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, JUNE 24, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 15
[ Page 7813 ]
The House met at 2:03 p.m.
G. Brewin: In the precincts today are students from Sir James Douglas Elementary School in my constituency, which is hosting Lloyd George Elementary School from Kamloops. There's a total of 36 students from grades 6 and 7. If the members of the Legislature see them in the halls, do greet them warmly in true Victoria fashion. Would you please make them welcome.
F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon are three friends: Marion Brooker from New Westminster; Marlene Kroeker from Maple Ridge; and my daughter-in-law Sylvia Randall from Crescent Beach. They're in Victoria with their spouses to attend an investment conference on pension plans. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the precincts today are 45 students from Coquitlam College School with their teacher, Ms. B. Hetherington. Would the House please make them welcome.
HEROIN-RELATED DEATHS IN VANCOUVER
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Health. On every welfare Wednesday heroin addicts pick up cheques and die on the streets and in the rooming houses of Vancouver's downtown east side. Dr. John Blatherwick, chief medical health officer for the city of Vancouver, has called on the provincial government for action as a result of the pure grade of heroin flooding our streets and the resulting deaths of our people. What steps is the government taking to protect heroin addicts from this game of Russian roulette?
Hon. E. Cull: I thank the member for his question. In fact, ten days ago, at the request of the medical health officer for Vancouver, we started a process under the guidance of Vince Cain, the coroner.
V. Anderson: The B.C. Ambulance Service initially granted permission to BCTV to cover the story as a way of bringing the information to light and warning the addicts of this situation. Could the minister explain why, to our understanding, the government refused permission for BCTV to follow and be with those ambulances?
Hon. E. Cull: I have no information on what the Ambulance Service may or may not have said to BCTV. As I said a few minutes ago, there is a process underway. Coroner Vince Cain is involved in it. I know that some of the concerns raised by the medical health officer involve education and information to addicts.
ENFORCEMENT OF DRUG TRAFFICKING LAWS
A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General. Given Dr. Blatherwick's call for action, and given that overdose tragedies are so predictable -- when and where they occur -- what is the Attorney General's ministry doing about combatting drug trafficking?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I should say that within a very short time following the incidents -- initially on Vancouver Island and particularly in my home community of Campbell River, and then subsequently in Vancouver -- that have caused a lot of deaths and suffering in the last little while, we convened a interministerial reaction. As the Minister of Health has indicated, the chief coroner for British Columbia is overseeing that. As far as the drug trafficking question goes, you can be sure that the police authorities in this province are treating that seriously and continuing their work in their usual efficient manner.
A. Warnke: Again to the Attorney General: when and where is...? In relation to welfare Wednesday, is there any trend, and will we see any trend, as a result of police actions against drug trafficking?
The Speaker: Hon. member for Richmond East.
REVIEW OF DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES
L. Reid: My question to the Minister of Health refers to the Kilshaw report on diagnostic medical laboratories. In May this minister said that she was strongly in support of seeing laboratories continue in this province. Today we have laboratories that believe they are being squeezed out. Does this minister have any direction in terms of changing the billing for medical laboratories in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm surprised that any medical laboratory should feel today that it's being squeezed out, because the report is still in progress. In fact, recently my deputy met with the B.C. Medical Association, and we have agreed to delay the work of the interim report from this committee for another four weeks so that more doctors can have input to the committee. No decisions have been made, and the report will continue, in consultation with physicians, laboratories and technicians involved in providing diagnostic services.
L. Reid: If that is indeed the case, will this minister confirm that the report will contain a full and direct cost-benefit analysis before it is released? We want to see some dollar values contained in that report. Will you confirm that that will happen?
Hon. E. Cull: I certainly can't prejudge what the recommendations in the report may be. The
[ Page 7814 ]
recommendations may be that the whole situation with labs and diagnostics remain the same. But costs are one of the primary considerations and are why we're doing this review. The costs of diagnostic services have outstripped inflation, outstripped population growth -- in fact, they've even outstripped any growth in utilization in medical or hospital services. So it is an area that we're very concerned about, and we will be addressing that issue in the report.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL LEASING OF SPACE
L. Reid: Another fine bit of NDP business acumen, if I might. Why rent when you can own? Is it true that VGH is now renting space to house the programs from Shaughnessy Hospital?
Hon. E. Cull: I must say, I find that an interesting supplemental question. It's a bit of a leap, but I am unable to answer that question. I could get back to the member.
HOMEOWNER GRANTS FOR WIDOWS
L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A couple of weeks ago the minister sent out a letter to homeowners advising them that windows... widows are now eligible for an extra homeowner's grant.
Interjections.
L. Hanson: For the sake of the record, hon. Speaker, that was widows, not windows.
In any case, the letter was not true. However, many property owners may have paid their taxes based on the assumption that the minister's letter was correct. Will the minister commit today that these people will not be penalized for that letter, which was in error? Will the province cover the cost of any penalties caused as a result of that letter?
Hon. G. Clark: Some 800,000 letters went out. The first few thousand letters that went out were a bit ambiguous with respect to widows. But certain widows do qualify for the homeowner grant, so we clarified that for the vast majority of the mailings. We've had about two or three letters from individuals concerned about that, and we have dealt with those concerns. We certainly plan to deal with any concerns people have as a result of that. We have not, as I said, had very many. The member may have had some directed to him, and I've been following up with further correspondence.
L. Hanson: I assume from that -- and I'd ask the minister to confirm it -- that he has mailed out the correct information to those people who had that difficulty. Secondly, I assume that the minister has agreed that if there are penalties or that sort of thing as a result of the misinterpretation of that letter, the minister would undertake to rectify that.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't think that's likely. An individual has to apply for the homeowner grant. If there was some confusion around that application, then I'd certainly be prepared to look at it. The part that the member is raising is not in error; there is just some ambiguity with respect to it. We've cleared that up for a majority of people. When individuals apply for the homeowner grant, if they are not eligible, then obviously they are told that. I'll certainly take up any concerns that individuals have, and if there is any ability with which to rectify the situation, I'd be happy to do so.
THE VICTORIA ACCORD AND ST. ANN'S ACADEMY
C. Tanner: This is to the Minister of Government Services. Would the minister undertake to table in this House the report undertaken by B.C. Buildings Corporation, in cooperation with Mr. Sam Bawlf, for the Crown corporations secretariat? The report concerns the Victoria accord and the St. Ann's Academy plan.
Hon. L. Boone: I will look into that, and I will confer with St. Ann's Academy. That report went to the Provincial Capital Commission. I will look at it and talk to them and see what areas can be released and what can be brought to this House.
CANADA-U.S. SALMON NEGOTIATIONS
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Can the minister confirm that he has instructed his staff to take another look at the contents of the Canadian position on the Pacific Salmon Commission?
[2:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: I was speaking with the Hon. John Crosbie this morning, and I asked him if he would consider several different things that we are concerned about. One is that the so-called Montreal accord was signed by the two federal governments. This was a federal government treaty, of course. We're concerned about several things. We don't want the 1993 agreement to become a benchmark agreement for 1994. We would like the Americans to acknowledge their violations of the treaty in 1992. We have so informed the government of our stance.
R. Chisholm: Will the minister please explain to the House why he's doing this now? Was he not familiar with the Canadian position while negotiations were going on? Or has he simply forgotten the details since the talks broke down two weeks ago?
Hon. B. Barlee: I explained this to the hon. member at some length, two or three times, in estimates. I will explain it again. This is a government-to-government treaty between Canada and the United States. When there is a fisheries treaty on the
[ Page 7815 ]
east coast, it is handled by the federal government; when there is a fisheries treaty on the west coast, it is handled by the federal government. For the first time ever we have an individual, Bill Lafeaux-Valentine, seated at the main table as our observer there. He is listened to by the federal government. That is why the hon. John Crosbie phoned me this morning.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately the minister didn't answer questions in the estimates; that's why we have to ask them now. It's unconscionable that this minister has been sitting on this issue and doing nothing. Is this minister going to do something to support the B.C. fishing industry, or is he going to sit on his duff and let the Minister of Social Services deal with it when the fishers end up on welfare?
Hon. B. Barlee: Our door is always open. We will let virtually anybody walk through that door, and the hon. critic is no exception. I'm really quite broadminded in this respect. Certainly if he wants to learn a little more about the treaty, I would be quite glad to have him talk with Bill Lafeaux-Valentine, who is a very knowledgable individual -- probably the most knowledgable individual in the province. He's quite welcome to use his good offices as well.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS USED FOR PURCHASING DRUGS
R. Neufeld: In the absence of the Premier, I will go to the real Premier, the Minister of Finance. Taxpayers are willing to support people's legitimate needs, but they're not willing to pay for illegal drug habits. Unfortunately, welfare Wednesday has become legendary on the mean streets of Vancouver, and the sad toll is shocking. What specific steps can the minister take to ensure that income assistance is used for the purpose for which it's intended, and not squandered on illegal drugs?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice.
MINISTRY OF FORESTS BUILDING IN NANAIMO
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Can she advise the House how much BCBC is paying to acquire land and build a 44,000 square foot building in Nanaimo for the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. L. Boone: Had the member been at the estimates this morning, he would have heard that it is only in the very preliminary planning stages. There are no estimates involved in this at this time. It's strictly in the planning stages, and there are no dollars involved at this point in time.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that the employees of the Ministry of Forests in Burnaby are going to be relocated by BCBC at a cost of more than $10 million?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC does not move individuals. It would be the Minister of Forests who would be relocating his staff there. It would not be BCBC. We merely act on behalf of our clients, the ministries, to provide the buildings that are required for them, and that is strictly our service.
IMPACT OF WATER LOSS IN LAKE KOOCANUSA
D. Jarvis: My question is to the Minister of Environment. There has been a considerable amount of devastation in the East Kootenays, especially in the riding that the Minister of Mines is from. The United States is drawing water from Lake Koocanusa and the devastation is becoming irreparable. After all this time and all the symposiums you've had in that area, what are you going to do about repairing the problems that are happening with the fish being drawn through the sluice gates? The water level has dropped 150 feet now. What do you intend to do as far as environmental considerations go?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment, the hon. Minister of Labour, who is responsible for B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are working together to address the issue of mitigating the impact on fisheries. We would be glad to make documentation on that available to you.
HOMEOWNER GRANTS FOR SENIORS AND THE DISABLED
Hon. R. Blencoe: I rise on behalf of the Premier to respond to questions taken on notice.
On June 15 the Leader of the Third Party asked the Premier a question concerning the eligibility of seniors' complexes registered under the Society Act for the homeowner grant, and homeowner grant administration comes under my ministry. To qualify for a homeowner grant the applicant must meet the eligibility requirements laid out in the Home Owner Grant Act. There are no provisions in the act or in the bill that was recently tabled that would either allow or disallow grants based on registration under the Society Act. Seniors' complexes are subject to the same eligibility requirements as other applicants. Registration under the Society Act is not a factor in the determination of eligibility under the Home Owner Grant Act.
The second question to the Premier on homeowner grants concerned homeowners with disabilities being asked to submit a new form, a certificate of physically handicapped person and property owner. According to the Leader of the Third Party, that move was seen as onerous. The answer is that the certificate of physically handicapped person and property owner was redrafted as a prescribed form in the homeowner grant regulations to combat potential abuse. The new form is virtually unchanged from the previous one; however, the declaration to be completed by the medical practitioner includes a reference to the interpretation
[ Page 7816 ]
guidelines. Physicians who were not familiar with the requirements often signed the certificate without understanding the eligibility criteria set out in the homeowner grant regulations. Tax collectors rarely, if ever, questioned the eligibility of an individual once the certificate was acquired.
This change was made to encourage greater compliance with the regulations. There have been no changes in eligibility requirements. For the 1992 taxation year collectors were advised to use the new form for all applications; for '93, all individuals applying for the additional grant for the physically handicapped are required to complete the new form. In subsequent years, a new form will only be required at the discretion of the municipal collectors.
Hon. L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction, please.
Leave granted.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to introduce a visitor to our Legislature: a fellow legislator from Australia, a woman who was the former Premier of the parliament at Victoria and who is now the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Joan Elizabeth Kirner. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: By agreement, I call the report on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
R. Neufeld: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for responding to the questions to the best of her ability, and to the staff for their participation in the estimates.
It became evident early in the estimates that the minister is not knowledgable about her ministry. In fact, as we continued through estimates, my deepest concerns about the minister's lack of knowledge and understanding of the working of her ministry became painfully clear. The minister states that her government is a friend of the mining and petroleum industry. I'm sure the resource industries are wondering who their enemies are. The industry knows this ministry and this government are averse to resource development in British Columbia. In fact, this minister would be better named the minister of economic development for Chile.
Her lack of knowledge of the ministry after 18 months is painfully evident in her inability to be an advocate for the mining and petroleum industry. Evidence of that is the shameful payoff to the environmentalists on the Tatshenshini decision. This also shows the minister's inability to be heard and taken seriously at the cabinet table. A further deterioration of the employment situation in the Kootenays and Princeton and the minister's lack of ability to understand, or even comment on, the displacement of workers in Cassiar are further evidence of the government's inability to keep people employed or to care for them after job loss. Jobs and economic development are obviously two items this government is not interested in.
The ministry's own report on mining strategies in British Columbia states that B.C. has the highest government costs, through excessive taxation and escalating hydro costs, of any province in Canada. Even though that report states our tremendous opportunities in the resource sector, it also states our weaknesses: excessive taxation -- a new corporate capital tax, corporate tax and water tax increases and fee increases of every kind -- and skewed labour legislation, to mention a few. It also mentions high government deficits, yet this minister has defended massive deficits in this government. The provincial debt load increased by 45 percent -- $6.4 billion -- over two years, and this minister supported that. The shutting down of the independent power producers and the harm that's causing the Peace River and the Peace Canyon Dam is deplorable. It shows that this minister does not understand.
The really scary part is that this ill-informed minister stated that she is the chairperson of the committee struck to negotiate the Columbia River Treaty, yet her knowledge of the issue, which is central to her constituency, was absolutely zip. Hon. Speaker, this minister, and in fact this socialist government, must be replaced if we are to create jobs in the private sector and economic wealth for all citizens in British Columbia. Let's all pray that the damage and destruction put upon the people of B.C. by this administration are not so great that they cannot be reversed. It will be a looming challenge for any political party after the next election.
The Speaker: Comments from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour on the estimates debate.
D. Jarvis: Rather than being repetitive.... The member for Peace River North has pretty well said it all. However, the Liberal Party was hoping that there would be a change of attitude in this government and in this ministry, but it has pretty well been emasculated. Except for a bit of gas that's saving their necks, there's nothing left of this ministry. As I said, we were hoping for a better attitude from this government. We felt that the mining industry needed a positive sign of encouragement. But a signal was sent out around the world, as a result of the Windy Craggy decision, that this province was not a friendly place to do business in. There is no healthy climate in British Columbia. This is a government with special interests, and that was their first concern.
[2:30]
This government has mishandled yet another issue. Every issue they've handled appears to come into conflict, no matter what it is. Again, they have failed to provide leadership to an industry that would have provided jobs in this province. This government is the classic Murphy's Law. However, they excel in platitudes
[ Page 7817 ]
and indicate a complete lack of understanding of how to create wealth in this province.
We are all concerned about the overall aesthetic values of the Tatshenshini and the Haines triangle area. You will hear from the government that the Liberals support the fact that the Tatshenshini should be a wilderness park. Well, right on! We do. However, we also support the fact that we can work hand in hand with the environment. That's what is basically going on in this province. It should be a multiple use, just as the CORE people have suggested. We're aware that there could be appreciable damage to the wilderness, wildlife, fisheries and the land, but that is what the mine development assessment program and Bill 32 are for, which they are so proud of and are just starting on.
We have to be realistic. No mines have started up in this province over this last year. They won't come into this province because of the heavy pre-profit taxes and normal taxes, which are the highest of 24 jurisdictions throughout the world. No one is going to come into this province and gamble millions of dollars when land issues are, in effect, at the whim of this government. It can change them at any moment.
For example, three months ago this minister came up with a mining strategy that was to solve all the problems in her ministry. Part of this strategy was the formation of a new land management mineral act that would impact land use and designation. She said at that time: "It will let us be proactive in planning for high-potential areas." If there was ever a high-potential area, it was in the Haines triangle of the Windy Craggy proposal. It's probably the highest mineral reserve in North America. Therefore this mining strategy that she's come forward with is ostensibly a joke. Jobs are leaving this country by the thousands; developments are leaving this country by the thousands.
I don't quite understand the attitude of this government. A few days ago, when we were discussing investment in this province, the member for Nelson-Creston said that investors and developers in this province were "cowboy capitalists." I sometimes wonder how this party over here thinks. Let me say this. In the future, as in the past, we will be better off in this province with cowboy capitalists than with these -- and I quote again -- "Cadillac commies" over here.
As I said before, we have a government that has no comprehension about how to create wealth. We are concerned for the future of this province. We won't see the effects this year, but down the line we will see a future without investment and development. This government has no idea what is going on; members of the community and the mining developers also do not understand what's going on in this province. It is strange that investors in the mining industry throughout the world are on a level playing field and they can do so with any dictator below the Rio Grande, but they can't do it with British Columbia.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's amazing what a television camera will do. We have just spent eight hours in debate over the estimates of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, when a couple of pussycats stood across the way and asked questions. Actually, I thought they were getting relatively pleasant and almost reasonable, but that's not the case since they were dealing on the basis of asking questions....
The Speaker: A point of order has been raised.
C. Serwa: I think the minister has to retract several words, when she referred to hon. members of this chamber in the manner that she did. I would ask that the minister retract those words.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Did the minister intend to impugn the motives or behaviour of any other hon. member in the House?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I would gladly withdraw the term "pussycats." It was not accurate.
The Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. minister. Please continue.
Hon. A. Edwards: Since our debate in Committee A, my critics have obviously found themselves a thesaurus that is well thumbed through in the poison terms, put them together and pumped themselves up with a foot pump, I believe, and come in here to make the statement. I am pleased to see them come to life. I am delighted to see that they are willing to make statements which are contradictory to some of their policy statements and which are very different. But at least they have come to life. The Liberal critic is now saying that he supports mining in a class A park. His own party said very clearly and campaigned on a policy of making the Tatshenshini area into a wilderness area, so I find it very interesting to hear what the Liberal critic has to say.
Hon. Speaker, to tell you what did go on in the committee, we started off with a good debate on the mining industry. We talked about our mineral and coal strategies and our focus for the future, not only for the mining industry but also for the rural areas and urban areas which equally depend on the mining industry in British Columbia. The government supports that industry, and we have been very clear about that. We have also discussed the decision that was made this week on preservation of the Tatshenshini-Alsek area, which is a land use decision that was made under very difficult circumstances and is not likely to be repeated in that way. The same kind of decision is not facing the government in any other area in British Columbia. The value of that ecosystem, which has to be preserved for the future generations of British Columbia and for the people of the world, does not exist in the rest of British Columbia.
However, that wasn't all we talked about. We talked about cogeneration and independent power producer opportunities. We discussed how the government sees a role for the independent power producers for domestic power when a demand is shown and for export policy, which will be announced in a very short time. The argument was made in debate that there should be a
[ Page 7818 ]
cushion or a built-in energy supply in the B.C. Hydro supply plan to offset weather-related reservoir fluctuations. We are very clear that this could be extremely expensive. Nevertheless, we recognize that the drought conditions of the last several years will require, and have required, us to examine cost-effective adjustments that can be made to offset the implications of cyclical changes in the operating system for B.C. Hydro. We will do so, and we expect that these issues will be examined in even greater detail under the electrical systems operation review, which has been announced and is beginning its progress.
On the issue of the return of B.C.'s entitlement under the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, we had a very constructive session on the options. I appreciated the discussion about these negotiations and the sensitivity that is there. Obviously this is an extremely valuable asset owned by the province, and we are going to do what we can to ensure we maximize the value of that asset to the people of British Columbia. We will pay particular attention to the regional needs of those in the Columbia-Kootenay region. That is the region that bore the brunt, the social and economic costs, of constructing the treaty dams.
The quality of debate on Vigas was somewhat less than it might have been had the member realized that this government inherited an extremely messy financial situation in connection with that pipeline. We have recently renegotiated the agreement to reduce the risk to the people of British Columbia by more than 100 percent.
I was particularly pleased to be able to discuss the role of the B.C. Energy Council. The questions on the Energy Council gave us the opportunity to discuss how that council's work will proceed and how the work complements, rather than substitutes for, the activities of the B.C. Utilities Commission and the ministry itself. The work of that council on energy exports has been extremely important, and the advisory work on an energy plan for the province will continue into the next year and be extremely valuable as well.
Regarding Fraser Valley, I was very interested to agree with the member for Peace River North. It was amazing, but we do agree on some things. He shared my view that all British Columbians should share in resource development opportunities -- opportunities that are carried out, of course, in a socially and environmentally acceptable way. I know the member also agreed -- as did the official opposition critic, I believe -- that the natural gas sector is the true bright spot in British Columbia's economy right now, and it is certainly a bright spot in the continental natural gas industry. It's very exciting to talk about the activity in the northeast, which is very clearly responding to higher gas prices as well as to a stable natural gas royalty and domestic gas and export sales policy in the province.
