing station as compared to the use the site had beforehand. Royal Oak persisted, and so I asked that we do additional independent research. So it wasn't Ebco-Hamilton's research; it was our research.
I have in my hand two reports: one by Sierra Research and the other by Concord Environmental, that's their name. In the first report, the Sierra recommendations were
"Based on our review of the Levelton analysis and the comments made by Cirrus" -- these were the previous works -- "we conclude that the likely air-quality impact is minor and that impact can be substantially mitigated by the implementation of operational procedures that call for motorists to be instructed to shut off their engines while waiting in a queue of more than three or four vehicles during early morning or late afternoon.
"That simple procedure would cut emissions by more than 50 percent and, based on our review of the Levelton results" -- which is the earlier inquiry -- "eliminate any concern about the inspection centre causing exposure to levels exceeding the maximum desirable air-quality objectives."
Concord Environmental, in what they entitled their overall conclusions, say:
"The conclusion by Levelton that maximum desirable levels" -- in other words, very good air quality on the GVRD air-quality index scale -- "would not be exceeded appears optimistic as argued in this letter. CO" -- carbon; it doesn't say CO2 -- "concentrations at the college next to the Weyburn air-care testing facility could exceed the maximum acceptable levels, but such exceedances would be rare. That is, air quality in the immediate vicinity of the facility may occasionally move into the poor classification on a GVRD scale. Based on available information, air quality in the general area would remain in the very good to good range with very little change caused by the facility."
Both reports conclude that this station does not cause any appreciable damage or diminution of air quality in the area surrounding the school. Based on that, we see no reason not to proceed.
A. Warnke: Perhaps I'll pursue it a little bit more. First of all, I want a clarification of what the minister just said. I wonder if the process has been followed according to -- I think -- section 11.02 of the agreement: "The parties agree that for each inspection centre, the site must be approved by the program administrator in accordance with the agreement." On that basis, I just need a clarification. If it was approved, would the Attorney General indicate who approved this site next to Royal Oak school?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I take the responsibility for that. The ministry has approved it. I believe I wrote to the municipality of Burnaby saying just that. They then made their decisions in respect of their rules and regulations.
A. Warnke: To continue, it would seem that the government and Ebco-Hamilton are responsible for the agreement. The Attorney General just indicated the approval for the site. The agreement clearly states that Ebco-Hamilton will not locate a testing station near a public or private school, especially one that houses students who actually live there in addition to studying there. The site is next to a private school; furthermore, it's less than a kilometre from a townhouse complex. So I'm still quite puzzled by why, based on the terms of the agreement, the decision was taken by the ministry to locate here. Would Ebco-Hamilton consider it to be a sort of breach of agreement? I don't know.
[5:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, the reference in the agreement is to public schools -- in particular to elementary schools -- where because of the age of the children there could be a concern about air quality. This is not a concern according to the reports that we've commissioned. This is not a concern for the adults in this facility.
A. Warnke: The site was approved near a school, but the distinction seems to be between a private school and a public school. Where there's a public school, that would be entirely different. Is that correct.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reference to schools in the contract, as I said, referred essentially to elementary public schools. Just to clarify, I made a reference a minute ago to the report suggesting that youngsters could be more susceptible to air-quality issues. That's certainly the case as explained in the report, but the issue of the contract provisions relates to traffic safety. Cars coming to an air-testing station next to an elementary school in particular -- even a high school, for that matter -- could create a traffic safety problem. For that reason the contract included provisions that the stations would not be located next to schools.
[ Page 6282 ]
A. Warnke: Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but for the record then, it's a traffic safety factor here and not an emissions factor.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The language in the contract, I am told, refers to "schools, hospitals and other environmentally sensitive areas." I haven't looked at the whole contract nor have I had time -- jumping up and down here in this forum -- to examine that part of this question more carefully. But it seems to me that the contract was trying to avoid a situation where the testing stations would be located next to a public facility like a school or hospital where people were coming and going on a regular basis, and, in particular, to schools where youngsters may be impacted by the increased traffic flow. That's the concern that provision was about.
It's clear from our reading of the reports that there is no threat whatsoever to Royal Oak in terms of air quality or any other considerations as a result of this station being located in that spot.
A. Warnke: I have one last question for the benefit of the college involved. For the record, is this decision final? Or will some consideration be given to the college, given that they've got severe concerns about the impact on the college? Of course, it's all related to issues of rezoning and so forth, but I won't explore that. I think the minister knows the background on that. But is there any prospect, on behalf of the college, to perhaps revisit the issue and resolve it in some way?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll share with the college and the other players in this drama the reports of the environmental consultants which, in a rational world, would put an end to the issue. There should be no concerns. Once they see the reports that have been done, they should come to the same conclusion.
A. Warnke: I want to turn to another aspect of the AirCare program, and that involves the strike that is now occurring. It has possible severe implications on the budget in the ministry's estimates. In particular, I would like some clarification. We'll go through a series of questions. Could the Attorney General perhaps confirm whether this government is responsible under the terms of the contract for recovering any lost revenue to Ebco-Hamilton?
I'm under the impression that there has been a considerable loss of revenue to Ebco-Hamilton due to the closure of AirCare stations. If you want to calculate it, actually a pretty good assessment is that over $660,000 of revenue to Ebco-Hamilton has been lost to the present day. At least one could calculate it on that basis. There has been some suggestion that if the strike keeps up much longer, this will have a severe impact on the revenue that Ebco-Hamilton was anticipating. In light of the large loss of revenue now accumulating day by day to Ebco-Hamilton, I wonder if the Attorney General could clarify or confirm just who is responsible for recovering the lost revenue. Is the government responsible for that under the terms of the agreement with Ebco-Hamilton, or would Ebco-Hamilton essentially receive the full impact of that lost revenue?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to get into a full discussion about interpretation of the contract. This isn't the forum for that. I will say, however, that the contract calls for the government to guarantee a certain number of cars each year. I think that probably answers the member's question.
A. Warnke: From the Attorney General's answer, I take it that since it's based on the number of cars per year, perhaps we can have an optimistic outlook. Somewhere along the line over the course of a year, that number of cars will go through the station. Given the length of the strike though, I wonder if the number of cars will actually meet that quota. On that basis, one is calculating that there could be a significant loss. After all, it's not just a short strike now -- it's been around for some time -- and the fear is that the strike could well keep up.
I don't want to deal in hypothetical situations, but I think the strike has now been in existence long enough to suggest that there is potentially a severe problem. What happens if the quota of cars is not met?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a highly speculative question. I'm not going to assume that the issues won't be resolved, and the strike ended soon enough to make sure that the hypothetical question never becomes anything more than hypothetical.
A. Warnke: So the minister is still optimistic that the quota under the terms of the agreement can still be met.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I answered the question as far as I'm prepared to at this point.
A. Warnke: I also want to pursue one aspect of this controversy. It's extremely important, and I think it's an excellent opportunity for the Attorney General to set the record straight. John Shields, president of the BCGEU, made a public statement that essentially the government of British Columbia should take over the testing program and combine it with mechanical safety inspections throughout the province. Is that the position of the Attorney General as well?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no.
A. Warnke: That's reassuring. I believe that was essential to get on the record, because there are some other statements associated with Mr. Shields.... But in light of the answer, I don't think I'll pursue that any further at this particular time.
Given some of the controversies involving AirCare -- and I think the one at Royal Oak that we've discussed is really apart from that -- could the Attorney General provide us with a brief summary of the status of the AirCare program as the ministry sees it, in terms of accomplishing the particular goals it set out, and where he sees it going from here? It's not only the current
[ Page 6283 ]
strike; there was some difficulty in getting the program off the ground in the first place, back in September or October. Now in the context of this strike there are some delays. I appreciate that the ministry has conceded, on behalf of the consumer, a period of three months so that people can get their cars tested without undue and unnecessary pressure. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of some of the problems in the lineup back in October and some of the recent problems in May as well. We seem to be confronting a lot of problems. Therefore I would like the Attorney General to comment on the state of the AirCare program, where he sees it going and whether it's going to resolve some of these problems or bugs that have entered the system.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I admit that we had some start-up problems back in September. There was some notice taken of that at the time. Since then -- aside from the difficulty in reaching a collective agreement -- I think the system has worked very well indeed. When you consider that some 600,000 vehicles have already been tested, we have done very well. The complaint levels haven't evaporated completely, but they've certainly diminished dramatically. Where there are complaints, they are being handled by the operators in a very expeditious manner. When complaints require our ministry officials to be involved, we're there quickly as well. So I think the whole program has gone very well, after some difficult early days.
In terms of what it's really all about -- cleaning up the air -- I would encourage the member to talk to the Minister of Environment during his estimates, which I gather might start next week, to determine whether or not they've been able to determine any success yet in reducing some of the fumes they're concerned about. I suspect this is a longer-term program than simply the few months that we've been involved in so far. But members know, I think, that the Environment ministry is responsible for doing the air sampling and making all those kinds of assessments.