As the MLA for Kootenay, I was very disappointed it took so long to get down to the very important issue of the Elk Valley. It is an issue of such great importance that this government has committed untold time and effort to ensure that those two mines, which were owned by a company that went bankrupt, are back in operation. We continue to put our efforts into dealing with what's left over in the wake of that bankruptcy. The support of this government, including that of this ministry, has been consistent and extensive.
In summary, I felt that we were able to show that this ministry works to advocate responsibly for both the energy and mineral sectors in British Columbia. Thanks to the members for their comments. What came forward were the activities of a ministry that is overworked perhaps, but extremely active. Besides revenue regulation and recording, we have been very inventive and active in policy and public involvement. Every one of these activities takes time and effort, and we are doing that with fewer people in the ministry.
[2:45]
Despite being so busy, members of my ministry have been able to perform an array of work on the mineral strategy and theoretical and practical work promoting important issues such as conservation, energy and public involvement in every area. We will continue to do so. I certainly look forward to the coming year's activities that have been provided for in this year's budget.
Hon. E. Cull: Committee of Supply A is called for the Douglas Fir Room to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. In this House I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 45.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES ACT, 1993
(continued)
V. Anderson: Before the debate adjourned this morning, I was trying to put in context what we are discussing when we talk about health planning within B.C. I was bringing to the attention of the members of the House a discussion about healthy communities which seems to be fundamental when we talk about health planning in B.C.
In 1984 the World Health Organization proposed a definition of health which extended the concept, beyond that of a healthy relationship of a person to themselves and to the environment, to a uniquely broad concept of health. I'd like to quote that definition. Health is defined as:
"...the extent to which an individual or group is able, on one hand, to realize aspirations and satisfy needs; and, on the other hand, to change or cope with the environment. Health is, therefore, seen as a resource for everyday life, a dimension of our 'quality of life' and not the object of living; it is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capabilities."
When we look at a broader definition of health that includes not only the person but also the health of the whole community and the relationships in which people are involved with one another, we go into a far broader understanding than this Health Authorities Act attempts to put before us. It is only restructuring the health part of our community living. It ignores the other aspects of the environment, community organizations, the workplace and recreational time. It is ignoring the whole aspect of developing a healthy community which enables us all to have healthy lives.
[ Page 7819 ]
It's also ignoring the preventive, educational aspect of health and is dealing with an organizational administrative structure without getting at the quality that must be taken into account within health fields. The UBC Centre for Human Settlements had this to say when it was discussing healthy communities and in the process pointing out a new direction for dealing with health planning: "...a dissaffection with top-down technocratic planning and treatment in all fields inevitably led to the notion that broadly defined health planning had to take place at the local level, that is, through some combination of local government -- especially municipalities -- non-government organizations -- such as service clubs -- and ad hoc community committees." This is what sparked the idea of a healthy community. As I mentioned earlier, this same government has sponsored the process of Healthy Communities discussions throughout the province. Unfortunately, in discussions with people within our community, I have found that these two streams, health reorganization through the Health ministry and health community planning through the communities, were operating on two different tracks -- and never the twain seemed to meet. So we have a Health Authorities Act which deals only with a structure that has to do with personal health, not with the health of the community as a whole.
What must be taken into account is a whole community planning for itself. It is not enough to just pull together a few persons who are dealing with one aspect of community life, "the health aspect of community life," and having them talk to each other apart from the rest of the community. We need to look at a healthy community in which the whole community is involved, not just some aspects of it. The paper from the UBC Centre for Human Settlements has the following definition: "...a healthy community is a community in which all organizations from informal groups to government are working effectively together to improve the quality of all people's lives." That very aspect of working together with all the organizations of the community is being neglected in this Health Authorities Act. It's not working effectively together and involving all the community organizations, which is so important in this process. I quote again from that paper: "If a healthy community is one in which people, through their organizations, are working effectively together to improve the well-being of themselves, their neighbours and future generations, then a health community project is one that facilitates such cooperative work."
That involvement of where people live, where people exercise and where people work, that involvement of dealing with the whole life of a person, is so important. When I worked in the inner city projects with summer students not so many years ago -- and the Premier was also a part of that -- the university's school of medicine had some of their first-year medical students take part. When we asked about this, the comment was that in the medical school they were taught to deal with illnesses, but first they had to deal with people in the wholeness of their lives.
I was reminded of this when I remembered the first-term students in Boston school of medicine. You could always tell when they came to that first essay, because it was on what is a healthy person, not on what is a sick person. They weren't to describe that person simply as being without disease. A healthy person has a full life and is able to take all of their characteristics and share them with others in the wholeness of community. A healthy person lives in a relationship with other people in which there is a concept of body, mind, soul and spirit, in which the wholeness of a person is undertaken to be a part of the whole concept of community life. That undertaking to deal with the whole of the community and to discuss health in this broader context is missing in this Health Authorities Act.
It has set up an administrative structure. It has set up a process which is from the top down. It says that it involves community people, but it involves community people in a structure that is established from the top. It tells the community people within that structure what topics they are to discuss. It says to them, even before they meet, that they are to do away with their hospitals as we now know them; they are to restructure their hospital boards as we know them; and they are to look at whatever is here at the moment as inadequate, and replace it with something new. It's not a question of asking them whether they're happy with their present hospital facilities. It's not a question of asking them whether they're satisfied with the present hospital board and its undertakings. No, it's a question of saying that it's pass� because the government has a new vision, and it's this new vision into which they are compelled to fit.
We must challenge this kind of top-down approach and say that we must work from the community up. We must work from a community base in order to bring the opportunity for all of the informal groups of the community, not just the health groups, to come together. We must enable the community to plan together so that the children have the opportunity to grow up in happy relationships and with an educational system that meets the needs of their whole person, and so that families have the same privilege, whatever their economic background, to participate in community, recreational and educational undertakings. We find that in much of this discussion we are asking about budget and financial situations rather than asking about the health responsibility that a community holds -- not that the minister holds or the government holds -- the health responsibility and opportunity of the community to enable the community to come together and define the process that they have in mind.
I challenge the minister to take a new look. She has said that she wants to listen to the people and respond to them. I appreciate and respect that. But I want her to listen again, because it is my sincere belief that what she first heard is not what the people were saying. It's like two people who are having a conversation. It's only when you feed back what the other person has said to find out if that's what was intended that you clarify any misunderstanding. That process is not fully taking
[ Page 7820 ]
place at this particular point between our communities and the minister and the Ministry of Health.
[3:00]
As we look at the Health Authorities Act.... I would hope that it would be called instead something like the health cooperation act. Even the terminology gives the kind of framework structure into which, as I said earlier, the ministry expects the people to fit. Categories are provided for them, rather than having a health cooperation act, with the ministry saying to the people: "Here is a possible way to go." Put it out to them and let them feed back, as if it were a study paper, and then come forward with the regulations or the bill after hearing back from the people. That two-way conversation is missing, and I would encourage the minister to reinitiate it so that the community at large can have a cooperative approach, not the authoritative pressure approach which currently we feel and see.
A. Warnke: It's very difficult to follow my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara, who is always so eloquent on these matters. I paid very close attention to his remarks, and I would join with him in suggesting that the minister have a sober second thought about the legislation that is before us.
I have quite a few remarks to make, but at the outset I have to compliment the member for Comox. This is the first time I've spoken on this bill, and the member for Comox said something that I'd really like to know more about. She said that the member for Richmond-Steveston -- myself -- was harping and carping on this bill. This would indicate that she has a tremendous crystal ball before her. Perhaps I will be harping and carping on this particular bill, but it's something I'm not aware of, considering that I haven't spoken on it yet. We'll see if in fact I harp and carp. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but perhaps by the time I finish today I'll find out. It's amazing to know the future. If the member has an accurate crystal ball, I would like to possibly spend more time with the member to find out what else is in the future for us.
Health care is an emerging challenge, obviously. It's a very serious issue, not only to this government but to all governments, simply because health care is facing a series of crises, especially with an aging population and all the rest of it. So naturally every government is faced with the problem of extending health care service to the communities of British Columbia -- in particular, in the north. Many northern communities have expressed how necessary it is to extend health services and health care to their communities.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Incidentally, it was not that long ago that I inquired of some people from northern communities as to what some of the answers may be to this very question. As a matter of fact, I was told that the Minister of Health herself would be going through to at least one of the communities; I believe it was Burns Lake. I hope the minister gained some knowledge of this area, because they had some particular concerns there with regard to health care problems. I know one question I put was: what about regional government? Northerners told me that this is not necessarily the answer, and I suspected as much. As a matter of fact, when we get into the details of it, the northern communities have special kinds of problems involving costs and distances that one just does not see in the lower mainland and other parts of the province -- even the Okanagan Valley and the Kootenays -- which are obviously much more populated. Therefore the answer is not necessarily to artificially impose some regional government model in this area.
Indeed, my colleague from Richmond East put it very well, I thought: what we are seeing in Bill 45 is the imposition of a top-down approach. That is the very thing that people in the eastern and northern parts of this province.... I dare say even those in the lower mainland suggest that that approach, that perspective and that attitude must be done away with. It is an approach where the minister, the ministry and the chief bureaucrats are still fully in charge. It's interesting to note that yes, a third of the boards may be appointed from within the community. But it's offset by the third of the board that is appointed by the ministry, which suggests -- and this is what my colleague for Richmond East put so well -- that it still leaves the minister and the ministry in charge. That's the problem. There's a whole approach here that essentially says: "What we in the ministry define as good is the way it's got to go." Of course, we understand that ministers and ministries should take the approach that if they make a key decision that has financial costs, there may be conditions attached to it. But don't suggest that what we are really doing is decentralizing. This is not really decentralizing anything.
Indeed, after looking at the components of Bill 45, the question has to be asked: does the administration really decentralize the ability to define the needs and wants of the community? No way. The ministry is still in charge of defining the needs and wants of the community. Decentralization is not really taking place here. Does the administration really allow supervision by the community or other approaches to take place? No. Does the administration really facilitate the members of the community defining the needs themselves? No. So I'm not sure exactly where the notion of decentralization is actually taking place. The minister and the ministry, the bureaucracy, are still in charge. Therefore decentralization is not really working; it's not there.
It's good rhetoric. It's an imposition, I suppose, of what I would call an artificial sort of administration that says yes, we are allowing some decision-making to take place. Part of the decision-making, supposedly, is from the local community. But who is actually in charge? Who defines the needs and wants of the community? Who imposes the direction, the supervision and the financing? That is still all done by the ministry, so I'm not sure exactly just where the ministry is going on this.
I believe it was again the member for Comox Valley who stated, in an attempt to criticize my colleague for Richmond East, and myself specifically, that there is a remarkable success in the community of Richmond. I think my colleague for Richmond Centre was slighted.
[ Page 7821 ]
I'm sure he's not too pleased about that, because the hospital is actually in his riding. I'm sure he'd want to share some of this criticism of us, as well. The criticism was totally unwarranted. The member for Comox Valley, in defending the minister's bill, said that in Richmond it is a tremendous experiment, there has been a testing of a new health care policy and it is well received. On closer examination, all that has occurred so far is that the terms of reference have been developed for a steering and planning committee to be in place this month. We haven't even established a steering and planning committee. There has only been one meeting, as I understand it. Indeed, there has been no test of this representation from the community by multicultural, labour and service groups as described by the member for Comox. All I can say is that the member for Comox is, I guess, one of those people for whom one swallow makes a summer and one snowflake makes a winter. That's fine and dandy perhaps in the area of forecasting weather. Perhaps the member uses her crystal ball. When we take a look at what has happened in the community, we find that member claiming that this has been a tremendous experiment and saying: "Wow! We're way off the ground and it's just rolling along very nicely." After one meeting? Talk about making a summer out of a swallow.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: I think one member said: "We haven't even started talking about it." That's right. We haven't even passed this bill yet, so how can one claim that the experiment is off the ground and just rolling along very nicely when we haven't even passed the bill yet. But there you go, hon. Speaker.
From the comments made by the member for Richmond East, as well as other members, in examining and thoroughly criticizing this bill -- indeed, I thought my colleague for Vancouver-Langara put this bill in proper perspective -- it's quite obvious that what this bill needs is a heck of a lot more work. It needs a lot more work to put together a well-thought-out bill.
Mind you, this is not the first time we've had a bill presented in this House which we have said lacks a number of things and needs to go back to the drawing board for rethinking. Maybe that's where the harping and carping comes in. If in fact that's the definition of harp and carp, I think government members, and ministers in particular, would be well advised to have a thorough look at the nature and implications of their bills before they present them in this chamber.
This is another bill that requires more thought. Indeed, according to the minister herself, this creates a first stage in the establishment of regional health boards. But we really don't know what the subsequent stages are. Perhaps that's the problem. To present a bill that has wide support, not only from members of this chamber but from a variety of peoples and communities, you start by thinking in terms of the implications of how you apply such legislation. We need to think beyond the first stage.
It is not convincing in the slightest that what we are seeing is a shift towards more local autonomy. I think the member for Richmond East hit it dead on: what it really does is download financing onto the local community. That's hardly shifting authority. That's hardly what should be meant by extending local autonomy. Certainly local officials do not have in mind bearing the burden of whatever the provincial government does. This so-called New Directions policy is really an artificial presentation of where local autonomy is supposed to occur. In actuality, especially in a financial sense, it is really a downloading of the burden onto local communities. That's not shifting responsibility and autonomy to the local communities at all. It's not what communities have in mind.
[3:15]
Communities in the north and the east and the more remote areas of our province have been complaining for a long time that they always have to argue with Victoria. In the lower mainland, they put forward an argument and people in the ministry listen to it. Maybe there's a bit of an argument, but at least they're listened to. Communities in the more remote parts of this province feel that they have to constantly battle and argue and get groups together and come down to Victoria and so forth to get their point across. Again, it stems from an attitude that extends across many ministries, I suppose -- but this one particularly -- that they know what's best: "We've made a decision. This is the model you're working with, these are the directions you're working in, and in that context you have to make decisions." That's entirely inappropriate to some of these communities.
When we begin to understand where the communities are coming from and the kinds of problems and issues that they face, then we will begin to responsibly pass on local autonomy. In that context we really appreciate where the communities are coming from. The ministry needs to be encouraged to understand the meaning of community, especially as it is applied to the more remote parts of this province. The communities have to be assured that they will have access to the services that are perceived as being extended to the lower mainland. The problem is that too often in the past decisions and directions -- and here again in the New Directions policy -- have been perceived as imposed on the communities. The communities want to be assured that services and health care will be available and that material and resources will be offered to them.
What was it that the member for Comox Valley talked about? Harping and carping and what not -- I've forgotten. She wants to accuse me of that even before I've given my speech. I would suggest that it's rhetorical puffery and artificial arguments developed by the ministry to put forward an argument in favour of this bill. There are a lot of problems with the bill, and it requires more thought. In the case of Richmond, the member for Comox Valley alluded to one meeting that somehow was a successful experiment. That member and this ministry and members of the government have got to understand what it means to consult the community. It's not just one little meeting to set up some sort of a committee.
[ Page 7822 ]
Whether it's the north, the Kootenays, Richmond or Vancouver Island, one little meeting to set up some sort of a vague process is not enough. Consultation is a constant dialogue. There are some members who don't understand that, and the result is that there is no consultation at all. We've seen evidence. If the member for Comox Valley thinks that was consultation, that's how badly we need to go back to the drawing board and consult more with those people in the communities who have some stake in the future of health care. That, of course, means the people of British Columbia. I really have some concerns about whether the minister has consulted extensively with the people of British Columbia. I have my doubts about that.
In this context, then, the so-called New Directions policy in provincial health care has clearly not taken into account people in those communities who want to say more, who believe that the Ministry of Health is somewhere off the rails on this. Since it is so absolutely essential for the ministry to go back and consult with those communities, I would therefore move an amendment to the motion, seconded by the member for Richmond East, that the motion for second reading of Bill 45 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: You may proceed, hon. member, while we review the motion.
On the amendment.
A. Warnke: In presenting the motion that the word "now" be deleted and replaced by the words "six months hence," the reaction of members across the way -- and I won't comment on how many members -- is a bit surprising. If I were to be really negative, I would say let's go ahead and defeat this once and for all; let's just kill it now. I didn't say that. I moved a very reasonable motion, based on some of the arguments I presented before, that we delete the word "now" and substitute the words "six months hence."
Perhaps some members opposite need to hear why the six months hence. Six months hence would allow a pretty adequate time frame in order to have more than just one meeting. I think it would provide a sufficient amount of time for the minister, her ministry and, it appears, other government members to get in touch with the various communities -- maybe their own ridings -- throughout this province and with some of the people they claim to have been in touch with, people who have concerns regarding multicultural interests, labour interests and what not. It would be very nice if those communities were contacted as well, as to the application of this bill.
In particular, I would like to see municipal governments and city governments contacted -- those people who will have imposed upon them the ominous responsibility of administering this policy. I'm not asking for a lot of time, such as one or two years or something really unreasonable. I'm not saying let's kill the bill. I'm just saying that there should be a reasonable amount of time during which the communities can be contacted. Surely that would give the members opposite an adequate amount of time to ask questions and hear from their various communities whether they like this particular model. I strongly suspect, just as the member for Richmond East has said, that the answer from these various communities would be: "No, we do not want to be burdened any more than we are now." They don't want to be in a situation where a few representatives on a board can be vetoed by the ministry, and yet be co-opted into a situation where they have to live with it, because the ministry can turn right around and say: "Oh, you were represented on that board." I don't think communities appreciate it. I know that northern communities certainly don't appreciate it. They're fed up with that attitude. They are saying that it's about time the ministry and the bureaucracy understood that this attitude of going into the communities and imposing models, directions and decisions should be a thing of the past.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: I am shocked that a member across the way would have that as a definition of democracy, that decisions imposed on communities by the executive somehow defines democracy. I find that very incongruous with what I would determine as the definition of democracy. That clearly illustrates why we need this amendment of deleting the word "now" and substituting the words "six months hence." It clearly illustrates how that member and other members have got to go back not only to the communities to understand where the communities are coming from, but to their local libraries, I suspect, to look up a few definitions of democracy. There's the problem, hon. Speaker. This is what I would like to encourage those members to do.
As a matter of fact, I realize the numbers in this House, and therefore I appeal to all members on the government side to get behind this motion, because I know it's in their interest. I am doing something that actually favours the government; that will make all government members understand the needs of the community. I am actually giving them some time to go back to their constituencies and get in touch with the communities. If they support this motion of substituting the words "six months hence," I hope they will be grateful. But of course I'm in the opposition; I understand that they cannot extend good words to me. I think it is really in the interest of all members, and therefore I strongly urge the minister and the government members to seriously consider this motion and support it; to allow that breathing time of six months hence; to go back and consult the communities and have more meetings. I would like to see more meetings. Go back and take a look at the implications as well as the nature of the application of this bill.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate today to second the motion of my hon. colleague for Richmond-Steveston. He moved we consider this more carefully over the next six months and return to the
[ Page 7823 ]
table at that time with some sense of where this bill is going and whether or not any cost accounting or cost-benefit analysis has been done.
[3:30]
I spoke at great length yesterday about a research base and how necessary accountability is to this question. I'd like to refer extensively this afternoon to the June 1993 issue of Medical Post. It looks at what has transpired in Saskatchewan. The title of the article is "Saskatchewan's Plan for Cheaper Health Care Just Doesn't Add Up."
I have a number of points. At times, conventional medical economics has almost become a religion. It defines many of its tenets; it holds them with catechistic fervour; it proclaims them as revealed truth; it espouses a trinity of cost control: nurses are cheaper than doctors, salaries are cheaper than fees for service and home care is cheaper than hospital care. The article raises the question: is this dogma valid? Does it indeed make sense?
Recently the Saskatchewan government accidentally provided an opportunity for evaluation. To rein in the straw man of runaway costs, it turned health care over to its regional boards. As one of its first actions, the Saskatchewan board decided to control obstetric costs without reducing service by early hospital discharge and home care programs for postpartum women. They looked at the idea of how much they were spending on home birth and on birth in hospitals, and they said: "There must be ways to reduce that." This is what transpired in Saskatchewan. The idea is promising, but the board did not provide a pro forma to show that theory and practice coincided. Unfortunately, they often do not. So the doctor ordered a six-month checkup. They went back and looked at the data and said: "On the surface this appears to be a reasonable idea. Can we, after evaluation and analysis, decide there is a benefit to directing dollars in this manner?"
This is what they learned. They got this data without much delay, and the daily number of postpartum women receiving home care in this community was 3.5. The average number of nurses employed was 2.75. The daily cost for mother and child was $147.09. The board measured daily cost in the two local hospitals as $144 and $181. The cost in the two hospitals averaged out at $162 a day. Finally, it subtracted $147 from the $162 and said: "The program saves money." Most would laugh at this analysis. They would call it tricky or deceptive accounting. The program actually costs money, because the price at home is greater than the price at one of the hospitals. Furthermore, instead of averaging costs, the board should find out why one hospital charges 25 percent more than the other. If the excess is unnecessary, reduce it. If it is not, make greater use of the low-cost facility.
This was Saskatchewan's attempt to analyze what was happening in regionalized health care, in the shift to community to take these services out of hospitals and look at them. This article directly impacts on my comments yesterday, because I stood in this House and said that reasonable cost accounting was not happening anywhere in our country. Saskatchewan, which has had it in place for a long time, can't provide the data to determine whether or not this is a useful exercise. They will tell you as we proceed that it is not a cost saving, nor can they suggest in any way, shape or form that it has somehow improved health care. Those issues have not been resolved, and they have been at this a lot longer than we have.
They asked a number of individuals who work directly in the field. According to working obstetrical nurses, the cost discrepancy is even greater than this. Home care replaces the end part of the post-delivery stay, but the earlier part is more expensive. They say much more nursing time is required on the first and second -- especially the first -- days following delivery, rather than the third and the fourth. Thus this early discharge saves on days when the cost is below average. You're putting the most expensive service in a more condensed time frame, and you're ensuring the hospitals are responsible for higher costs.
The adverse fiscal result is even worse than this. Elimination of hospital costs for the discharged mother would require simultaneous discharge of hospital staff, and this is not possible. Thus there is a residual added cost for the unoccupied hospital bed to be included in the total cost of postpartum care.
This is just one example -- one aspect of hospital care that this community and this province have discovered is not cheaper. We can certainly have the discussion whether this is the more humane way to deliver health care. But this minister came to British Columbians and said: "We're proceeding in this direction because it will ensure the dollars are spent in a more cost-effective manner." We haven't seen that. Again, the closest province to us that is engaged in this activity has not been able to defend it -- not at all.
Another example. While the program is more than a house call, it is not more than a physician provides free when he or she makes a house call. For such a house call, government medical care in this province pays $33.50.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Health.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate that there is considerable latitude given in second reading debate, but the member is debating whether a home- and community-based health care system is more cost-effective than an institution-based system. The Health Authorities Act only deals with the governing structure of our health care system and makes no comments or directions as to whether we go to a more community-based system or stick exactly with the institution-based system we have right now. We debated this extensively in estimates, and I think we'd be more productive here today if we stuck to the point of the bill.
L. Reid: The exact intent of the bill is whether or not this is a reasonable direction to proceed for this province. The direction I raised in debate yesterday was cost accounting and a cost-benefit analysis. This minister stood in this House and said it was a reasonable program based on research. On the point of
[ Page 7824 ]
order, hon. Speaker, I'm indicating today that the research does not exist.
Deputy Speaker: The Chair would observe, though, that we are on the amendment. The debate should in some way focus on the appropriateness or the propriety of a six-month hoist. Perhaps the members of the House could focus on that, in adherence to standing order 61. Please proceed, hon. member.
L. Reid: I'm delighted to continue in debate this afternoon, hon. Speaker, because I do believe the points are salient. I take your comments; however, this is a broader picture in terms of whether or not we reform health care. Speaking directly to the hoist motion, I'm entering these comments in debate today for the sole purpose of providing British Columbians with an opportunity to evaluate this bill, and what support there is for it, over the next six months. Six months is a very small time line compared to the enormity of the changes that are being proposed. I am happy to speak to the six-month hoist, and I believe my comments speak directly to that. If we are going to support a six-month hoist, it has to be on the basis of what we're going to do in that six months. My position is that we evaluate this proposal over the next six months. It's important to support the motion because this requires evaluation, which is exactly the intent of my comments this afternoon.
Certainly in the province of Saskatchewan -- and that is, frankly, an interesting province to be considering at present, because there is a lot of carryover from that province to British Columbia at this time.... There is a lot of westerly movement of directions that have not been well supported and, given this research today, not well documented as being cost-effective. That is the issue with which I began, and that is the issue with which I will probably finish today, because that is the only goal for debating this legislation over the next six months: to determine if indeed there is any way to evaluate this practice.
Certainly the New England Journal of Medicine will tell us that the 1990s is the era of accountability. People wish to know whether their dollars are going to provide reasonable service. That is the intent of a six-month hoist: to ensure that British Columbians have some assurance that this will provide them something useful at the end of the day. Six months for a change of this magnitude is not asking for a great deal.
I think the comments from Saskatchewan are well taken. They talk about the savings produced by salaries, nurses and home care being illusory. We have a bill that's looking at restructuring health care, and the province of Saskatchewan is saying: "It's an illusion. You're not going to save money." This minister brought in this bill on the premise that it would save money; it would be a better use of the taxpayers' dollar. It's not supported, and begs the bigger question of how important it is to hoist this piece of legislation so British Columbians can have a very careful look at it. We do not wish it to proceed at this time unless there is an opportunity to examine it in some detail. That is the reason we are calling for a six-month hoist.
John Kenneth Galbraith explained it better than anybody. He said: "In some human endeavours, especially banking, there is no more certain road to the top than failure and proven incompetence." Health care is becoming one of those endeavours. That's a significant issue. Look at the president of the Saskatoon Health Board. He had no health care training or experience: a doctorate in philosophy and stints in the civil service, finance and education got him his job. Despite this background, he has now moved to British Columbia to become our Deputy Minister of Health. Has this individual brought expertise? It's not reflected here.
We need to ensure that this program is evaluated in some detail over the next six months, so that British Columbians can be assured that they are getting a reasonable product. It hasn't happened. It's a significant concern, and it is the only reason I am standing in support of a motion to hoist this piece of legislation for six months. It's really important that British Columbians understand what they are getting and actually get something for their tax dollars.
I have said many times in this House that there is no such thing as government dollars; it's tax dollars. It's our money that's being allocated. If British Columbians see it as important to examine this change over the next six months in tremendous detail, I applaud that. I would welcome that, because we have not found an opportunity to evaluate this as provided here today, or over the last number of days. Individuals in the communities have not had an opportunity to look at where we wish to go with this piece of legislation. That is a huge concern.
I have concerns, and I know that the individuals who come to my office have tremendous concerns. In terms of how important the hoist motion is, yesterday the Minister of Health talked about how closely this ties to the Seaton royal commission. It does not. Parts of it correspond, but there are parts of it that do not at all reflect the direction of that document. For a better example for the hon. members across the floor, let's take what happened when we did a similar process in education. Parts of it reflected the direction of the commission; parts of it did not. We have issues with significant comment today. I will refer specifically to particular sections, again drawing in the need for a six-month hoist, because it's really important that British Columbians understand where we are headed. Six months is a reasonable time in which to examine this legislation in some detail. This is significant health care reform and needs very clear attention.
If you look at section 3 -- "...are consistent with the commission...." I will refer you to page B38 of the Seaton royal commission report. Sections 4 through 8 are not on page B38. On page B39 of the Seaton report, it is clear that the commission recommended that the Ministry of Health be decentralized into a number of manageable regional centres, assigning fiscal responsibility to the regional general managers. This is clearly not the intent of Bill 45, which establishes boards and councils which have these stated purposes. There are several major recommendations on B38 that the decentralization should be in the hands of the ministry,
[ Page 7825 ]
regional assistant deputy ministers and, most importantly, an accountable regional manager and a core complement of regionally placed staff. Nowhere in this bill is this structure in any way anticipated, and I think that's intentional. That's an issue. Again, there are issues here that need to be explored in more detail for all members of this House -- and certainly for all members of the province, because they have some significant issues surrounding a change in health care in this province. I have some concerns.
To speak directly to the hoist motion, if individuals in this province have concerns and if they're not clear about where this government is headed, it makes perfect sense to ensure that they be provided with an opportunity by their government to examine in more detail how this is going to happen. The six-month hoist is nothing but an invitation to British Columbians to participate more directly in this process. To deny that participation -- a government that said: "Open government. Let's communicate. We'll ensure you have the information in your hands before you're required to make a decision" -- does not make sense. So I stand with my colleagues in calling for a six-month review of this legislation and calling for it on behalf of members of communities. It's really important that we ensure that people are on board. If they don't understand it, if it's unclear or if it does not make sense.... The opportunity exists for individuals to be brought onside, to ensure that they're provided with some reasonable cost analysis.
[3:45]
I have a tremendous number of details -- and I will spend many hours, I'm sure, in committee stage on this bill -- from reviewing all the sections that do not support where this minister wishes to go with Closer to Home. Frankly, I don't believe that this minister can provide a reasonable cost-benefit analysis. If one exists, why is it not in the hands of British Columbians or in the hands of reasonable decision-makers? Why are we wondering if this is a more reasonable way to provide health care? It's a huge concern that has to be addressed by both sides of this House.
This is not an opposition concern; it is a concern of the majority of British Columbians who pay for this health care system. All of us are taxpayers. All of us have some direct accountability for health care reform. We can go on at great length on the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act in terms of accessibility and accountability. At the end of the day, all British Columbians must be involved in this process; otherwise it will simply not work. If they're not prepared to buy in because of being denied an opportunity to understand it in more detail, to see how it reflects on their community and to see whether or not it addresses the unique needs of their community, it will be all for nought. That is the concern of the majority of British Columbians, and that is the concern I hope this government would choose to address. They have not, over time, chosen to address issues that have come forward.
Asking for six months to review this legislation is an appeal on behalf of the health care system in this province and on behalf of the individuals who now sit on surgical wait-lists and wonder where they're going to get their care from and how it's going to be provided. I see nothing wrong with spending six months to ensure that a framework is in place that makes sense to them and that will indeed improve the delivery of health care in this province. Right now we have a process and we're heading down a road, but this government cannot tell British Columbians whether or not it is going to be of benefit to us to make these changes. We can surmise and speculate. British Columbians have asked my office for some assurance that this will indeed improve their individual lot. They need to assure themselves, their families and their friends that their health care is somehow going to be better.
This legislation doesn't do it. Frankly, the comments I've heard in the House from the government members do not do it. It's simply another indication of this government ramming something through the House without legitimate analysis from the communities; and no legitimate analysis has been provided in this chamber. As I asked earlier, if the nineties is indeed the era of accountability, particularly as it relates to medicine and medical practice, why no cost-benefit analysis? That has not been addressed. If the information doesn't exist, what finer opportunity than to hoist this for six months, evaluate it in more detail and come back to this House with a defence of this particular piece of legislation?
All British Columbians need to be concerned about this. If we reform without knowing if we're making improvements, we haven't done anything to improve the health of future British Columbians in this province. We're not taking particularly good care of the ones we have right now. I'm sure all MLAs in this House have had individuals come to their offices and ask when they're going to be up for surgery or when they can expect to receive a particular procedure. I know it happens, and I'm not sure what the government benches suggest to their constituents.
H. Lali: Blame it on the Socreds.
L. Reid: The hon. member suggests blaming it on the Socreds. How disgusting that after 18 months, that would still be an answer you could give to British Columbians who need health care. It is simplistic and pious in the extreme. Hon. Speaker, there has to be an opportunity for members of this House to be directly accountable to their constituents.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
L. Reid: It's not happening on the government benches, and it is a huge concern for the opposition, because we believe that taxpayers pay dollars for reasonable service. Taxpayers in this province believe that they are paying for a service. Now they're going to see something change. They're not sure what that is and they're not clear if the services are being diluted beyond recognition or not. To again speak directly to the hoist motion, people need some understanding of this legislation. Put it out in the field for six months and have communities and individual British Columbians
[ Page 7826 ]
who currently sit on surgical wait-lists take a look at this and decide for themselves if that is going to improve their level of health care.
Frankly, hon. member, we had a situation a year ago where this government created a health special account, and the people who it was created for believed it would help them and somehow address their urgent medical priorities. That was a year ago. It did not happen. At the end of the day, this bill must assure British Columbians that they are finally going to get some service. It doesn't reassure me; frankly, it doesn't reassure the individuals who seek support from the offices of my colleagues.
We need to have this legislation scrutinized in the full light of day. It hasn't happened. That is what this opposition is asking for, and I would hope that this government can see the wisdom of that and have the grace to ensure that all British Columbians are prepared to buy into reform of their health care system. Six months is not asking for a lot, because there is nothing that Canadians value more highly than their health care; there is nothing that British Columbians value more highly than their health care. If this government is truly committed to a grass-roots process, why not allow those British Columbians to be part of that decision?
L. Fox: I can see that the minister wants to close debate on this particular issue, but I welcome the opportunity to stand up and speak in support of the hoist motion. I agree that in many instances a hoist motion is a delay. In this instance it's not. I want to try to explain why I suggest that it's not a delay. When we look closely at the bill and at the fact that it's so open-ended and that the minister has such extraordinary powers, that really concerns me and concerns the electorate of British Columbia. When we look first at section 4(1), it says: "The minister may, by regulation, designate (a) a regional health board, and (b) an area of British Columbia that constitutes the region for the board." Therein lies part of the problem. When I talk to my constituents about the thrust from the hospital or acute care system that we're used to into a new Closer to Home process, there's a considerable amount of support for the concept. Many individuals understand and would much rather be recuperating from their illnesses at home than lying in a hospital where they don't have the availability of their family or friends on a regular basis. The problem with the statement that the minister may, by regulation, designate a regional health board and an area of B.C. that constitutes the region of the board is the fact that people would view it much differently depending on where those borders are struck.
Hon E. Cull: If they tell me, I'll appoint them.
L. Fox: The minister says: "If they tell me, I'll appoint them." Well, that's precisely the reason that I'm supporting the hoist motion. Six months would give the minister an opportunity to go out there and listen to the people, so that they could have input into structuring those particular regions and perhaps into structuring what the autonomy of those boards should be.
I believe it was the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who talked about the original concept of the regional district. When that was put before the electorate in those respective regions there was a mapping and a plan. There was virtually a job description of what was expected from regional districts, how the election process was going to work and how APCs should be appointed. As well, the major thrust of what the objective of that elected body would be was outlined. We find none of that in this bill. In fact, what we find in this bill is the ability of the minister, by regulation, to designate.
When we look at what could happen in different jurisdictions around the province, there's a lot of fear out there. There has to be a process, and a six-month time frame is reasonable enough for the minister to identify, to some degree, the very broad kinds of management powers of these regions. As well, for discussion purposes, she and her ministry might identify what they feel are legitimate borders and delineations of the respective regions. But we find out, should we pass this legislation, that the minister has the powers to do that. That has to be a concern.
We find a similar process with respect to the community health councils in section 6(1): "The minister may, by regulation, designate (a) a community health council, and (b) an area of British Columbia that constitutes the community for the council." Here again, through this legislation, you have a body over which the minister has total autonomy to designate what it should consist of, what community should be involved in it in respect of regions of the province and perhaps what their responsibility should be.
Therein lies some more problems and the reason for more dialogue with the taxpayers and the people concerned about the level of health care in all corners of the province. They should know that what they're supporting is, in fact, going to deliver a product that will provide more dollars to the patient and less dollars to administration. But the perception I have of this bill is that it does just the opposite: it has the ability to put up two more bureaucracies which will eat up health care dollars and take away from the ability to spend dollars directly on treating the patient. That has to be a very large concern. I'm sure that it's a concern for the minister, because she has stated several times that she wants to see administration decreased and more of the health care dollar going to the patient. I think it behooves her and this government to put together more than just a concept to bring forward to the House for approval. They have to put together a package so that we can see what the directions of this government are, one where it's not all left up to the minister to designate or appoint and where, in fact, the public feels that they will have an ongoing opportunity, through some evaluation process that is not built into this particular bill, to be a partner in the process and improve upon the system as it moves forward. I'm sure there will always be a need for that particular happening.
[4:00]
When we look at some of the purposes of the bill, the statements are very broad. It leaves a lot to interpretation and, once again, to the minister and the
[ Page 7827 ]
powers of cabinet. Yesterday evening I complimented the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the process that he entered into, where some seven or eight months prior to bringing in legislation he provided a discussion paper that had some very specific information in it from interested parties in the province as to how the legislation should be changed in order to reflect what was in the best interests of local elections. What we've seen from other ministers, and certainly from this minister, is that legislation is brought in and hurried through the process to third reading stage, usually within two weeks. It gives very little opportunity for interested parties throughout the province to give their input into this kind of legislation.
Another concern that we have, certainly one that I have as a rural MLA, is that under this legislation there's a real possibility of having different levels of health care in different parts of the province. The individuals involved in and presently building on the concepts of Closer to Home are very dedicated, committed and well-meaning individuals. I believe they're trying to act from the perspective of what's in the best interests of their particular regions. But I do not believe that we've heard from the average taxpayer, the individual picking up the bill, as to whether or not they believe that the structure outlined within this bill is in fact something they would choose. In talking to those people it's obvious to me that the concept, as I said earlier, is supportable, but what they're looking for are the nuts and bolts of the system. How is it going to function? How is it going to affect my individual treatment? As the member for Richmond-Steveston, I believe it was, said a few moments ago, I get calls from individuals who are being put on long waiting lists for particular procedures and want help to get higher on the priority list. In fact, I had a call yesterday where a young lady wants to go back to work but has been told she has to wait until September for her particular operation.
People are asking me: will this new process help shorten those waiting lists? I can't tell them that, because we have no idea what the process is going to be or how it's going to deal with those concerns. In passing legislation such as this, I believe we should have given consideration to those major areas of concern and shown within the legislation what the structure is going to be, so that we can evaluate whether or not it's going to be in the best interests of British Columbians to proceed along this road.
The minister will be aware, and I'm sure the House is aware, that I have always supported the Closer to Home concept, but I wanted the minister and her ministry to enter into some pilot projects around the province. We could develop models based on urban structures, semi-urban structures and perhaps on small communities and extremely rural settings. There could be some assistance to those groups wanting to develop this process and improve the delivery of health care in their regions, so that they wouldn't all be trying to re-invent the wheel -- which is what is happening in the present process.
The minister spoke yesterday about 30 communities and how they made some marvellous progress in developing their systems. I can appreciate that input. I'm sure those people are working very diligently and very hard, trying to meet the deadlines required within the system. But that's 30 out of 180 communities. Many communities out there are really groping with what it is they're trying to set up. Some regional managers, department heads or directors -- whatever we call them under this system -- are also having great difficulty trying to figure out how this giant puzzle is all going to come together and how we're going to have an efficient delivery of health care services.
I believe it's incumbent on this government to look very seriously at supporting this amendment and bringing back legislation which addresses many issues that have been put out by both opposition parties. This legislation certainly addresses the issue of centralization. It puts more powers in the minister's hands than were ever there before. That is an extreme concern, when the minister is suggesting publicly that she is decentralizing powers and putting the decision-making process back in the community, closer to the delivery of care. That certainly isn't happening with this bill, because all the powers are right there within the minister's purview.
Nowhere in the process is there an evaluation of what the costs are going to be to deliver a respective service. This concern has been addressed by myself, members of the Liberal opposition and our opposition. Nowhere in this process do we have a procedure that allows us to evaluate what the expense of this new initiative is going to be versus the delivery of acute care in our hospitals, as we have at present. Members of the government stand up constantly and say: "Look at the Seaton royal commission." I've done that, and I've done so at considerable length. I agree that there are many good recommendations of concepts, but none of them has really been proven to be efficient, none of them has been costed out and none of them has been balanced with the affordability to pay and what the quality of service will be within that respective recommendation.
When I look back in my short history in local politics at some of the mistakes made by the government over the years, I recall a couple of initiatives. I believe that the six-month hoist motion can help us resolve some of those concerns. I recall an initiative by the Ministry of Education back in the mid-seventies when we decided that we were going to build the open-classroom concept. We spent millions of dollars designing and building new schools around an open-classroom concept, only to find out by '78 or '79 that in fact that concept didn't work. In theory it should have, but in practice it didn't. So then we spent millions of dollars redesigning those schools back to a typical classroom structure. Those are the kinds of mistakes the provincial government has made when they haven't taken the time to seek input into their policies and legislation.
When I go back and look at the Royal Commission on Education, at some of the recommendations that were implemented by the government and at the millions and millions of dollars spent on the Year 2000 program, I am convinced that within the next two to three years, the Year 2000 program and all the money we've spent on it will be in the trash can. There again,
[ Page 7828 ]
the philosophy and principles of that seemed to be something we should be able to achieve, but in fact, in principle it didn't work. And it won't work.
Now we look at the Seaton Royal Commission on Health Care. They have identified a Closer to Home concept for the delivery of services. In actual fact, that thrust probably started seven or eight years ago, or perhaps as many as ten years ago, with a shortening of the time you could stay in the hospital after surgery or a procedure. In fact, more and more encouragement was given over the years for day surgery versus admittance into the hospital. So that has in fact been evolving -- quite slowly perhaps, but in a natural and organized way.