[5:15]
A. Warnke: I'd like to turn to another issue and a very brief description. It involves the Court of Appeal of B.C. agreeing with the lower court concerning conflict of interest of teachers sitting on school boards. It happens to involve two teachers and school trustees in Richmond, despite the fact that they teach in the city of Vancouver. I don't want to belabour this in one context. But something has arisen that I think does involve the ministry and also the Minister of Finance. That is apparently the attempt to solicit funds from the risk management branch to pay the legal fees for these two trustees.
I would like to explore with the Attorney General whether this is appropriate, especially given the fact that these two trustees did receive advice. There was a lower court hearing, and then the Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion. These individuals had decided not to hear the advice and to take up further appeal on it, yet now they are appealing for public funds to pay for their legal costs. I wonder if the Attorney General has any response to that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I don't. Because things happen in the courts, it doesn't mean it's the responsibility of my ministry or subject to discussion in these estimates. Those questions should go to the Minister of Finance.
A. Warnke: I take it from the Attorney General's answer that as far as the minister is concerned, the Attorney General is in no way involved in any applications or how they're processed with regard to funds solicited from the risk management branch. It's exclusively with the Ministry of Finance. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has understood it correctly.
A. Warnke: We're making interesting progress.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: We might just.... No, there's just a couple more, unfortunately. There's a couple more bullets.... No, that's not an appropriate term -- short questions. One involves the corrections work program. If possible, could the Attorney General give an account for the increased expenditure in the corrections work program? Perhaps I'm wrong. At the same time, could the Attorney General give a brief assessment as to how the program is working?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This issue deals with revenues as well as expenditures. The expenditures side has gone up by $400,000, which reflects the increased activity that goes on in the work that people in the correctional system are doing. It is an in-and-out item. I don't know whether it's really called a revolving account, but it is called a special account, as the member can tell from page 86. The balance in the account at the beginning of the fiscal year was, as the member will note, $33,000-plus, and the increase in expenditure is the $400,000 that is noted from $1.1 million to $1.5 million. That is exclusively represented by increased activity.
A. Warnke: Increased activity -- could the minister be a little more precise?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is a revenue- or expenditure-neutral item. There is no cost to the taxpayer for this program. The way that government finances work, we have to show money coming in and money going out. What we've done in this program, as I understand it -- I'm learning as we go -- is allocate additional expenditure, because we anticipate additional revenue. The amount has gone from $1.1 million last year to $1.5 million this year -- both in and out.
A. Warnke: I have just one very quick question, then I believe another member has a question.
I don't know exactly how to put this, but there is a fairly new liquor store at the Broadmead mall north of Victoria. I don't frequent liquor stores; I don't have that
[ Page 6284 ]
much time anymore. But just going over there for a visit, I was very impressed with a certain chandelier that was brought to my attention. I'd just like to follow it up a little. Apparently this chandelier in a brand-new liquor store cost $32,000. I'm just wondering how frequently a purchase of this magnitute is made. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on whether it is necessary.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know anything at all about it. I'll undertake to find out whether the suggestion is based on fact. And if it is, I will undertake to get back to the member with an answer from the liquor distribution branch.
H. De Jong: I want to go back a little to the discussion that took place yesterday regarding the Young Offenders Act. The minister made some interesting comments on the diversion program. I don't disagree with what the minister has said up until now. It would appear that there hasn't been much proof with regard to diversion programs. Could the minister perhaps elaborate on which provinces have entered into diversion programs and how successful they have been?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that the confidence we have in the success of the diversion programs is largely based on anecdotal evidence rather than on a properly designed study to determine whether or not this is an appropriate way to go. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Every time I talk to groups involved in diversion -- such as in Nanaimo, where there's a longstanding excellent program or, as I mentioned the other day, the one in Prince George, and others around the province -- I always ask how many kids involved in diversion, particularly first offenders, come back. The answer always is: "Not very many." Again it's anecdotal -- I don't have a proper study -- but the answer is that kids are less likely to come back if they go through diversion than if they go through the courts.
This is obviously skewed. The easier cases go through diversion rather than through the courts. I don't know whether we have the resources to do it, so I can't commit that I will, because it may cost money that we don't have. But I'm actually quite interested in getting a more substantive analysis of the diversion program. I'm personally convinced, as is everyone who works in the field, that it works, it's useful, it's cheaper and it's better for the kids and the community. But I think it might be useful for us to actually gather some hard evidence to support that, and that's something I would be interested in doing -- again, if I can find appropriate budget money to do it.
H. De Jong: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I would certainly be interested in knowing how this program is working and what the results of it are. Of course, some of those things won't be substantiated until a number of years after an offence has occurred -- such as how the youngster fares after those sorts of things.
At the time of the Young Offenders Act there was a lot of apprehension among police forces and police boards throughout the province. Everyone was very concerned about the Young Offenders Act. I believe there is still a fair amount of concern about it, but I certainly don't want to go into that. Yesterday the minister made some reference to age and types of crimes. Could the minister perhaps enlighten us on whether there has been any discussion of type of crime versus age or the combination of those in certain situations? There are crimes which perhaps ten years ago it was not evident would ever be committed by a young offender. Is the Young Offenders Act sufficient for the types of crimes that are committed today by young offenders?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that there haven't been any studies that correlate age and degree of violence in crimes. Again, I think what we're dealing with here is anecdotal evidence, and a lot of what is anecdotal is not what I would describe as evidence. It's often stories that get spread from community to community. Like a lot of stories of that kind, they take on a magnitude that exceeds the reality. But it is true to say, I think, that the level of violence among young people has increased.
I think it's fair to say that it's evident, again anecdotally, that the level of violence and criminal activity has dropped in age. Keeping in mind that we're talking about ages 12 to 17 inclusive, 88 percent of the criminal activities are non-violent, and most of them are property crimes. The other 12 percent presumably involves a degree of violence. There has been recognition by us and by the federal government of the problem in terms of murder. As I said yesterday, sentencing availability has gone from three to five years, and the ability to raise to adult court is also enhanced. We are continuing to monitor those issues, and we're going to be meeting later this month with the other justice ministers to pursue the issue further.
[5:30]
H. De Jong: I appreciate that there's an eye kept on the types of crimes that are committed by young offenders. In my opinion, some of these serious crimes do not fit within the Young Offenders Act and should perhaps be taken out in terms of the penalties that go along with it.
We also have a situation in the province where an individual makes no bones about it, that he's going to go tree-spiking; he encourages tree-spiking. I want to relate this to another incident where a friend of ours was travelling to California a few years ago and had three or four kids in the back of the car. They were playing around, and there happened to be a ghost car behind him, and one of these kids pointed one of those little water pistols at the policeman. This car was immediately pulled over, and the person driving the car, of course, got a verbal reprimand from the police officer that this was totally unacceptable and should never happen. I agree with that concept that it should never happen, even though it was in a playful mood, I suppose. But parents should have enough control over
[ Page 6285 ]
kids so that they will never point a gun at anybody else, no matter what kind it is -- at least not at their heads.
But at the same time we have this situation here where a person goes out blatantly saying that he's going to be tree-spiking, which we all know is in fact endangering life. It could mean the death of a logger. There seems to be nothing in the law that can do something to stop this fellow from going around and saying: "I'm going to do this, and I'm going to do that." In my opinion, it's tantamount to pointing a gun. I'm just wondering whether the Attorney General has had any thoughts on how this matter can be resolved, and whether it's within his jurisdiction to establish some laws or whatever needs to be done, so that this type of activity cannot continue with the person being so blatant about doing this kind of criminal act, as I see it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Criminal Code is available in respect of this issue, as are the amendments to the Forest Act that were introduced a few years ago. Let me put it this way: if the RCMP brings to our attention evidence of allegations of tree-spiking, the Crown prosecutors will examine the information, and the standard rules will apply. If there's a likelihood of conviction, then charges would be laid. There's a test in both the Criminal Code and in the Forest Act.
In addition, the Criminal Code deals with the issue of counselling to commit an offence. When a person counsels the commission of an offence and the offence is committed, the person counselling the offence is a party to the offence. This is another opportunity, should this despicable activity ever actually happen.
I think we have made clear -- I think every responsible citizen in this province has made clear -- that tree-spiking will not be tolerated. We will ensure that where the law can apply, and where charges can be laid, they will be. Coming from a forestry riding as I do, I share the member's concern about this issue, and so does every responsible British Columbian, whatever side they happen to be on in particular forest disputes.
H. De Jong: Isn't going out and blatantly saying that he's going to do this, and encouraging others to do it, similar to giving advice to somebody on how to do things? Isn't it similar to assisting in committing this criminal act? It seems to me that it's totally unacceptable for anyone to make those statements publicly.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member should know that I cannot talk about any specific issue or case, and I'm not going to do that. If there are any suggestions of the kind the member is discussing, they should be directly referred to the police. That's the proper authority.
How much longer are we going to be?
C. Serwa: I've got about an hour or an hour and a half. So I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:36 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]