What we have now reminds me of a kangaroo crossed with an ostrich: we take great leaps, but we still have our head in the sand. That's the concern. We're not listening to the public in this process, nor are we given specifics through this legislation or any other policy paper that allows the public to make the decision that this is the right direction or to evaluate whether or not they want to buy into this process or dump all over it. There's nothing they can read that outlines the structure of it. It's an airy-fairy system over which the minister has total power to structure. We're not well enough informed as to the final objective, as to what the final outcome is going to look like and as to what their responsibilities are going to be. That's a concern. I believe the six-month hoist motion could allow the minister to do the kind of preparatory work that would inform us -- and through us, inform the people of our respective constituencies -- as to whether we should all be buying in to this initiative or, instead, fighting against it as not meeting the objectives the Seaton commission thought possible when it put forward its recommendations.
Hon. Speaker, with that, I'll take my place. I would like to say I'll be supporting the hoist motion. Due to this very enthusiastic presentation by opposition members, I hope the government will see fit to support the motion and do the right thing on behalf of all British Columbians.
V. Anderson: I rise again to speak to the hoist motion on Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act. One of the realities we're facing in this House at the moment, hon. Speaker, is that we were here for some 60 sitting days, and within that 60 days some 20 bills were brought in to be considered.
D. Lovick: There you go, whining again.
V. Anderson: I'm not whining, as the member says; I'm just describing the facts. If we assume that we will close for the summer sometime between now and the middle of July, the end of July or whenever it might be, some 20 or 30 more bills have been brought in, including the Health Authorities Act, bills on guardianship and many other related bills. We also understand, and properly so, that there is an interrelationship among these bills. None of them stands on its own, so they must be considered in relationship to each other. We have 20-some more bills to consider at the same time as this one. We must not only consider the particular portions of each of those bills but consider them in relationship to each other.
Either by design or inability to get the bills done in time, we are being asked to consider all of these areas -- even to the point that we sit until 12:30 in the morning to try to deal honestly and fairly with the legislation before us, which is how it must be dealt with. But that's not only a difficulty for those of us who sit in the Legislature, because we sit here not to do our own will, although we have to take that into account; we are here to be responsive to the people of the province. They need an opportunity to read all of these 60-some bills, to digest them, to discuss them within their communities and then to come back to both the government and ourselves with their responses. That's the way legislation should be undertaken: in consultation with the people.
[4:15]
This government, particularly, has said it consults with the people. So they say that these bills come forward as a result of consultation. We're simply saying, fine, we'll take you at your word. When you bring in the Health Authorities Act, or the other 20 to 30 bills before us, these should go out so that the community has an opportunity to discuss them and report back to us. That's what we are saying is fundamentally important.
Municipal government is another level of government that is fundamental to our democratic system. These bills have to go to the municipal government to be considered, examined and responded to before we put them into legislation, because they impact directly on municipal government in every community in this province. They impact financially and organizationally and from the point of view of meeting the needs of the people. Let me just give an illustration that came into the House and into our community today. The concern with welfare Wednesday was raised. We discussed that with the Minister of Health, and she acknowledged the concern. Because of the system, some people who get money suddenly are able to buy heroin. As a result, over the last few months numerous deaths have occurred each month. Some 50 to 100 others did not die, because our services were there to meet their needs and to help them survive.
As I was saying earlier, a healthy community means that the Ministries of Social Services, Attorney General, Education and Health, along with the municipal governments and the community agencies, all have to work together in the planning of a community that can be a part of the care and concern we have for each other. The problem of people dying because of the heroin trade will not be solved by any one ministry, nor will it be solved by legislation we pass in this House, however good it may be. It will only be solved as we work together in daily consultation with the people of the community.
Even if -- and I say "even if" -- this Health Authorities Act were perfect, without the people of the community being able to buy into it and make it their own, it would never have the trust and authority to make it work.
[ Page 7829 ]
One of the phrases we have learned to understand very well is "I have a vision." Martin Luther King used that phrase and made it a watchword for people around the world, not because he was able to pass any legislation and not because he sat in the seat of power to make decisions that other people had to live by. He made that phrase important because he walked with the people, he met with the people, he listened to the people and he spoke on behalf of the people. Out of the recommendations of the people, he brought forth a vision which was caught throughout the world.
I know that the minister says that she has a vision of health for British Columbia. But that vision has not yet been caught by the community. The community has not found her walking in their midst on their streets or down in their mid-towns where they see her and hear about her and where they can talk to her face to face. She's been in committees and consultations with the select group of those who have come to talk about health, but the people in the community haven't felt that she has been a part of their life. So the Health Authorities Act doesn't come with that authority. It's a contradiction in terms. The Health Authorities Act comes with uncertainty, with questions and with lack of conviction on the part of the people. That's why we say it should be put aside and sent out to the people so that they are able to say, "Yes, we agree with this process, and therefore we'll implement it," or "No, we don't agree with it, and these are the changes that must be made," which I'm sure the minister would be delighted to do.
The bill almost reads like "the minister may" bill. When you look at the creation of the health councils, you find that expression coming up again and again. The minister may, by regulation, designate a regional health board. The minister may designate an area of British Columbia that constitutes the region for the board. The minister may, in effect, restructure British Columbia. The minister may, in effect, direct people on how they will come together to deal with health in a region -- a region that she dictates and puts forth. Perhaps those people do not want to become another corporation, which is what the minister has done here. The regional health board is a corporation.
The people of the community have been used to working with each other in cooperative association, not being forced into a business corporation. Now the minister has set up 75 or maybe 100 new corporations in the province, with all of the machinery that goes with corporations. The minister is saying who the board of the corporation is. It sounds like she's establishing another Vancouver Stock Exchange board, only she's establishing 75 of them. It's a great way to increase the business corporations within this province -- by mandate of the minister. They're not elected; they're designated. Under this board membership, the minister prescribes how many people will be on the board and who they will represent.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Having put all of these people in charge of new corporations, they are expected to fulfil this major undertaking without remuneration. People have been delighted and anxious to volunteer in associations that they were able to develop for themselves, that they were part of putting the meaning into and that were relevant to their particular community. Here, the corporation in every community will have the same stamp and the same profile. Underneath these corporations -- and I say underneath, because that's exactly what it is.... These corporations are run from the master headquarters, which is Victoria. Victoria -- as the master, mistress or whatever the proper term will be -- runs the corporation; each of the small corporations has community councils underneath it. Here again, under the community health councils -- we might say community health directorates -- the minister may, by regulation, designate the health council and the area that it serves.
We understand what this means, because another bill before this House has the provision that wards may be created not by the will of the people, but simply by a vote of a community council. The will of the people has been taken away, and the control has been placed in the council itself. Again, the pattern is seen in these community health councils where the minister may designate a health council and the area that it serves, and will designate the council's area of responsibility, guidelines and regulations. Indeed, the budget and finances of these councils and regional boards are all controlled from the master budget plan of the Minister of Health. It all comes down to one control. The regional boards and the regional health councils in this design become the puppet organizations of the Ministry of Health.
That's bad enough in itself, but we've seen the same pattern in Social Services, in Education and in all of the other facets of this government to, in essence, control and direct from a centralized point, rather than to decentralize and help the community to work together.
When we first heard the outline of this government, we thought they were moving in the same direction that the Liberals wanted, towards an integrated community development program where Health, Education, Social Services, Attorney General, Transportation and Municipal Affairs concerns would all work together in a community in a cooperative fashion, as I described earlier, to develop and decide what a healthy community means for them. Then the government at its various stages could support and interrelate between other communities who are doing exactly the same thing.
[4:30]
We have one more example of the social engineering of this government. The minister is at least honest enough to acknowledge that, because the bill itself says its purpose is to create the framework within which this transition process will proceed until 1995. It's a transition process; it's one stage in the planning, as the bill points out. In fact, it says this act creates the first stage in the establishment of regional health boards and community health councils across British Columbia. But what is the second stage? The third? The fourth? The fifth? This is like trying to put the foundation under a building without knowing whether you've got a
[ Page 7830 ]
two-storey, 40-storey or 100-storey building. You can't build communities this way; you can't restructure communities this way. You cannot restructure communities by building the penthouse first and then wait, hanging it in the middle of the air until everything else is available underneath it. That's exactly what we find happening here.
We all agree there should be provincial standards, but these are not standards that come from the community. "The minister may, by regulation, specify a health service, or the level or extent of health service, that must be provided in a region or community." The minister will decide the standards of community health care by regulation, and we do not know what that regulation is because that's somewhere down in the fourth or fifth -- or whatever -- stage of the process.
So people trying to build a process in the community don't even know what the building blocks are; they don't even know what it is that they are supposed to be achieving. We understand they are supposed to take over the hospitals and develop alternative community clinics. But we thought the hospital was a community clinic. There are no definitions or directions here. We are left without understanding by this minister. There is no process here of being part of a total community planning process. The Healthy Communities project, which this minister also supports, recommends and suggests this must be necessary, backed of course by the World Health Organization, with all of its experience in other places around the world.
If it were possible, we might suggest that the hoist should be even more than six months -- because we do not think this community consultation can be done that quickly. The minister is bringing this document out of the Closer to Home study, which is an inch thick. It implies that the consultation did not cease when this document was provided to the minister and to the Legislature for guidance. The understanding was that how the minister responded and what came out of this would go back out to the communities for review before it became law -- so they had their input before the fact, not after the fact.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
That is the problem with this. Regional health boards and community health councils are being created, hospital boards are being disenfranchised and the purposes that are being given to those councils and boards are being given to them. They have not been worked out with them, but are being given to them, mandated to them and directed at them. This is not the way people understood it would be done.
Then we look at the financial administration, and we find that each council and regional board is subservient to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health here in Victoria. They present their budget up the line, and then the word will come down to them. Indeed, a corporate structure is being proposed here, where one big health corporation, with many corporations and branches throughout the province, is unrelated to the total community needs. This is not what the people asked for.
Perhaps the minister and members of the government do not agree, and they would say: "Yes, this is exactly what the people asked for; this is exactly what they want." If so, let the hoist motion go through. Send the bill out to the hospital boards across the province. Send it out to the municipal councils that have not even had time to receive it yet, much less read it, since it only came in this last week. Send it out to the health boards and to the community agencies that have been meeting. Don't send it by fax; send it out so they can have time to read it, digest it and honestly respond to it. Once they have read it and digested it, let the minister go out among them and hear them speak. Then when the bill comes back, it will have credibility and viability.
Again I ask: how does this particular bill, in planning for health within this province, fit into the planning for social services? We have never heard of an integrated plan between these bodies. How does this plan fit in with the educational plan of this province? Again, we have never heard of an integrated plan between these different bodies.
Let me give an example of something that happened in our own community. We had community health service centres in different parts of the community. At one point we used to be able to go to the community health service centre and all our concerns about health could be dealt with in that one centre. Then there was a reorganization, and instead of the community centre being able to provide all of the health services, they were specialized. One centre provided one type of service, another provided another type of service and another some place else provided a third type of service. So you were forced to go from service to service to service, and the whole thing just broke down.
It was like going to a group of medical specialists. If it was something to do with your foot, you went to one person; if it had to do with your head, you went to another person.. That was the process. Without integration between the ministries to bring the services of this government together.... That kind of process is not good enough for this province at the present time. There must be cooperation between the ministries, and there must be a community view of health care that takes in the whole community, not only the sick but also those who may become sick.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, it's sometimes hard to resist the banter that goes across the floor in here. But it's nice to know that we have a healthy aspect to our discussion, even when we're discussing serious matters.
Another illustration is that in our community of Vancouver-Langara -- and it's an adjoining community -- we have been served very well and very effectively over many years by all the special and personal services that were in Shaughnessy Hospital. Now that's no more, because this minister has dictated that Shaughnessy Hospital will not succeed. The staff and doctors were not consulted, and the community was not consulted. Even the cooperative groups with which Shaughnessy Hospital worked -- Grace Hospital, Children's Hospital, the University of B.C. and
[ Page 7831 ]
Vancouver General Hospital -- were not contacted. The decision was made because the minister said it would happen and, apparently, the Minister of Finance said that she had to save $40 million. So this took place without consultation and without community support. When the community banded together, held public meetings and went to Vancouver city council, they asked the minister to come. But the minister was not there. She was not in the middle of the group to hear what people had to say, like Martin Luther King was in the middle of his flock.
That is why we're concerned about this particular bill. It is called the Health Authorities Act, and it implies quite openly in its title that the minister has authority and all the rest of us are subservient to that authority. I'm simply saying, on behalf of the people of this province, that we are not subservient to the Minister of Health. We are not subservient to this government, no matter how many seats they won with 42 percent of the vote. They promised to work with the people of this province. They promised to work on behalf of the people of the province, not simply to implement their philosophy of social engineering. I would have no problem with their philosophy interacting in a dialogue where we come to an agreement between us. But I do have a problem when there's no dialogue or consultation, and when the acts of this Legislature do not go back to the people to get their response, so they can be a part of it.
Hon. Speaker, the Health Authorities Act is not ready to go forward to the people of this province, because the people of this province will not accept it in its present form. As we have discovered with Shaughnessy and other places, it will make our health care even worse than it is at the moment.
H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Lali: I was asked by my good friend the member for Kamloops to make an introduction on his behalf. He threatened that if I didn't make the introduction, he would cancel a couple of highway projects in my riding, so I am forced to make this introduction under duress. It is my pleasure to introduce some grade 6 and 7 students from the French class at Lloyd George Elementary School in Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: I am opposed to this hoist motion because the arguments that have been put forward by the opposition are clearly not based on facts. The two points they make repeatedly are that we have not consulted enough and that we are not putting in place a cost-effective system of governance. I'd just like to talk briefly to each one.
[4:45]
With respect to not having consulted enough, this process started in March of 1990 with the report of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. That was over three years ago. During the course of doing that report they received 1,500 submissions from people throughout this province, and they heard from hundreds of people who came out to meetings. We didn't just take the royal commission report and start to implement it. Contrary to the member opposite, who said as he held up the report, "We thought there'd be some consultation," after that report was completed, we sat through a number of processes and reviewed the recommendations of the report. We had an advisory committee that steered the process through a number of different working groups. Consumers and health care providers were involved. We had two major forums with representatives of every group that has anything to do with health care -- not just health in the narrow sense of the Ministry of Health, but the broad concept of health that the member opposite has been talking about. We had community meetings. We met in church halls, community halls and high schools. We talked to people who, like all of us, are not experts in health care but simply consumers of health care services -- people who depend on them to be there when they need them.
After that process had been gone through -- it took us about a year -- we sat down and drafted the New Directions paper. That paper went through consultation with the people who had helped us put the report together. In fact, the paper was written by the 26-member advisory committee that did the work and reviewed what was finally going to be in it. When the paper was released in February of this year it contained 38 specific actions that had been worked out in consultation with the people of this province. One of those specific actions was to change the system of governance for health care in this province so that we didn't have a myriad of boards all over the place, each looking at its own little narrow part of the health care system, but truly community-based boards that had a comprehensive mandate to look at acute care services, long-term care services and the community-based services that make up the backbone of our health care system.
The consultation didn't stop once the paper was released. I personally spent seven weeks in February and March travelling around this province, going to almost every region and talking to hospital boards, health care providers and community groups in high schools and community forums. People who were interested enough to come out in the evening everywhere from the Queen Charlottes to the Kootenays, up and down Vancouver Island and through the northern part of British Columbia talked about the New Directions strategy, and I gained more ideas about how we should reflect those individual 38 strategies both in the programs of the ministry and in the legislation we're bringing forward.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
When that process was completed, we started discussion with the groups about the draft legislation. We took the concepts to them. We met with a large number of health care providers and associations and talked about what this piece of legislation should look like when it was finally tabled in the Legislature. Again, I met personally with the B.C. Health Association, the
[ Page 7832 ]
associated union boards of health and with the Union of B.C. Municipalities representatives, so that I could be assured that they were satisfied with what we were planning on tabling in terms of legislation. I met with the representatives of the health care workers and all of the union representatives in the acute care and community care fields, so that they too could tell me how this might impact on the people they represent, both the patients and their workers. That process was completed when we tabled the legislation in the House.
But the process of consultation has not yet finished, because the very intent of this legislation is that it is transitional. It is aimed at getting the next step in the process underway. As we move forward with the pilot projects that the member opposite has called for, we will learn what changes have to be made so that next year we can come back with detailed permanent legislation. It will allow us to reflect on the models that have been developed in this transition period and to make the final decisions that no community in this province wants us to make this early, because they want some chances to sit down and sort it out for themselves.
The other argument around the consultation issue that I've heard is that we didn't take the royal commission recommendation. The member for Richmond East -- the critic -- stands up and reads out the recommendation on regionalization from the royal commission report, which recommends regional managers of the Ministry of Health being the regionalization process -- being in control of the budgets, the programs and the priorities.
That may have been a reasonable recommendation from the commission. But when we took it through the rest of this process that I've just described, the people in the communities didn't buy it. They said they didn't want that kind of highly centralized process; they wanted a community-based process made up of people who were elected and appointed to sit on boards and councils in their communities. They wanted a fair amount of scope in terms of what responsibilities they would take on, what their boundaries would be and how they would organize themselves in their own communities. They told me very clearly that what fits in Victoria won't fit in Nelson, in Smithers or in downtown Vancouver, so we have to allow ourselves a degree of flexibility. That is what is now coming forward in those communities that are starting into the process, because they all look very different in the way they're organizing themselves.
I've heard arguments on both sides of this in the last two days. It's rather amusing to hear some members stand up and say: "There are not enough specifics in this bill. You're going to have things all over the map." Then the next speaker from the opposition stands up and says: "You're not allowing enough flexibility. You're trying to make everybody do the same thing." We're not trying to make everybody do the same thing; we're trying to give them a framework within which they can work, so that they can explore some of these models of community and regional organization. When we have learned from those over the next year, we will be able to put the most successful models into permanent legislation.
We've also been told that there's no cost-effectiveness and that we don't know whether this process is going to cost more or less. I've heard a lot of arguments about a community-based health care system versus institution-based care. Members were talking about people being discharged from hospital and whether or not it was more effective to have moms discharged early. This legislation is governance legislation. It is not about whether we have a more institutionalized or a less institutionalized system. In fact, if the communities wanted to, the nature of health care in their community could remain virtually unchanged with this governance system. That won't happen, because people want to see things change in their community, and they want the tools to make that happen. But this legislation deals with the governance; it doesn't deal with whether we have more community care, whether we merge institutions, whether we go to early discharge planning or anything like that.
It is more cost-effective, though. If you look at the system we have right now, in any community in this province we have two, three, a dozen or maybe two dozen boards. In most communities in the province that are managing health care resources in isolation from one another, we have hospital boards, long-term care boards, union boards of health and a myriad non-profit societies, along with services direct from ministries that are managed out of regional offices and delivered with no board or local organization at all. This system of fragmented governance is causing a lot of the problems. That's one of the things the royal commission said we had to change.
The interesting thing that's coming back to me four months after we released the New Directions paper -- even from the communities these members have been talking about, who are skeptical about whether this process is going to work.... The one thing they have been saying to me is: "We're not sure yet whether this is going to work in our community. But we're sitting down and talking to each other, and this is the first time that many of us have actually been in the same room talking about health care." I'm not talking about a very busy, complex system like in downtown Vancouver, where you'd think people might not be talking to each other. I'm talking about very small communities in this province, where the hospital board hasn't yet met with the mental health team, where the continuing care facility board is not meeting with the continuing care managers, and where we don't have people who have either the time or the incentive to look at what would happen if they worked together and treated their budgets together. Their patients are the same people. It's just the way they've organized their budgets and governance that makes it look so fractured. The beauty of a system where you have a community-based council, which has the ability to look over the spectrum from acute to community-based care, is that they have the ability to reallocate dollars.
I've heard members from the north particularly raising very good important points about the special needs of northern and isolated communities. But a lot of good ideas come out of those communities. When I was up in the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako earlier
[ Page 7833 ]
this week, I met with community groups, boards, mayors, regional district people and health care providers. In many of those communities they said: "Look, here's our problem and here's the solution. But we can't do it, because the solution involves moving some of our budget from this agency or institution here over to this institution there. There are two separate bodies, budgets and administrations, and we can't make any sense out of it."
If we start to merge boards, as they are doing in the north end of Vancouver Island.... And if anyone had been listening to the second reading debate on this bill, they would have heard me say that those five communities up there have decided to go to one CEO for their five health centres. Instead of having five administrators they're going to have one. There's an immense possibility here for efficiencies in administration and in managing the system.
It's clear that we can't come out with legislation that's going to have every last detail set down in stone. We need some pilot projects. But those pilot projects can't start without this legislation. A pilot project like the Simon Fraser health region has gone just about as far as it can go. In another couple of months it will come back to me, saying: "Okay, we've sorted out the governance system and the services. We'd like to merge the boards and form the council. How can we do it?" And there's no legislative authority to do that. That's what this legislation is for: to give us the starting point, so the communities that are going to pilot this concept for us can have the legal authority to go ahead and do it.
I've heard some very basic misunderstandings in the comments of the members opposite. The one that troubles me most is the misunderstanding about where the decisions will be made in all of this process. I'll use the regions' boundaries as an indication of that. There's been a suggestion that we should have gone the route that the regional district legislation in 1965 went, where the boundaries and how they would be determined were set out very clearly in the legislation. We have said to the communities in this province from the very beginning that the starting points for regional boundaries are the health units. But we will listen to communities when they come back to us, as the communities in Smithers, Hazelton, Granisle, Houston and Burns Lake did this week. They said: "We think there's another region in here between the two large regions in the north, and we would like you to consider another region." If this legislation was prescriptive about where those boundaries were, we wouldn't have the ability to do that. We're telling the communities that they have to sort out what a region is, because if they don't think they're a region this isn't going to work. The communities have to feel they own this process. That's why the flexibility is there in the legislation right now: for me to appoint regions based on boundaries recommended to me by the communities themselves.
If we put this bill off for six months, we will not be serving those communities that have been working very hard -- some of them for up to a year -- to form community health councils in their own communities. Maybe the community in Richmond has had one meeting; I don't know how many meetings they've had. But I know that in some communities they've had dozens of meetings. They've put in hours and hours. They've had hundreds of people involved in developing their plans. And if we don't give them a legal framework to take the next step forward and to merge some of their boards and develop their community health plans, we will be telling the communities of this province that we don't care what they think -- we're going to put it off and leave them all hanging, after having put in all this work and dedication to make this come about.
[5:00]
I urge that this motion be defeated, so we can get on with the very exciting process of health care reform in this province.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the motion on the amendment to the main motion, which is "that the motion for second reading of Bill 45 be amended by deleting the word 'now' and substituting therefor the words 'six months hence'."
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 15 | ||
|
Cowie |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Serwa |
De Jong |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
Symons |
Tanner |
|
Hurd |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
K. Jones |
Tyabji |
| NAYS -- 28 | ||
|
Boone |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Barlee |
Beattie |
Lortie |
|
Hammell |
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
|
Clark |
Cull |
Blencoe |
|
Barnes |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
|
Evans |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Lord |
|
Randall |
Garden |
Kasper |
| Janssen | ||
On the main motion.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak on second reading of Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act, 1993. It's a very important issue that we're discussing here. It's truly an issue that should be apolitical in its nature. Health care and health concerns involve all of us. I was particularly pleased when the royal commission was announced....
Interjections.
The Speaker: One moment. I regret that I'm interrupting the member, but I would request that the House come to order so we can continue with the debate. Please continue, hon. member.
C. Serwa: I was saying that I was exceedingly pleased when the rather complex field of health care in
[ Page 7834 ]
the province of British Columbia received the opportunity for a royal commission on health care. It's a very major ministry. Not only is acute health care part and parcel of it, but many other facets and aspects are as well. It's an incredibly large and diverse ministry.
The royal commission listened to a number of people on its tour throughout the province and came back with a number of recommendations and the Closer to Home concept. I think we all agree with the recommendations of the royal commission. I don't think that is at issue at the present time. The issue that comes forward at the present time, though, is not simply the recommendations, but how the recommendations are handled and the interpretation of those recommendations by the minister, by the government, by health care professionals and also by the general public who are affected, as health care affects every individual in British Columbia.
It's incumbent on the minister and the government to recognize that after a fairly lengthy debate so far with respect to second reading on the Health Authorities Act, there is considerable concern about the initial direction that the legislation is taking. The minister indicated she has had considerable consultation with a variety of groups and stakeholders in the health care field as she travelled throughout the province for seven weeks, I believe. But what is clearly evident at this time is a lack of confidence in the philosophy and principles and the details of this particular piece of legislation.
For the recommendations of the Seaton commission to succeed and to benefit health care in a cost-effective and service-oriented way for the people of the province, a sense of proprietorship has to be established by the pubic in British Columbia. That sense of proprietorship can only be accomplished if they have an opportunity to view and review in depth the direction in which the minister and the government are going with respect to the Health Authorities Act. Clearly that opportunity has not been made available.
This legislation was tabled on June 18 in the Legislature. We have had a relatively short time to review this particular act, which clearly sets the foundations for the recommendations of the Seaton commission. The public has not had an opportunity to scrutinize it. If the minister displays the type of confidence that she displayed in her summation speech a few minutes ago with respect to the amendments, then I am confident that the minister would be willing to test the waters by allowing the people in British Columbia -- not simply the health care specialists, but certainly all of those -- to consult and review it on a local basis. That is very important. The group includes medical doctors, nurses, practitioners -- the professionals in the field -- but also the various levels of government involved and the taxpayers who ultimately will be paying for this and determining whether they get the type of services they require. That opportunity should be made available. We do have the structure in place here to enable that.
The minister said that we will be serving communities, and yet we fail to recognize that those communities require that sense of proprietorship in a piece of legislation such as this. We all recognize legislation, whether it's oriented in a better way.... I think that we consciously try to orient, develop, design and pass legislation so that it enhances the service or the quality of program delivery to constituents in British Columbia. But in listening to second reading debate and the statements made by hon. members of the opposition and the third party, I don't see that that sense of confidence has been displayed.
[5:15]
The minister indicates a sense of urgency in that if we don't pass this particular piece of legislation relatively quickly, in some way, shape or form we will be letting individuals down, because this legislation is really necessary to take the next step forward. I question that because I don't see that it curtails the development of a community being involved, coming up with a plan of action and putting together a structure. I don't see that it is necessary to have this act passed. It seems to me that the communities will continue to work towards it. But it's incredibly important that this important initiative succeed. In order for it to succeed, the time element is not all that critical. We have one of the finest health care systems in any jurisdiction in the world operating at the present time. Yes, everyone in the field and virtually every member of the public -- all taxpayers -- are confident that savings of 8 percent, perhaps 10 percent, could be obtained in the system, delivering a constant level of services that the people require in a more cost-effective way. I think that we all are hopeful that that, in fact, will occur.
But the reality is that this foundation step has to have the widespread support of all British Columbians. We live in a diverse number of communities, and it's interesting to note that some of the diversity is recognized with our native people, in the number of different bands, different languages and the geographic areas of the province that have created that. Our health care system has to accommodate a number of diverse needs and requirements of communities. In some areas of the province, certainly in my situation in the central Okanagan, we're well served and we're not very far away from a splendid facility -- the Kelowna General Hospital. It provides a wide range and diverse number of services. We happen to have a large number of seniors -- something like 23 percent in our constituency are 65 or older -- and certainly that level and range of services are required, desired and needed.
But many communities are radically different in the composition of their people than ours in the central Okanagan. In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, you have a wide array of services, and you have people residing in a very compact area, so the design of those services can accommodate the Closer to Home concept. I think that in the end the cost-effectiveness and the ability to be at home and get the necessary services are really desirable. There's no argument from me or, I think, from anyone in this Legislature on that particular facet.
But again, going back to Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act, we see a fairly radical step. It may be the right step, but again that sense of proprietorship is required. It's been my experience that if you're starting
[ Page 7835 ]
to move in a different direction, even though it's in the right direction, there are two things generally that the public is reluctant to agree to: one is change, and the second one is the rate of change. So it appears that if we have confidence in the direction, we are going to have to give this type of exposure of this bill to the public, so that they can look at it objectively and agree or disagree that this is the standard, the model and the structure that they believe is what they proposed in the original series of consultations with the Seaton royal commission.
If they're confident of that, this particular piece of legislation would certainly come back with the support of the broad community of British Columbians. That's what's necessary for this to succeed. I believe that this initiative must succeed. I believe that all members of the Legislature have a strong and abiding faith in the will of the people as expressed in the royal commission report.
So we wonder where the sense of urgency comes in. Who does this piece of legislation serve? Who was it designed to serve? They are valid questions. Does it serve the government, the government's need and the government's will? Does it serve the mandate of the minister, in the minister's sense of urgency to pass this particular act as quickly as possible? Does it serve the bureaucracy? I wonder who put the bill together. Does it serve the health care professionals, who are in the field providing a diverse array of services? Has it been designed to reflect accurately the report of the Royal Commission on Health Care and serve the people of the province, whom it's really supposed to serve as the foundation of the change and direction in the health care system? Those are valid questions. The public is going to have to look at this and respond to those valid questions. But it's my belief that if they fail to support this, then it has to be amended with the main objective of the Seaton commission still in mind. It has to be amended in a way that will respond and truly represent the will of the people, who exercised their opportunity when they made their comments to Chief Justice Seaton in the commission hearings.
I don't think the challenges with respect to this piece of legislation are a reflection on the government, or on the minister, or on this Legislature. It's important for all British Columbians that we move in this particular direction. But it's something so sensitive and so critical, and it involves all British Columbians. It is not a simple matter -- you can't expect to railroad this piece of legislation and ram it down the throats of the people it's intended to serve. I think it's altogether too critical, too important, for that tendency.
I said in my opening remarks that I don't consider this a political bill; I consider it apolitical. Truly, if the Legislature is to work as it should work, to represent the will and the public interest of the people of the province, then I think that we should be giving those individuals the opportunity to assess and to review this particular act, and then come back to the Legislature with it. If we fail to do so, then we jeopardize all of the work of the Seaton commission -- all their facts and all their findings.
There are a number of elements in the bill, which I have a great deal of difficulty accepting. I would be reluctant to accept, for example, the appointment of the regional health boards or councils. It's my wish that those be duly elected, not appointed. I note that there is talk of election in the long term, but if you're going to be truly representative of the will of the people, I think the only way to do that is not by appointments, which are always suspect. I know this, because government appointments to hospital boards, for example, have always been somewhat suspect, and this is the same thing exactly. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to have the faith, trust and confidence of the people when we move in a new direction, and I think that's incredibly important. I know that the Minister of Health understands and appreciates the significance of that. But if we fail to be patient enough, even with the best will, we can shoot down and get backs up; and we can lose the benefit of what should be progressive legislation, which will enhance the delivery of health care in the province. I guess that's my real concern.
In the debate, we've covered a vast variety of areas, and it's not my intention to go on and on and cover the same turf again, so I will not do that. I just want to emphasize before I close -- and I'm going to close, and then I will be moving an amendment -- that I would sincerely ask the Minister of Health to consider the necessity for obtaining the faith, trust and confidence of the people on this particular issue. The only way to do that is to go out to the people with the exact design. I'm not talking about an ambiguous concept, but to go out with the exact design that the government has come up with on the basis of their interpretation of the royal commission. In going out with that design for the first time, we can see something in black and white and the judgment can be made.
There is a great deal of subjective interpretation of words. There's an even greater latitude with ideas and concepts. The word "pain" means something different to each one of us here. When you consult with people and talk about something soft, fuzzy and without design parameters, it's very difficult, because while each individual involved in that consultative process has a rather fixed idea, a wide latitude of words convinces them that there has been effective communication. Effective communication can only be assured when a specifically designed piece of legislation comes back for a review process.
On that basis, I would like to move the following motion: that bill 45, intituled Health Authorities Act, 1993, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Health and Social Services.
On the amendment.
C. Serwa: The purpose of the motion is clearly what I've spoken to in my second reading debate. I strongly support the royal commission report. I want the public to be supportive of the direction that government decides we should be going on this very important and critical matter. It seems to me that we have a very effective tool within the framework of this Legislature, which is the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. It's a committee of all three
[ Page 7836 ]
parties. That particular committee, charged with an objective requirement to come back to the Legislature with information, can do so in a fair, balanced and well-reasoned way.
I've seen in the past how effective these committees can operate. I have every confidence that a committee travelling around the province on this basis will get the type of hearing and the objective feedback that the minister and the government require for this particular piece of legislation. With that, I close my debate on the second reading of the Health Authorities Act. I ask that others look at this in an objective way, with the real objective that a fair hearing be given and that the public have an opportunity to respond.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. I'm a bit upset at the response of the Minister of Health to the second reading comments of the opposition and particularly the Liberal opposition. She seemed to think that our major objections were a lack of consultation and a misrepresentation of the decision-making power of the minister. We said very clearly yesterday when we started second reading debate, and again today, that what we're taking exception to is the costs incurred in the system by the creation of this enormous new bureaucracy and this extra level of government. Also, all of this new level of government will be on the basis of appointments for the next three and a half years. So in theory, although we will have public representation on these boards and councils, it won't be for three and a half years. In the interim the NDP will be making all the appointments to this new governing body that will be empowered to make bylaws with jurisdiction over regional and local health. That's not an acceptable way to have any kind of government body function, even if it's only for three and a half years on the theory that one-third of these councils would be eligible for election.
[5:30]
Today we have people crying out that they're being overtaxed, overgoverned and crushed by bureaucracy and that the debt, deficit and cost of government are spiralling out of control. I see the Minister of Finance sitting there with a big smile on his face. He of all people should have spent a lot of time talking to the Minister of Health about the budgetary parameters of this bill.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: We've got the back bench saying there was a committee around the province.
The motion is to send it to a committee in order to ask the people of the province whether they want what's in Bill 45. Do they actually want more bureaucracy and more government? In the preliminary consultations for the reform of health care, one message came out loud and clear: the people of the province want better and more effective delivery of health care to the regions, not a greater administration and not an extra level of bureaucracy or another level of government. The point that the Minister of Health didn't address at all when she started to talk about the regional boards, and what we were referring to yesterday when we talked about the regional districts, was the regional hospital boards now, and the fact that, as government currently exists, in the ministries that we currently have, every ministry has a different definition of a region. Depending on which ministry you go to, they reference their regional offices on a different basis. From that perspective, the fact that, in the reading of the bill, the regions are defined by the minister causes us some concern. What we may end up having is.... The original creation of the regional districts was well intentioned, but as they exist today, they are clearly not effective. They are not cost-effective, they're not efficient and they're not the best method of delivering local government, considering that we have 75 school districts and so many municipalities where we could have coordination of government as they exist right now, and we don't.
That's the message we are trying to get across: there is too much government now. There's too much bureaucracy as it exists now, and this bill is going to increase that dramatically. There's no question that the way the bill is functioning is going to create a larger cost to the taxpayer. Although the Minister of Health has said that the public can have access to the meetings in the hospital boardrooms, I don't know that there are any hospital boardrooms that would be large enough to accommodate the public if the public took an interest in a local health issue.
In addition to that, we have taken exception to the decision-making structure. The minister ultimately has all the control over the line of decision-making and -- most particularly, in the short term -- has 100 percent authority over who is appointed to these boards. That's a lot of control for the Minister of Health, and she's trying to downplay it. She's trying to say that there's a lot of local autonomy. Clearly there isn't -- unless we are only looking selectively at local autonomy in a partisan way. One would expect that, in a partisan way, there will be a lot of local autonomy, because there will be, as we've seen before, very selective appointments to these boards and councils, particularly partisan appointments. Until we get to the next local elections, which would be in 1996, we will have appointments to positions that should be duly constituted for election from the time they are put together. There's really no reason that they couldn't do what has been done in many jurisdictions before. In 1973, when the NDP forced amalgamation of Kelowna and Kamloops, we saw that in that case they held a special election on the local level in order to meet the needs of the two new jurisdictions. So there's no reason on earth, when you have a reform of the system of this magnitude, that there couldn't be some accommodation made to pre-empt the appointment and move straight to an election. That causes us great concern.
It isn't the cost-benefit analysis that we're focusing on; it's the lack of budgetary restrictions. It's the fact that our Health critic, notwithstanding hours and hours of debate in the Health estimates, couldn't come up with the budget for these new directions, as the minister likes to say. In this vacuum, and considering that the government has the ability to finance capital
[ Page 7837 ]
expenditures through Build B.C., how can we have any comfort about spending limits on this new structure? How can we have any comfort that there isn't going to be a need, especially as we go a year, two years, three years down the line, for a completely new capital infrastructure that would involve buildings, chambers and the whole network?
As they exist right now, school boards, regional districts, municipalities and even libraries each have separate capital costs. So here we're going to have a new infrastructure of capital costs. Yet there are no budgets, no budgetary restrictions and -- notwithstanding hours and hours of debate in the estimates -- no evidence at all of how much this is going to cost. Those are the points we were trying to get through. It's not the cost-benefit analysis per se. The fact is: we don't know what it will cost; we haven't seen any budget or budgetary restrictions.
We know this is a very powerful enabling bill. It's going to set up a new government, a new bureaucracy. Yet there's no price tag at a time when people have no money left; there is no more to go around. In fact, I'm assuming that this is going to be a structure independent of the budget that was tabled, independent of the deficit we have and independent of the current costs that have already been attributed to B.C. 21. That is the case as we understand it. Every indication we have from the minister in debate says that there's no accountability and no price tag on this.
How can we support this? How can we support an enabling bill without any price tag attached to it, especially considering that the democratic process will be abrogated in the short term? We think the Minister of Health hasn't addressed that properly in this debate. Obviously in committee stage we can address that to a slightly greater extent, but in the absence of that, this is where the greatest concern comes in.
We would like to have some feedback from the public as well. There's no question that the government is very good at preliminary travelling road shows; we've seen that. In fact, we've seen select standing committees, the Minister of Finance on his prebudget tour and the Minister of Labour on his pre-labour tour. We've seen the consultation and great fanfare and trumpets and all the confetti flying because they will consult before the legislation gets to the House. We find that by the time it gets to the House, it doesn't resemble what the people were asking for. That's the point where the steel gates come down, the doors close and there is no further consultation allowed. There are no amendments to the bill and no discussion of the bill. In fact, great air of offence is taken by the government that we would even suggest that another word of consultation could take place. It would be amusing if it didn't have such dire consequences on the ability of the people of the province to continue to pay their tax bills, have any disposable income and feel some comfort that in actual fact we will have fewer layers of government. Here we see another one. The approach we are taking is that it is not the preliminary consultation, although that's important; it's the fact that once you have the legislation in draft form, that's when you go back to the people and say: "This is what we understood from our discussions. Is this what you had in mind?"
Not that we agree that often, but the member for Saanich North and the Islands' private member's statement last Friday had an excellent point with regard to the select standing committees of the Legislature. He suggested that bills go before the all-party committees of the Legislature before they come to the House. Then we could eliminate a lot of this standing up and talking to the government. They don't listen; and we introduce these motions such as the one before us, and they don't accept them; and then we go to committee stage and we introduce amendments, and they vote them down; and it goes on and on. We've been doing this for a year and a half. It's like a big charade.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: To a large extent, it is also a waste of tax dollars, because the people are in effect paying for us to stand up here and argue something when there is a guarantee of defeat. I hear the member from -- I can't remember where, because he never speaks up in debate and he's just a backbencher who is valuable only for a vote -- saying that if we don't bring it before the House, we don't get any TV time or media coverage. We're not in the entertainment business, contrary to what the government might think. Our job is to stand up, analyze legislation, look at the merits of the legislation and carry out the people's work. But we would be much more effective if, before it comes to the House, we could sit down and hash it out in a committee and get some kind of consensus. Then maybe we could get a little bit closer in terms of representing our constituents in the legislation.
The motion before us to send the material from this bill to a standing committee of the House is a good one. It's exactly what should be done to allow other members of the House to have some constructive input. The legislation will have an enormous, long-term impact on all British Columbians, and there should be some ability for the opposition to have constructive legislative input before the bill goes into the final stages. A point that the NDP constantly seems to miss is that post-legislation consultation is just as important as pre-legislation consultation. Otherwise, people become cynical and jaded. They'll assume that the consultation is only so that the NDP government can garner rhetoric to use in propaganda to sell them something they don't want. That's what we've seen happen. The consultation is just enough to provide words, jargons and slogans that the NDP can then use to package and market a bill that has very little to do with what people really want and more to do with the salesmanship and marketing tactics that accompany it.
I support this motion, and I urge the minister to support it. In fact, I look forward to the Minister of Finance's comments. I know that he can't resist getting in on the debate. He constantly preempts his backbenchers by getting in on debate. I look forward to his justification for the bill not going to a committee of the House. When you have legislation of this nature, so
[ Page 7838 ]
far-reaching in scope in terms of its consequences, all members should be able to have input.
Hon. G. Clark: Now that I've been provoked by members opposite to rise, I can't resist a few remarks. I'm shocked listening to the members of the opposition oppose health care reform. Make no mistake about it: they're standing up here filibustering and moving motions to oppose health care reform. We have had years of debate in this province. We had a royal commission under Judge Seaton, by the previous government. A cross-section of British Columbians sat on that royal commission, held hearings around the province and made recommendations. We then took those recommendations and held hearings around the province again and had consultative committees and came up with a consensus document. Every person in British Columbia had a leaflet in the mail detailing new directions in health care. We had thousands of responses. This is the product of the most consultation we've ever seen in British Columbia, and it is profound. The members are right: this is a profound change to health care; this is profound reform.
We have two options in this country when we deal with escalating costs in health care. We can try to minimize administrative costs and try to move in the direction the Seaton commission recommended, or we can move to an American-style health care system with user fees, like the Liberal governments of New Brunswick and Quebec and the Conservative government of Alberta want the country to move in. That's obviously the position of the members opposite, because they're opposing this very thoughtful, reasoned and profound health care reform agenda. I'm shocked to see them stand up and suggest that we send this to a select standing legislative committee. Why? This is a parliamentary technique to try to kill this piece of legislation.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: "Kill the bill," they say. That's their true intention.
This legislation has the potential to dramatically reduce the layers of administration and bureaucracy in the health care system. That's what this is all about. Instead of having hospital boards, long-term care boards, union boards of health, mental health committees and boards and all kinds of people and administration involved, this takes a holistic approach that says let's try to have these groups talk together; let's try to minimize the layers of bureaucracy and administration; and let's make the appropriate tradeoff. Instead of spending money in expensive care, in some cases, let's spend money in prevention, wellness, community care and more appropriate care.
[5:45]
As Minister of Finance, I can tell you that this will save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, and it will improve health care. That's what the Seaton commission said, and this is the practical result of it. I can't believe that I'm standing here in the House today listening to the drivel from the opposition. They clearly have not read this legislation; they clearly have not read "New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia." They don't understand the choices we have in this country in coming to grips, in a progressive way, with escalating costs. They clearly haven't even talked to members of their own parties who have been involved in this process, who support the government's New Directions and who understand that tough choices have to be made when it comes to Shaughnessy Hospital in order to provide the resources to move more dramatically in the direction of community care.
I asked the opposition to get off this kick where one day they say that we haven't consulted enough, and the next day they say we're taking too long. It is just the same as hearing one speaker say that the government is spending too much, and the next speaker stands up and says that we're not spending enough. I have some advice for the members of the opposition: if they want to be taken seriously in this province as a prospective government, then they should learn that when one member says one thing and another member of the same party says the exact opposite, that they will be held to account, because the voters are not stupid. The voters are much more intelligent than the members of the opposition are giving them credit for, because they can see through the fact that they're talking out of both sides of their mouth.
This is a profound piece of legislation which moves in the direction of fundamental reform in health care. We should not send it to a standing committee for more talk or, worse yet, kill this legislation. We should get on with this very progressive health care reform, which has broad community support, which has had several years of consultation and which will improve health care, reduce costs, reduce administration and reduce bureaucracy.
[E. Barnes in the chair]
A. Cowie: You can always tell when this government has a troubled bill. The hon. minister for Vancouver-Kingsway gets up to the rescue -- Mr. Fixit in action. He builds up the horrendous response to try and get people pumped up.
I want to tell you that I'm very pleased to support this motion. I'm very pleased to support the idea of taking this very important bill to committee with the objective of ensuring that all parties in this Legislature can support it. The idea of regional boards and a community council approach to administration is the best thing for this province and for the communities. It's very important that all communities in our province give it support.
I'd like to comment for a minute on the comments made by my colleague for Vancouver-Langara. I was sitting in my office, and I was very taken by what he had to say. Basically, he talked about healthy communities. That's where it's really at; that's where the service has to be delivered -- at our community level. We all have minor health problems and minor issues, and we should be able to get help at the community level. We should be able to go to our community centres and our local clinics; we should be
[ Page 7839 ]
able to get help from our friends. We should be able to get advice from our families and from people in our community. I grew up in a medical family; I grew up around broken bones and bloody fingers and things like that. These are minor things that can be looked after, but they have to be looked after locally. It's not that costly if the service is there.
Then there are the major issues. I imagine most people here, since they're getting to that age where they've had one crisis or another, have been to one of our hospitals. We need professionally trained people at the regional level, and so we have to look at that delivery of service.
We have to look at the individual circumstances, and that's where it comes back to the community level. We all know that people who perhaps are not as well off as we in this Legislature are work under very difficult circumstances. They come from poor families, and perhaps they don't get the nutrition they need. Their health isn't looked after as much and, frankly, they don't live as long. If health service was a community provision where they were living, that would make it better for them. That's what my hon. member from Vancouver-Langara was really talking about. I hope that this bill is going to deliver that kind of service.
The more affluent people in our society also have problems. They are perhaps more stress-related if they have lots of money and big corporations or whatever to look after, but they have problems equally. Many of those problems can be looked after locally or by private doctors, or they may have to go to the larger health services. But the community that one lives in and the kind of facilities that are provided make a difference.
I lived in the False Creek area for a while, on the south shore. That community was structured so that it had people of different incomes and social lifestyle. There were poor people and people with market housing there. That community was oriented around the community centre and a healthy environment for people to get exercise, and there was provision for health services. I'm very proud to have had something to do with that in the city of Vancouver. It works very well.
Bill 35 is moving in the right direction. That's why I don't think the minister should worry about taking it to committee. The reform in government has to come on things like this, which are really a concern to us all. I think this government and the minister should try to get the support of all members of this Legislature. That's what sending it to committee would do: we would all be able to have a part in this. We'd be able to make some of the changes after consulting properly, and we could make sure this moved through smoothly.
I think the minister should take a chance and make sure that there is a combination of elected and appointed people right from the start on these boards and committees. That we have to have a minister-appointed board and committee in each case seems to me absolutely ridiculous. It shows a dictatorial approach, which I had hoped would not be the case. We don't have to wait three years until we get this more democratic approach. So I would hope that we would move to the committee, and I would hope that everybody would support that concept.
Finally, I just want to leave this message. I've talked with a lot of doctors and people working in the health field, and they say these changes are going to take five to ten years -- well beyond the period that the NDP are going to be in this House. They've only got another two and a half years. So we need consultation. They will need our support eventually in order to get these moves forward. So if the minister really believes in the changes -- which I think she does; she's an honourable person -- she should send it to committee, get that support and then, when there is a change in government, we will ensure that these changes are made.
H. De Jong: I rise in this debate to support the motion to send this bill to the select standing committee. I believe that this would probably be a much more important item than some of the other items that have been referred to select standing committees. We are dealing here with the reform of health care, and the Minister of Finance mentioned that by speaking against this side, we're opposing the reform. That is not so; we are not opposing reform. The fact of the matter is that there have been a lot of good things done by many people in the past in putting together a good health care system.
We talk about change in this bill. I'm not so sure whether it is really the delivery of service that is going to be changed as much as the structure through which it is delivered. This bill, like other bills that have made an attack on the local autonomy, the locally elected people.... Some members on the government side of the House don't seem to agree with that, but I'll explain. On the hospital boards, some of the members are appointed by the government, but the others are elected by the community. Anyone in the community has the opportunity of becoming a member of any hospital society. It was through that process that I served on a hospital board for four years, prior to being elected to any political position. I enjoyed those four years, even though I must admit that by not having been involved in political life and not being a great reader, you might say, and having always been busy farming in the past, there were many words used at the hospital board that I had difficulty understanding at first. But I enjoyed those years because that board was determined to provide the best facilities and equipment to the community for its health needs. Following that, I became involved in local government, I served for 15 continuous years on the regional hospital district board, a board that was very much aware of the needs of the total regional district.
Besides the regional district hospital board, there was the hospital advisory board. Again, that was a board of a broader nature, where hospital administrators of a number of regional districts were involved, as well as a representatives from each regional district, and were looking at the broader scope of delivery of health care. That committee was determined not to have duplication of the very expensive services in every community but to ensure that at least some of those specialized services were within reach of the overall
[ Page 7840 ]
community. There was always a good relationship and good work done -- as far as I was concerned, anyway -- in order to keep the cost of hospital and health care services down.
As I see it, we have a major bill in the House regarding municipal elections. It's a very important bill, simply because the municipal or regional government is the level of government closest to the people and to their needs. Community health boards or union health boards have been working very closely with local municipal councils and regional district boards. In fact, every union health board has a representative from each council in the area. So there is a total network at the present time. This is the point that this bill wants to change. I believe that there has been very little or no consultation with those who have been involved in the basic structure for the delivery of health care services.
As I see it -- and many people in this House may not recall the days of 1972-75 -- this appears to be a rebirth of the community resource boards on a larger scale. We all know -- the ones who were around in those days and specifically those in public office -- that the community resource boards were nothing more than a disaster. Those people, who were all appointed by the NDP government, were working and dreaming in total isolation from those who were elected to office. They went in all kinds of directions, often opposite to the aims and objectives of the community.
[6:00]
I recall very clearly that a survey was done under the direction of that community resource board on the functions in the Abbotsford hospital -- the MSA General Hospital. It was a growing community, always trying to catch up with the growth in terms of the services that were required by the community. That survey indicated that we would need a number of professionals added to the staff of the MSA hospital -- highly paid professionals, as they were in those days. That was in the fall of 1972 or 1973 -- somewhere around there. By spring that same hospital was notified not to do any more hiring because of a shortage of budget funds. Six months later! The MSA hospital board, having always been very frugal in its expenditures and not jumping to conclusions fast, had hired only one additional person. But we were very bluntly told by the NDP government that the hospital board was not to overrun the budget. Those were the results of a community resource board working in total isolation from those who were elected locally -- and we were to make sure that the taxes were collected.
This bill will turn the clock back 20 years. It will turn the clock back to the 1,200 dark days of socialism in terms of health care delivery. It will turn the clock back to the days of centralized government. It will turn the clock back to abolishing the local autonomy of the locally elected officials, back to the days of financial disaster in British Columbia's health care system.
This bill will allow the minister to not only appoint a committee but to also determine the jurisdiction of that committee or board. Instead of representing the local committees, this committee will have to comply with direction from the minister rather than following the needs of the community -- with no accountability to this Legislature and, worse than that, no accountability to the local community. The committee's mandate is simply going to be to carry out the NDP agenda in health care, and none other.
Is this the democracy flag the Premier was waving during the '91 election? Surely not. At least, I would hope not. Who is to pay the cost of the facilities recommended by this committee? That cost will have to gathered by those that are elected locally, representing the community with local autonomy.
It was the Social Credit government that started the Seaton commission process. We agreed in many respects with the Seaton commission recommendations. The point is that this bill does not deliver what that commission envisioned. This bill creates more administration and less health service. This bill creates two new levels of health care bureaucracy with all of the inherent costs and inefficiencies. But it also gives these new authorities none of the authority they need to make the kinds of changes to the system that the Seaton commission talked about.
This bill, like many others placed on the floor for debate, is a skeleton piece of legislation with all the real substance left to the minister's regulations. I assume that the B.C. Medical Association was not even consulted about the bill. Why not? Was the government too embarrassed to go public with this shoddy proposal? The bill is a slap in the face to not only those delivering the health care service, who have done a marvellous job, but also to the people who have been elected and are dedicated to working for the best health service for the people of their own community, which they rightfully represent. That's why I'm opposed to this bill, and I'm speaking in favour of the amendment.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House recess for five minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:07 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:14 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: After that refreshing break, I call second reading of Bill 45.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES ACT, 1993
(continued)
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
On the amendment.
[ Page 7841 ]
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise in support of the amendment put forth by my fellow member from Kelowna East. What really got me into this debate was when the Minister of Finance saw it necessary to once again intrude into the Minister of Health's area of responsibility. I've come to accept that as a usual practice by the minister; in fact, we've seen an example of that when he tried to strike an accord with the unions in the Health ministry. We also saw how he failed so miserably in striking that accord by going beyond the minister -- actually usurping the minister -- and going directly to the health unions, only to have it fail and be sent back because the HLRA was not consulted in the process. So we shouldn't be surprised when the minister comes in and in fact intervenes in the Ministry of Health bills, because it's something that we're used to from the Finance minister.
When I listen to the Finance minister speak on this amendment, there's something that is really apparent to me. Given the dialogue that has happened over the course of today, and earlier with respect to this initiative in Bill 45, you would think that the Finance minister would want to, in the best interests of the taxpayers....
Hon. Speaker, I hope you can hear me, because I'm competing with several different groups within this Legislature.
Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. Would the hon. members please keep their comments down in order that we can hear the debate?
L. Fox: I was saying that I was really surprised to hear the Minister of Finance respond in the way he did, because over the course of the debate it's become apparent that this minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance don't have a handle on what the costs of these new thrusts are going to be.
When we revisit the Shaughnessy Hospital issue, it was very apparent there that in fact the Minister of Health could not accurately project what the savings of this move were going to mean. There was talk about a $40 million savings in capital, but that's all they were able to identify. They were not able to identify the cost of transferring patients, whether or not there would have to be two transfers between Shaughnessy and Vancouver General, how many times those patients would have to be moved, or the cost of the renovation to Vancouver General Hospital in order to accept patients from the spinal cord unit of Shaughnessy Hospital.
I was really quite taken aback that the Finance minister would stand up and say that they're going to save millions of dollars through this process, when in fact they cannot identify where many of those savings are going to be created or whether or not this process is going to be efficient. That's the reason why I stand and support this motion to refer it to the legislative committee on health and social services. I think there's a role that that all-party committee could play in helping to design a process that would meet the objectives of the Seaton royal commission, and in putting it before the public to allow the taxpayers and the health professionals who deliver the product to critique the proposed process and help design it so that it can become efficient and deliver the appropriate level of care at the least possible expense.
One of the things I was impressed with was that when the minister spoke up on the last amendment, she finally did identify that they were going to structure some pilot projects. I'm pleased to hear that, because that has been the source of much of my attention over the course of the last 19 months, since I was elected to this Legislature. The minister also suggested that if we did not pass this bill right away, we would stop the process and that there are community groups out there ready to go the next step. That might very well be true in one or two jurisdictions, but this minister and this government have a responsibility to all of British Columbia, not just to one or two jurisdictions that are ready to move forward. There's a whole host of communities that still have very little or no organization ready to take up the challenge before them in this new direction of health.
I'm concerned that while we give such autonomy to a minister in this bill -- I find it quite amusing that in some ministries, we're taking more control into the minister's and Lieutenant-Governor's hands -- many other ministries are getting rid of the responsibilities and putting more of the onus on local areas. We discussed one of those this morning, with the provincial emergency program bill, and we have another one as well with respect to liquor licensing. Those are genuine attempts to move the economy into the local level, yet this bill puts all autonomy in the hands of the minister, and that has to be a real concern. I believe that the select standing committee process would help to define what it is we should be offering around the province of British Columbia in terms of a structure and what that structure's mandate should be. It could perhaps even be of real help through the public process of helping to identify the respective regions. There's going to be a lot of concern, and right now we have no centralized process which helps to bring those concerns together so that those borders can be defined respecting our citizens' concerns.
I ask the government to give some consideration in allowing the standing committee process to do the job that this government suggested it was going to do in the very first sitting of this government. In the Speech from the Throne it was said new emphasis was going to be placed on the legislative standing committee process. Here's a real opportunity to allow that legislative committee process to become totally involved and a pertinent part of developing the end result that we all want to achieve in providing a Closer to Home delivery of health care.
H. Giesbrecht: I decided to take up the challenge thrown out by the member for Okanagan East that some of us should speak on this bill. I realize I might be using up some of the opposition's time. I have to make the observation, though, that anyone who may be unfortunate enough to be watching the debate is being subjected to a sort of ongoing dissertation by the opposition about how bad this bill is. What I would like
[ Page 7842 ]
to do, then, is very simply draw it back to some of the issues -- never mind all that stuff that is going on.
Here we are debating the second amendment to a bill that simply changes the structure in health care, and it would appear that the opposition now believes that freedom of speech is not a right but a continuous obligation. I've heard all kinds of comments about this bill. I come from an area which has already experienced some of the structural changes in governance, so I want to share my experiences with this House.
[6:30]
The opposition seems to be concerned that there is no cost-benefit analysis. There's some suggestion that there are massive costs involved in this structural change. A few speakers have complained that this won't address a whole lot of the problems out there in health care that have been going on for the last decade. Because it doesn't address those, they say we should take it back and look at it for another six months or a year and go on another travelling road show to get the opinions of the public.
Other objections are that they don't have a clear picture of what the structural change will look like when we get down to the end of this road and that there will be some massive increase in bureaucracy. One member even suggested that it was somehow related to the heroin trade and welfare Wednesday. Of course, I thought the most humorous comment was from the member for Okanagan East who was concerned that people wouldn't find a room big enough to meet in if they were on these regional health councils. This bill is not about the size of the boardroom; this is about dealing with some of the issues in health care and getting the people that deliver the service to accept a broader vision of what health care in the community is all about.
The hon. member from Prince George-Omineca compared this to the Year 2000 in education. Year 2000 was a change that was from the top down; this is a change that's from the bottom up: it comes from the Seaton commission.
Interjection.
H. Giesbrecht: The member says to look at the bill. I would like to, because on the inside cover there is always a nice, brief explanation of what the bill is about. And I quote:
"This Bill establishes an alternative way to plan for and deliver health services at the regional and community level and allows for a graduated transition into the new structures. Each region, and the communities within a region, will be able to set their own pace for the transition from the current administrative structures under statutes such as the Health Act, Hospital Act, Hospital District Act and Mental Health Act into the new regional health board and community health council structures."
I apologize for having to read this, hon. Speaker, but I think it's necessary. The last line is: "This Bill creates the framework within which this transition process will proceed until 1995."
It talks about how we are going to deliver health care in terms of governance. The debate is on changing the governance structure in health care; it has very little to do with cost, because most of the structure is already in place in some form or another. We now have hospital boards and health units which get some funding, and we have long term care boards that also get some funding -- plus a few others.
The problem is that most of these organizations after a while start protecting their turf, and they don't see the larger picture or always get together and discuss the best way to deliver health care to the community. The result, of course, is that the coordination isn't as good as it should be; it's not necessarily cost-effective; there's duplication of services; and sometimes it entrenches services in one field that are also provided for in another or that perhaps could be provided better in one of the other sectors. The result is that there's money spent on treating acute care when in fact perhaps some of that money would be better spent on preventive medicine in health units in the community health field.
The change is not all that serious. The same groups are involved. There will be local health councils, and there will be a regional group that will deal with the larger issues. This bill enables them to get together to decide on the larger picture. There is no sinister motive in this bill. It is simply an attempt to enable the various communities that are already geared up for this to initiate some of those changes. It's a change from the ground up, and the structures can even be adjusted from time to time to suit the region and to suit the needs in a particular area.
The changes were advocated in the Seaton commission report, and we consistently hear comments from people in the business that they support this. They recognize that it's time the various groups got together to see how they could better deliver health care in the communities. It won't happen unless there is some direction from the minister. People will go on protecting their turf because that's the easiest thing to do.
Granted, there are concerns from some of the people in the health care field. They are not sure about the workload, and they are not sure how all this will come about. Here is the next step. There was also an indication in terms of the government providing to all households in B.C. the New Directions pamphlet that described the kind of structure that was going to evolve, and it is described in this bill.
At this stage you can't predict every single wrinkle that's ever likely to come up. I think the hon. members who are worried about what may happen here and what might happen there should have a little faith that if we are all interested in delivering the best health care system possibly in the country, a lot of those concerns will dissipate once we allow the people in the communities to take charge and do what they do best. The support is there.
In the northwest region we went through a health care review last fall. Since that report has come in we have had meetings about regional issues, and a group got together and talked about delivering regional health care. So a lot of this is already happening; it is not a matter of creating another bureaucracy. No studies are needed. And what will result from this is an awful lot
[ Page 7843 ]
more cooperation from the various groups. We don't need six months, and we don't need a year. We need to get on with it, because the health care field needs a few changes in terms of the structure.
There are certainly benefits. The benefits, of course, are that if we manage to do this and focus more on community health and prevention, we'll keep people out of hospitals -- and those are good places to stay out of. We'll all have better health, and the communities will be more healthy. And -- but not most important, of course -- we'll save some money, and that's already been referred to.
I speak against this amendment quite clearly, because I recognize that up north, where some of us are perhaps a bit more enlightened -- and I say that tongue in cheek -- a lot of this is already happening. The opposition should recognize that and perhaps credit with a little more sense the people who are out there delivering the service. I have not received a single call protesting changes in the governance structure of health care in the communities. I have received an awful lot of comments from the people who actually deliver the service and are part of the structure now, saying they recognize there needs to be change and they're prepared to deal with it. They would like some answers and direction in terms of the wrinkles we've talked about. But once we pass this bill we can get into those, and the thing will work out.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and support this progressive and constructive amendment from the opposition to send this bill to a select standing committee of the House. A positive and constructive amendment to the bill; I repeat the words because I think that the work of legislative committees in this chamber is one of the few bright spots in the first two years of the government's mandate.
I'm always struck by the parallels between the debates that occur in this assembly. We just finished a protracted debate on Bill 33, which was of course the human rights amendment bill. Speaker after speaker on the government side of the House stood up and talked in generalities about hate literature, without ever having exactly looked at and analyzed the bill that was before us. We're facing the same problem today in this House. We're dealing with concepts that few people can argue with: the concept of community decision-making and closer-to-home health care; the concept of reducing dependence on acute care facilities and changing the scope and nature of health care in the communities. No one can argue with the principle of that, but when we examine the nuts and bolts of the legislation before us, that's when we see this huge credibility gap -- when you try and look at what's in the bill and extrapolate how it's going to take place in the field.
This is what I would call a hole-in-the-wall bill; there are more holes in this bill than on some of the secondary highways in our province. There's absolutely nothing there that the opposition can grasp onto -- or the Minister of Finance, for that matter -- to determine how much money we're going to pay. We're setting up parallel systems of health care delivery with almost a blank-cheque approach. The opposition is doing the Minister of Finance a favour by asking that this bill be referred to a select standing committee, because during the six-month period we can thoroughly analyze the costs of this particular transition. We can get a bill for him. He will know exactly how much money is being spent.
To me, it's a very progressive way of addressing this fundamental change in our health care system. Let's make no mistake about it: it is a fundamental change in the way we're going to deliver health care. Granted, it's a change that will occur in time; it has to. But given the importance of this bill to our health care system and the fundamental nature of the transition and change that we're undertaking, surely it deserves a better piece of legislation than the one we're dealing with today -- a piece of legislation that simply does not provide the details that are going to be needed to speed, encourage and even monitor this kind of health care delivery in our communities.
Contrary to the previous speaker and others on the government side of the House, there is a great deal of concern about this transitional period among health care professionals, hospital boards and others in our community charged with the responsibility of delivering health care. It's really an insult to our intelligence to suggest that all those people currently delivering health care in the communities are motivated by self-interest; that the only reason they're expressing concern about this type of legislation is to protect the status quo and the kind of health care delivery mechanisms that are already in place because they have a vested interest in doing so. That is simply not the case.
I think what we see happening is people expressing a concern about a transitional period of cost duplication without a price tag being attached to it. Surely a more constructive approach would be a series of pilot health boards in selected communities, perhaps in fast-growing communities like Surrey or large communities like Vancouver, where the pitfalls and wrinkles to which some members of the opposition have referred can be identified and ironed out before we have this blanket approach to health care in every corner of the province. One method of doing that would be to involve a select standing committee in analyzing the bill and probing the costs, benefits, advantages and weaknesses relative to this particular piece of legislation, and not the generalities of community-based health care. As the members opposite have pointed out, we had a royal commission that analyzed that particular question. The mechanisms and the controls and the method of accounting -- or lack thereof -- contained in this legislation are what need to be examined by a select standing committee of the House.
I would have thought that the Minister of Finance, who undoubtedly in his time here has participated in a number of select standing committees, would be delighted to see this piece of legislation referred to one of those committees for all-party support of the House. When legislation to establish health boards did come forward, it then would have the universal support of the opposition members and opposition parties in this assembly. There would be an across-the-board support
[ Page 7844 ]
for the final legislation package that would come forward to establish these health boards. It would provide the opportunity for public input. It would provide an opportunity for the people who are going to be affected by this fundamental change of direction to analyze the legislation and its import and come forward with recommendations to the select standing committee.
[6:45]
I'm pleased to speak in favour of the constructive and positive amendment that's before the House. I think a six-month review by a select standing committee this late in the session is a responsible and effective tool available to the government. When the time comes to vote on this amendment, I certainly urge the members opposite to give it serious thought and to reflect on the good work done in this assembly and in select standing committees that have examined a range of difficult issues. I certainly urge the support of members of this assembly for a positive, constructive amendment to refer this legislation to a select standing committee.
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the amendment to send Bill 45 to a select standing committee so that it can be taken widely around the province and dealt with to see if it will meet the objectives that it's supposed to meet and the objectives that British Columbians have come to expect from legislation.
The Minister of Finance was up earlier and gave his little dissertation, as he usually does, about whether or not this is a spend day. I can assure the minister that this opposition is pretty consistent in where we come from. We are not, I don't think, on record telling you to spend on one day and not spend on another. If anything, I think our party is telling you not to spend -- reduce your spending, reduce the bureaucracy. That's where we're coming from.
It's also interesting that this government, when they think it is in their favour to send something out to committee, automatically sends it to committee. For something that may affect the province of British Columbia, where we don't even have any authority, such as NAFTA, we have a committee running around the province discussing NAFTA. That's a federal matter; it's not even a provincial matter. So there they are. They have no problem with sending things to committee when they think it'll bring up the profile of the NDP, but when we want to take out issues such as Bill 45 to the people, to a select standing committee, issues that will directly affect the province in health care, then this government says: "No, we can't do it."
Or do you want to take the issue of recall and initiative? That was voted on.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. We are on the referral motion on Bill 45, not on the matter which the member is beginning to embark upon. I would ask him to keep that in mind.
R. Neufeld: What I was trying to do was explain or try to think about the rationale of this government in select standing committees. That's what I was really trying to bring forward. This opposition wants to take a bill out to the people of British Columbia that will affect them directly and talk about what effect it will have.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Some of the members are asking me: when did we go out? It was our Social Credit government that initiated the Seaton royal commission that went out and gathered this information. In fact, I think it was a commission under the member for Matsqui, while he was minister -- to get the Seaton royal commission to go out to the province and gather information from people, to see what they thought about our health care system and bring it back here. I have no problem with that. That was a good move. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I support it completely.
Now that we've got it back here, and now that we have some legislation in place, and now that we're going to start changing the system around.... Our health care system in this province costs $6 billion a year. It's the largest part of our budget -- it's one-third of the budget. And it's near and dear to everyone's heart. We're all concerned about health care, and so we should be. So is it any wonder that we say we would like to take this kind of legislation out to the people it's going to directly affect? That is the proper and the right thing to do.
Some parts of the bill bother me a certain amount; some more than others -- such as the creation of a larger bureaucracy and two health care boards, the regional and the local. All we're doing is putting more people in administration, where it's going to cost more money to pay for that administration, and less money is going to go into the system to really help the people and provide the services that they need in health care. What we're doing is just creating further bureaucracies that people will not be able to understand or work through.
People have a difficult time now. As I travel the province -- and I've said it many times -- people say they're overregulated, that there are too many people in the bureaucracy and that we have to trim it down. But the only economic development this government knows in terms of jobs is creating them within government. Unfortunately, that's exactly what's going to happen here. I don't think it's going to provide a better service to the people who are paying for it; what we will have is a larger bureaucracy to deal with. That's not the answer. That's not what people in British Columbia are saying they want, as far as I know. I think maybe that's the fear the government has if they take this bill out.
The other part that really bothers me is that this government didn't even bother to give this to the profession itself -- the doctors, the caregivers. They didn't even bother sending it out to them and saying: "Hey, what do you think of this?" All they're doing is bringing something in after we've been in session for over 60 days, and they want to ram it through. They hope it will slip by, but it's not going to slip by. The opposition is sure that it's not going to slip by.
[ Page 7845 ]
Obviously, when we vote on the issue, we're certainly going to lose; there's no doubt about that. The government will win again, and they'll go on saying in their own little way, "We're right, we're more enlightened," as one of the members just recently said. I find it offensive to the greatest degree for that hon. member to talk about being more enlightened than anyone else. That's ridiculous. We're all elected...
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Yes, he's a socialist.
...to come here and represent people from our constituencies, and we should all be equal. There's nothing to say that the member sitting right over there is more enlightened or that the one who just spoke and left is more enlightened -- nothing. But I'll get on with it, hon. Speaker. I don't want to upset the members over there any more than I already have.
D. Lovick: I'm worried about your blood pressure.
R. Neufeld: My blood pressure is fairly good, hon. member. It has been for a long time. In fact, I've got really good blood pressure, and I have to have good blood pressure to be able to handle it in here once in a while.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
An Hon. Member: They might win the battle, but they're going to lose the war.
R. Neufeld: Yes, you got it.
Hon. Speaker, the authority given to the minister under this bill to directly appoint -- whoever the minister happens to be, and I hope by the time.... I hope this government will not be appointing too many, and I don't think they will be. I think they will be long gone. Regardless, the Minister of Health who will be in place, whoever that happens to be, will have the authority to appoint all these board members, to fire them and to tell them what to do, how to do it and when to do it. What do we have the boards for? It's more bureaucracy and more people, but if all the authority lies with the Minister of Health, what in the world do we need the boards for -- so this NDP government can say: "We have people from different areas on these boards, and we're going to listen to them"?
Well, we know how this government and this minister listens to elected people, because we've seen it happen with the Vernon hospital board. We've seen it happen with Shaughnessy Hospital. If they don't agree with the minister, just fire them -- even the elected ones. Obviously we can understand what's going to happen with these boards. They'll just clean them out. If they don't do what the minister wants them to do, they'll be fired. So what's the sense of having them in the first place?
The issue about funding is an issue that we all have to be very careful about -- and about raising taxation.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: Obviously the member for Nanaimo is getting into the debate, and I'm sure he can take his place later and talk in the debate. But the member from northeastern British Columbia is certainly not advocating firing all the boards. It was his party....
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member's point is well taken. All members will have an opportunity to enter the debate when recognized, and all members know that in due course they will have an opportunity to take their place and make a contribution to the debate. All members know that when they do not have that opportunity, the procedure is that those who have their place are given an opportunity to make a contribution without unreasonable interruption. With that said, I would ask the hon. member for Peace River North to please continue.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I appreciate that little break. I was coming to the end of my speech anyhow, but it gave me a bit of time to catch up on a few of my notes and carry on further about Bill 45 and why it should go to a select standing committee. This government ran on a ticket of involving the people in British Columbia more. I don't have any problem with that, none whatsoever. That's one thing where I do agree with this government -- maybe not on all the issues such as NAFTA and those types of things, but on specific items that affect the people in British Columbia who pay for those services. I don't have any problem with going out, getting input and talking to the people. But this government has broken every promise in the book. They do not go out there and deal with these things in a fair way.
It's obvious by the decision on the Tat. Even Mr. Owen recommended that before they make a decision, they go out for six months, at minimum, to deal with the public and talk about it. This government just arbitrarily decided that this is the way it's going to be. That's actually what they're going to do with Bill 45; they're just arbitrarily going to do it, whether we like it or not. I would like to see this government live up to some of their promises, because they're certainly doing a poor job of it. But maybe it's better for me and my party if they continue doing what they're doing now, because we can see what's happening to them in the polls.
[7:00]
As I said, it doesn't matter what government is in power, the power the minister has to appoint all these people, change boundaries and tell these boards what services they can and can't provide is far too much power for one minister and within one ministry. The fear in rural B.C. is that there will be too much centralization, and some of the smaller communities are going to start losing some of the services that they dearly need. That is a real fear out there. In my constituency specifically, that is not going to be a real issue, as I understand it. I'm pleased about that. The constituency of Peace River North is the second largest in British Columbia. It covers a good part of the
[ Page 7846 ]
province. With the way the regional boards will be set up, it looks like that area will be looked after. But I know that in the member for Prince George-Omineca's constituency, there are people who fear what will happen. That's the input we should be getting from people. We should be able to go out there and tell them how the services will be provided, so that these people aren't fearful and they understand what the issues are and how to deal with it.
That's what going to committee and going around the province does -- not to try and kill something like recall and initiative, which was voted on by 80 percent of the people, or to try and prop up the fortunes of the federal NDP people through NAFTA. That's not what our committee system is for. We should be able to go around the province and talk to people directly about issues that are happening to them. That's what we should be doing. So I look forward to this government finally seeing the light on some of these issues and starting to live up to some of the promises, going out to the people and asking them how they feel the legislation is going to affect them, and taking it from there and drafting legislation that will not be for each little corner of British Columbia. I know this has to be broad-based, but it also has to take care of people's fears about loss of services. I hope that this government can see their way to doing that. I fully support a select standing committee going out with this type of legislation to get input from people around British Columbia.
With that, I take my place, hon. Speaker. I thank you very much for your indulgence this evening.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to participate in this debate to some extent, because I think that the people of British Columbia are not getting very good service from the government we see before us today. I have some pretty strong concerns about it. We have a piece of legislation before us that is going to fundamentally restructure the way health care is delivered in the province. That's not necessarily a bad thing. We all know that we have to make some changes in the way health care is delivered due to the fact that the costs of health care are rising dramatically.
Indeed, when the member for Matsqui was Minister of Health in the former government, he commissioned the royal commission. They went out and did the things that royal commissions do. They talked to a lot of people and came back with some recommendations. This government has been spending some time now putting those recommendations into legislation.
In many other legislatures in this country -- such as in Ontario, for example, which is one of the larger ones -- and certainly around the world, when a piece of fairly major legislation comes forward, it is common practice, and in fact it's expected, that the legislature will take that legislation out to the public. It's common practice to tour the province and talk to people in communities and to ask them what they think -- not just about the general policy direction of the government, not just about health care and not just about a royal commission -- and to ask them to actually look at the legislation that has been drafted and given second reading in the House. That is then out there for discussion among the public so that recommendations can come forward. The people and local governments that are going to have to implement this have a chance to give their input and make recommendations.
Inevitably, on almost every single piece of legislation that goes through, there are amendments made. The government does that tour. It goes to the communities and talks to the people and to the local government that will have to deal with this legislation. They get comments and recommendations back, and they make changes to the legislation. It happens all the time. What we're trying to do with this piece of legislation is make the government aware that that is exactly the type of thing they should be doing. They should be doing it more often, but they certainly should be doing it on something as fundamental as the restructuring of health care.
We have encountered a situation in British Columbia, and indeed in this Legislature, where the government's legislative agenda has been, I suppose one could say, tied up somewhere in the bowels of this building. As a result we're now caught, three and a half months into a session, and the government is panicking and trying to get out all this important legislation that they've been working on and get it passed and into law.
If you look at Orders of the Day -- I was just glancing at it as I was preparing to get up and talk about why this bill requires a little more scrutiny -- in the first six weeks that this Legislature sat, the government tabled one piece of legislation. Why were we here? Why didn't they wait six weeks to call the House? Why did we sit here for six weeks with no legislation on the books to deal with? Indeed, for a period of about five weeks I, as a private member in this House, had more legislation on the order paper than the government did.
An Hon. Member: And better too.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member from Saanich compliments me and says it was better legislation too. Well, I won't argue with him.
Had the government drafted this legislation in advance and had it in order, and had the House Leader been prepared before this session came in, these pieces of legislation would have been available two months ago; they would have been able to sit out there on the order paper for at least two months. The people would have had an opportunity to give their input and to make those types of comments, and the municipal governments would have had a chance to make their comments and give their input. We would have had time to get some feedback, not on the high principles of health care and delivery of health care, but on the actual piece of legislation that's before us and the structure that's put in place. I don't think that's too much to ask.
The councillors and the mayor in my constituency are very concerned with this bill, because to some extent they are going to be involved in having to deal with the implementation of it. I went to a council meeting -- I think it was in mid-April -- and there was a sense of panic in them not knowing what the government was going to do. They had all read the report, they had all known about Closer to Home and
[ Page 7847 ]
they all knew the general principles of it, but they didn't know how the government was going to implement it, and they wanted to know. I couldn't give them any answers; I didn't know either. I didn't know what the legislation was going to look like.
This piece of legislation was tabled on June 18 -- six days ago. On a major restructuring of the way health care is delivered in this province, the whole province has haD six days to get this bill, look at it, respond, get together with the people who are concerned, put their recommendations down on paper and get them back to the minister. The mail service doesn't work in six days in this province. If the government tabled this bill and then mailed it out to all these communities, many of them probably still wouldn't have even received it in the mail.
Does the minister think that she knows more than anybody; that she doesn't need to rely on some of the input from people in the community; that she knows better than they do on every single topic in this bill; that there's no room for improvement; that those comments and input given by those people aren't of any value? She's smiling; I guess that means yes. I think the member from Beacon Hill was nodding also. I guess that means that the minister does know more than all these people.
We keep being told in this House that the pubic doesn't really care about the process, especially the media -- the media never looks at process, and quite frankly, the public isn't interested and doesn't care. But there has started to be a certain amount of focusing on the process that's going on here right now, because the government sat in this House for two and a half months and did almost nothing relating to legislation. In the last three weeks the government has been bringing in major and contentious bills -- fundamental changes to the social structure of this province, many bills by the Attorney General that deal with trusteeship, bills that deal with the health profession, constitutional amendments to the rules of this House, emergency measures and freedom of information.... There is a whole litany of them. All these types of important pieces of legislation have come before the House, and there has been very limited ability -- days, if that -- for the public to have some input into that legislation.
I don't think that is the type of government that the New Democratic Party promised the public when they ran in the last election. They ran on consultation, and they ran on openness and including people and all those nice words we hear so often. But where is it?
D. Lovick: We're being attacked for doing too much of it.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'll explain to the member for Nanaimo. He says they're being attacked for doing too much consultation. There are two sides to consultation.
J. Pullinger: What you think is right and what we think is right.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, not at all. I'll explain myself.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: She's pre-empting herself.
Deputy Speaker: Order!
G. Farrell-Collins: There are two parts to it, and what we talked....
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: We talked about this in Bill 84. The government had gone through a process -- which we thought was good -- whereby they went out and set up a labour relations review panel to look at the existing legislation and to make recommendations. They did that, and they brought it back -- in a fairly timely manner, I may say -- and they made a report. That was good, but the other half of it still needs to be done. I hope the member for Nanaimo is listening, because it's an important point. He knows full well that once the legislation is tabled, it is then taken out for fine-tuning to the public. It's done all the time. It's the type of thing that should be done. As the member for Peace River North said, the government is really abusing our standing committees by sending stuff like NAFTA to them after we've already voted on it. They've already voted against it in the House, made a motion, and then they refer it to a standing committee to go and listen to the public after they've decided they're against it. Those are the types of things that we're seeing them refer to the standing committees.
So why not take a piece of legislation that fundamentally restructures health care out there? That's something they're going to have to grapple with. As the member for Prince George-Omineca said, they may win the battle -- they may shove this piece of legislation down the throats of British Columbians -- but in the end they're going to lose the war. In the end, the public will remember the way the government treated them and abused their trust by doing this type of thing on a regular basis, and they will respond accordingly.
But to deal with some of the issues in this legislation and reasons it should go to a standing committee, we need to look at a couple of the sections. I know other members have talked about them, but I want to put my comments in also. Sections 4, 5 and 6, in particular, cause me some concern.
The big one concerns the appointments and the way these councils and boards are going to be set up. Under section 6 the minister gets to appoint a third of the people. The minister appoints the people for the health council. One-third of them are chosen to represent the residents in the community. Again, that one-third of the council are any people the minister happens to pick out of the phone book or chooses to select for their competence, political persuasion or whatever party they supported in the last election -- I think we know
[ Page 7848 ]
the answer to that. Another third are members chosen from persons elected or appointed to and nominated by boards of the regional districts, municipal councils or the school boards in the community. The last third are appointed directly by the minister. So even if the council -- the locally elected people in that community -- wanted to put forth a group of people, it would still be up to the minister to decide whether or not they were going to be appointed. The minister could then turn around and appoint two-thirds of the council on her own without any reference to those community leaders.
[7:15]
Normally that wouldn't be such a big deal, but given the record and the reasons this government has for appointing people, I know that all British Columbians read that section and say: "Oh my goodness, there's another swath of patronage appointments that the NDP are going to make." Every day, it seems, these OIC appointments arrive on my desk and I look through them. We go through the people who are in there and find out what their backgrounds are. If you dig hard enough and scratch long enough at the r�sum�s of these people, you find out that they're somebody's campaign manager, somebody's spouse, somebody's official agent or somebody's riding president. There's so much political garbage that gets put into these appointments. These people are appointed for the most ridiculous reasons sometimes, and the public doesn't have faith in that process. I think this type of section should go back out to the communities, so that those council members and members of the community who have concerns about the way this appointment process is going to take place have an opportunity to make their concerns and recommendations known.
Another interesting area here relates directly to what took place this spring with the school boards. This legislation deals with it in a slightly different form, but essentially it's downloading the accountability and responsibility onto the community boards and councils. Yet it's not giving them any authority to make the changes they really need, because all of that rests back with the minister. It's the same thing we hear when we talk to members of school boards. They're so frustrated, because they're the ones who catch all the flak. They're the ones who hear about it all the time when something is going wrong -- when there's not enough money for something, the negotiations aren't going well, or there's a labour disruption. Those types of accountability all focus on the school board, but the school board has almost no power to deal with their budget, with the curriculum or with many of the things that go on in their district.
Here the government is setting up the same system. You're going to have a council or a board that's accountable to the public every time something goes wrong, every time they can't provide a certain service and every time the labour negotiations go awry and there's a strike. All of those things are going to take place, and those people are going to be the ones on the front line taking the shots and getting hit. The government's going to stand back -- as we saw the Minister of Education do in this House -- and say: "That's not my responsibility; that's the responsibility of the local board." She took no responsibility onto herself for the funding levels.
We're seeing the government set up exactly the same system. Blame will be placed on these board or council members, yet they'll be unable to make the changes they need to make. This bill is extremely explicit that the levels, types and availability of services are going to be dictated by the Minister of Health from her office here in Victoria. This isn't closer to home, really. This is accountability closer to home; but the responsibility, the bureaucracy and the costs are still going to be based in Victoria. Instead of those communities now being able to go either to their elected hospital boards or directly to the minister, now they're going to have to go to these boards or councils with their complaints and blame the board. The minister is going to use them as a shield.
I can guarantee that within a year or so there's going to be a labour dispute, and we're going to see the Minister of Health standing up and saying: "There's no more money, and it's not something I can do. The board has to work within their budget, and it's not my responsibility." That's exactly what we saw play out in the education disputes this spring. We're going to see the same type of thing happen with the health boards. I don't know why the minister would try to install a system that just this spring has been proven not to work. Why would the minister attempt to go down that road, knowing full well that the likelihood of it being successful isn't very high?
I don't want to spend a long time on this, but I really think the amendment by the member for Okanagan West is a good one. We tried to put this bill on hold for six months and let people informally send their input to the minister. Perhaps the local communities or councils would like to hold some public hearings of their own accord. They should be entitled to take this legislation, hold a meeting and hear what people have to say. We hoped that by giving a six-month hoist we would allow the minister to do that, and we would see this bill back on the order paper in the early spring next year, or perhaps in the late fall if we happen to be here. But the minister and the government were not willing to do that.
It was quite interesting when we came in to vote on the six-month delay on the bill. The Minister of Finance had to give hand signals to all of his caucus to tell them exactly how to vote on it. They didn't know what we were voting on, not even the issue; they were not following the debate and were not aware of what these amendments were for.
I hoped that the minister would have followed that process, because it would have been less expensive; there wouldn't have been a need for a huge committee to go around. In fact, it could have been done on a more informal basis with the local councils that exist right now. But the minister and the government chose....
Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. member that under our standing orders motions that have been voted upon are not to be reflected upon. The member is addressing a previously failed motion.
[ Page 7849 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The motion before the House is to send it to a legislative standing committee for some input. I think it is a motion that warrants some consideration by the government and the minister. She's fully aware that this is an important piece of legislation; she said so in her announcement when she tabled it in the House and in the press release that went to the public. She knows how critical these changes are, the impact they're going to have on the delivery of health services, and the difficulties communities are going to have in making those adjustments and determining how the system is going to work for them. This is a perfect example of a piece of legislation that would be best sent to a standing committee for consideration by the public, the people who are going to have to deal with its impact. I believe the wisdom of the public should be considered by the minister. In fact, it would do her and this Legislature a great service in dealing with some of the contentious points which were highlighted during second reading and surely will be highlighted during committee stage.
I ask the minister to consider those comments and this motion seriously, forgive her House Leader for the way the bills have come through this House, forgive her cabinet colleagues for the tardiness and disorganization earlier in this session, show some respect for the people who are going to have to work with this legislation, and give them time to provide her with the necessary feedback so that she can make any necessary changes.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 45, the Health Authorities Act. I speak to the motion that this bill be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature, so that it may be examined further and in detail by the people of the province. I realize that the bill was brought into being as a result of consultations that took place throughout the province over many years. It only seems fair that the bill should now be reported back to the very people who brought forth many of the directions it has taken. I remind them that it is only a temporary bill for between now and 1995. It's a bill that so far has been put together in the back rooms and in the secret cabinet room, and was brought out in the midst of dealing with some 62 other bills, only 26 of which have been completed in this session of the House, 36 of which have yet to be completed, plus another dozen that probably will be brought in during the next week. As we look at this bill, I want to put it in context and compare it to the study done by the Seaton royal commission, called Closer to Home. In the summary of the report of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, there are some telling points. When we look at this bill tonight, we need to compare it against that which was set out in the commission.
I commented earlier on the World Health Organization and its policy of healthy communities, and I would like to quote from the Seaton report:
"Many of the people who made submissions to the commission have adopted the 1984 World Health Organization (European Region) definition of health as the extent to which an individual or group is able, on the one hand, to realize aspirations and satisfy needs; and, on the other hand, to change or cope with the environment. Others support the 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion definition of health as a resource for everyday life.
"We understand these definitions, and our experiences over the last year and a half have convinced us that the social and economic environment is a critical determinant of human health. For the purposes of our report, though, we have concentrated on the fields set out in our terms of reference. We believe that this focus is essential and that the changes we are recommending are both pragmatic in nature and achievable in scope."
We have here the definitions that were set out and the understanding of the royal commission in presenting its report. It's in the context of that report that we want to look at the Health Authorities Act. For in this document, which is the basis the minister says this act is founded on, we find some very interesting comments. It seems to me, as I read the comments, that they draw into question some of the realities that are presented in the Health Authorities Act. They do point out, though, first of all, that public servants -- among whom I would assume we are -- and professional colleges must always put the public interest ahead of their own or their members' interests. We must put the public's interest ahead of the interests of our parties or our political biases as we work together here in Victoria.
As we are reminded of that, there's another reminder they call the Jericho process that we should take into consideration, and I quote: "Administrative walls within the Ministry of Health, among all ministries, health care institutions and organizations and, between all these groups and educational institutions, must be broken down in favour of an integrated health care system." The Health Authorities Act does not demonstrate that we have broken down any of those walls or that we have brought integration into being. It does not demonstrate that there has been an integration between the ministries of the government, nor does it demonstrate that there is an integration among the activities concerned with healthy communities within our community.
[7:30]
Within this bill, they are only talking about the physical and mental kind of health. They are not talking about the health of a total community. The whole thrust of the Seaton report was to affirm the need to look in the direction of healthy communities, and to have an integrated and holistic approach rather than the limited framework which the minister has put into this particular act.
The report went on to say about openness that: "Except where privacy and confidentiality demand otherwise, all of the information on health and health care gathered by public servants and ministries and in publicly funded institutions should be available to the public and researchers. Secrecy breeds suspicion. It shows a lack of respect for the public. Openness can foster credibility, understanding and acceptance." That is what we have been maintaining -- that the open and honest thing to do would be to deal with this bill after the public has had the chance to read, understand and respond to it. In effect, to bring it in and try to complete that process through this House within six days denies the public that opportunity for openness and denies them that understanding, acceptance and credibility.
[ Page 7850 ]
This is why we believe, reading from the document which this bill has come from, that it should be left for the public to look at. It should not only be for this bill, but for the other 30-some bills that are before us. If we are to have a fall sitting, then people would have the opportunity over the summer and fall to examine and respond to these bills, and then the Legislature could deal with them adequately, fairly and properly in the fall session. Without that, we are involved in these evening sittings. I must confess that this has one advantage, though; it means that many people throughout the province are able to hear and understand what we have before us for consideration.
I disagree with one comment in the Closer to Home document. If the document is accepted by the government in total, I would also have to disagree with them. There's a quote here that says: "This is a time of change, and people do not like to change. This is human nature." I have spent my whole life working with people, and I do not accept the validity of this statement. People are very willing and anxious to change if they know what the change is about and have the opportunity to understand it. Every household has change within it. Furniture is moved back and forth all the time; gardens are changed; workplaces are changed; recreation is changed. Every day in life we deal with change. People are only reluctant to have change when it is forced upon them, when they do not understand it and when they are not part of it. That's why we believe this act must be sent back to the people.
Also, I have a concern about another item of the report. This Health Authorities Act talks about setting up regional councils and local councils. It sets up a structure for them which, incidentally, takes over health care facilities that are already in place. I'm not sure how many hospital boards have considered that they will no longer be in existence once this act is in place. Even their facilities can be transferred to the new councils by a clause in this act -- automatically and probably without their permission or agreement. That's something that hospital boards and people who have supported these boards over the years should be vitally concerned about.
The government has adopted the regional concerns and the community council concerns that came out of the Closer to Home report. But I find it strange that there is no provision in this act for what was the mainstay of the Closer to Home restructuring of hospital care, and that was a provincial health council. In the report they said that there has never been an overall plan and that, quite naturally, the structure involved lacks coherence and sometimes logic. According to a number of submissions to the commission, the province needs the guidance of a permanent independent council. Hear that, hon. Speaker: it needs the guidance of a permanent independent council. The commission agreed that such a council should be formed and that it should be the base. They said this council must be completely independent of the government, the Minister of Health and the health care industry. This council, which was to be the basis upon which the Closer to Home program would be founded, should:
"...enunciate specific goals for the health care system; evaluate information to determine the degree of progress in reaching these goals; advise the government, when requested or on its own initiative, on contentious issues; review and comment on the health policies and plans of the Ministry of Health or of other ministries; assess the effectiveness of all parts of the health care system, including the evaluation component; ensure that authoritative health information is easily available to the public; direct the provincial health officer to investigate or research public health concerns."
That is the basic part of the structure of the Closer to Home recommendations. There is not even a mention of this particular recommendation in the Health Authorities Act. Indeed, instead of that council, everything is referred to the minister.
Hon. E. Cull: I rise on a point of order, hon. Speaker. I understand that in second reading we can have wide debate, but the provincial health council is a subject of other legislation and should be debated at that time.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. The point is well taken. I'm sure the hon. member understands that we are not to reflect on other matters that are before the House on the order paper.
V. Anderson: I suppose one of the difficulties is that we're not sure what's coming on the order paper. We're not even sure what's on the order paper, because it hasn't come -- or we haven't had it long enough to have a chance....
Interjection.
V. Anderson: No, we just got it yesterday, and we can't read it today. That's part of the problem. We're 36 bills behind as it is.
Without referring again to that unspeakable body, let me return to the Closer to Home request that we pay more attention to areas that are outside of the health care field. It's important to integrate what's within the health care field and what isn't. For instance, it goes on to say that poverty is intimately associated with poor health. We cannot stress this enough, that it's part of the climate in which many people....
J. Pullinger: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I'm struggling a little bit because we have digressed beyond the bill to the royal commission report and now we're into issues of poverty. It seems to me that we are discussing something here that is rather narrowly defined. It's a very succinct subject, and given the hour, perhaps it would do us all well if the member was to stick to it.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I would ask the hon. member to please keep in mind the limitations placed on debate, particularly when there is a motion specifying that the, matter be referred to committee. And if he could address his remarks to the
[ Page 7851 ]
wisdom, shall we say, of doing that, it would assist the Chair, and I'm sure the House, greatly. Please proceed.
V. Anderson: That's exactly the wisdom of referring it to the committee, because the hon. member across the way who objected has very emphatically emphasized exactly the point that we were raising. The public at large, who have a right to see and reflect on this bill, are concerned that items like poverty, which are very intimately associated with poor health, according to the Closer to Home report -- and with this I highly agree.... She wants a definition that excludes poverty from that. She says that it's much narrower than that. But she's....
J. Pullinger: The bill, Val.
Interjections.
V. Anderson: There's a great deal of comment.... Actually, we're talking about the motion, hon. Speaker -- about the wisdom of referring this bill to committee so that the public can once again have a chance to review it and see whether it is meeting their particular concerns.
As we compare this bill to the Closer to Home document, we are sure that if the committee is to go across the province they will have to compare what was in the Closer to Home document with what people are saying at the current time. They will have to ask themselves if the structure of regional councils and health councils given authority by the minister is in line with what is contained in the Closer to Home document.
I'm interested that the government side does not want us to refer particularly to this document, since they've tried to say again and again that this document was the basis of their legislation. Yet when I speak specifically from the document, that the public might be able to compare how this bill fits into the recommendations, they are concerned about that.
The document reports that a large number of people who talked to the commission feel that the present system of centralized management has failed them. They describe it as insensitive to local and regional questions, inflexible in its programs and policies, and unfair in its distribution of resources. What we have in this bill is a continuing opportunity for that centralization, a continuing opportunity to maintain the resources and to be insensitive to the local community, because the power structure is all from the top down. It's all a directive by the minister, who chooses the people who are part of the councils, who tells the councils what they can do and what they cannot do, and who tells the council what kind of budget they have. And interestingly, he also tells them what kinds of facilities they can have and what kind of priorities in health care they can have. None of these decisions are left to either the regional or the local council, completely contrary to what the recommendations of the commission have put forward.
Also, the report says that one should support the creation of local and community boards to advise the regional general managers on the allocation of resources within their area. These boards should be allowed to define their own structure. They will not work if membership is imposed upon them. They are not allowed, under this act, to have their own structure, and their membership is imposed upon them -- all contrary to the report, Closer to Home.
They're also saying that they should publish proposed regional budgets, and encourage it at all times, for consumer and provider groups to adopt changes. There are no budgets proposed in this particular act by which these councils might understand what their purpose is. And they are not providing time for the consumers to advocate the changes that are needed -- again strictly contrary to the report upon which they say this document is based.
We need to ask this ministry to take a closer look at the Closer to Home document. Perhaps they have forgotten to read it of late. No doubt they looked at it when it first came out, when it was published and presented to the community. No doubt they undertook it seriously at that point. Then they got caught up in doing their own planning and activities. The report came out in 1991. Two years later, when we take the bill as presented to us today and compare it with the Closer to Home document, we quickly discover that they have strayed from that document and begun to pay only lip service to it. Instead, they have started to put their own philosophy, style and direction upon what's being undertaken here.
[7:45]
One of the members on the government side questioned one of the previous speakers about the threat to hospital boards. Let me quote that one of the purposes of a council...
An Hon. Member: Name names.
V. Anderson: ...is to operate hospitals and other facilities.
We're not allowed to name names within the House.
The other thing, besides appointing the board members to the council and regional board, is the appointment of a public administrator. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint a public administrator to discharge the powers, duties and functions of a board or council under this act, if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers this to be necessary in the public interest. Within this act is the authority for this government to appoint an administrator -- even after they have appointed the boards with most of their own appointees -- and to replace those boards by their own administrator. It goes on to say that, at the appointment of a public administrator, the members of the board or council cease to hold office unless otherwise ordered by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Further, when the administrator has been appointed and the board is replaced by new persons, the council can then say how a board or council will operate after the ending of the appointment of a public administrator. So they appoint a board, they relieve the board of their duties, they appoint a new board and they direct the board how
[ Page 7852 ]
they shall operate after the ending of the appointment of a public administrator.
There is no democracy in this act as it is now written. We brought that to our attention because it is our policy and belief as a Liberal caucus that we do need community involvement, and that the planning of health care and all facets of community care should be integrated and planned from the community out. It should be the response of government to the community planning, not the response of the community to the government's lack of planning. That's a completely different direction.
We are greatly concerned about the Health Authorities Act. We recommend as strongly as we can that it be referred to a legislative committee, that it has full review by the community at large, that they have time to respond to it and that it may be amended, so that community health care will be totally integrated into the model of the Healthy Communities project.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 11 | ||
|
Cowie |
Dalton |
Serwa |
|
Tyabji |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Warnke |
Symons |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
De Jong | |
| NAYS -- 27 | ||
|
Boone |
Edwards |
Barlee |
|
Beattie |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Clark |
|
Cull |
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Lovick |
Pullinger |
|
Farnworth |
Evans |
Dosanjh |
|
O'Neill |
Doyle |
Hartley |
|
Lord |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Janssen |
Hon. E. Cull: I move second reading.
Hon. G. Clark: I believe we've got agreement tonight to waive the time limit.
Deputy Speaker: It's agreed that the waiting time will be waived.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 27 | ||
|
Boone |
Edwards |
Barlee |
|
Beattie |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
Clark |
|
Cull |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Farnworth |
|
Evans |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Lord |
|
Randall |
Garden |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Blencoe |
Janssen |
| NAYS -- 11 | ||
|
De Jong |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Symons |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
Tyabji |
Cowie |
Dalton |
|
Serwa |
Jarvis | |
Bill 45, Health Authorities Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 43.
MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (No. 2) AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
The House in committee on Bill 43; M. Farnworth in the chair.
[8:00]
On section 1.
A. Cowie: This section applies to regional districts and Islands Trust bylaws validation. I'll speak about the regional districts application first, because it's the same application regarding the Islands Trust.
In large regional districts like the Cariboo, half of the directors might come from urban areas and half may well come from electoral areas. When they have an issue in one of those electoral areas, the regional district will appoint one regional board member to conduct a public hearing or a meeting, and then by agreement the whole board will simply adopt it. I've had a number of complaints recently about that process. Projects have been approved, and the affected property owners had no right of appeal simply because there was this sort of agreement that "We'll let Joe handle that area, and we'll handle all of our areas." That can be unfair. The suggestion has been put forward that there be no less than two regional directors -- preferably three -- at any public meeting so that another point of view is always expressed when the issue comes back to the board.
Perhaps the minister might want to clarify that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The issue that the member raises is not the issue that's before us today. It might be useful if I articulate for the member and others exactly what we're doing here.
The need for the amendment arises out of a B.C. Supreme Court case that struck down an official community plan. The regional district expressly failed to delegate the holding of the public hearing for a particular OCP and zoning bylaw to an electoral director, which according to the Supreme Court was contrary to the Municipal Act, section 956, subsection 6. According to the court, the regional district failed to include dates in the notice of public hearing as to when copies of the bylaws could be inspected, contrary to the Municipal Act.
[ Page 7853 ]
The Municipal Act, section 956, subsection 6, authorizes a regional district board to "delegate the holding of a hearing" to the electoral area director concerned or to any other director. The intent of the delegation of authority is to allow greater efficiency in the exercise of a regional district's land use authority. The reason we have this before us today is that many regional districts, in all good faith, have adopted a standing policy of delegation rather than delegating each hearing, and they have adopted all of their official plan and zoning bylaws under such a policy. While the subsection speaks of a hearing, this is not an unreasonable interpretation of the section, given that the words in the singular include the plural under the Interpretation Act -- and I'm not going to go any further in terms of giving the member information, because we're getting into the legal interpretation.
The issue is that we have come to the conclusion that a number of regional districts -- we don't know how many have their plans, because many of these plans go back many years -- have delegated their public hearings under standing policy rather than expressly for each hearing. The number of regional districts affected may actually be larger. Really, what we're doing here is making sure -- and many official community plans may be in jeopardy because of this court case. This is not unusual; the issue of validating legislation is well known to all members. Why we bring it forward, of course, is to protect the interests of those communities whose plans may be subjected to challenges. It is before you to protect those communities; it's not an abnormal procedure.
A. Cowie: I'm sure that clarification helped a lot of people who didn't understand what the section was about. I still stand on what my earlier point was, that the regional districts can and do appoint various people, including one or more, to go to public meetings and represent the board. I think that's what the issue is. However, if the minister doesn't agree with that, I guess we'll just have to move on.
My other point -- and I don't want to press too hard on this -- is that a lot of these OCPs are completely out of date. The minister says that many of them are very old OCPs -- I don't know why one would want to have them retroactive. Perhaps what we should be doing is updating them and while we're updating them, considering incorporating some of the new legislation that the minister is presently dealing with. So what we should deal with is the future rather than retroactively approving some very outdated OCPs.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't disagree. There may very well be some OCPs that need updating, and we encourage local governments to do that as much as possible. Indeed, sometimes we encourage them to the point where they become outwardly unfriendly. Be that as it may, OCPs and the process are up to local government, and we can encourage as much as possible. All we are doing here today is ensuring we protect OCPs, because of a court case and a technical interpretation. We can encourage them to update them as much as we like. The issue here tonight is timing, to protect what's there now. Many of them could get challenged; it could throw the planning process into absolute turmoil.
I don't disagree with the member's point about delegations -- I think he's referring to section 956(6). This is not an amendment -- as the member is aware -- to the Municipal Act. This is obviously a.... I have to let the member know that we may indeed consider the suggestion from the member that he's putting forward tonight; but what we need to do is have this protection right now, as quickly as possible.
L. Fox: Just so I'm sure I understand the situation -- and I think I'm familiar with the one case that has caused the court action -- what this piece of legislation does is validate a process which has been a standard practice within regional districts, where zoning and bylaw hearings that have been held and designated within a director's area have been basically -- how shall I say? -- under the direction of that elected director. This validates that authority to hold those hearings with that one director presiding. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's validating what is in the act now.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
A. Cowie: I just have to comment on this a little. This is the right way to go with this legislation. It gives Cominco and that community the opportunity to get over a problem that they have, so the Liberal Party supports this. I might take this opportunity to say, however, that the minister might have considered amalgamation of those seven municipalities, which might have overcome the same problem. It is a direction that we're going to have to go in. You have seven municipalities with fewer people than in my riding, and it would seem that they could save a lot of money if they amalgamated some of their services and cut their costs and administration.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member, of course, is on his favourite hobbyhorse of forcing amalgamations on many municipalities in the province. As the member is aware, though, it's a great theory and you can indeed take that course if you so desire, but I suspect that there are a number of stakeholders, local governments and even local politicians who might think you may want to achieve some consensus or base your amalgamations on the fact that people may want it first. However, that's a philosophical position.
Let me say that in Trail, if the member is aware, yes, there are seven municipalities in the area, but already in the Trail area many services are carried out on a regionalized basis, with the costs of those services supported by all the communities that benefit from the service. Indeed, it's one of the better amalgamated service systems that we have, and it works very well. To some degree, they have an amalgamation in terms of sharing costs for services, so the overlap he's concerned
[ Page 7854 ]
about is avoided to a high degree. On whether they wish to move to amalgamation, I will take the message that the opposition leader from the Liberal Party wishes to force amalgamation on the Trail area. I will share that with them when we next meet. I suspect you may get a different message from them.
A. Cowie: Well, when we've got ourselves a leader, perhaps the leader can make that decision. We're going to have a new, bright and energetic leader soon, and I'm sure all these options will be looked at. I can't help but say that we've just been having a debate all day on Bill 45 where we feel that we should go back to the public and have some consultation, so naturally the Liberal Party would want to consult on anything like amalgamation. I just want to point out the advantages of streamlining and getting more efficiency, and I'm sure the local people, if they looked at it, would probably go for it. I just want to clarify that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I should point out to the member that the restructuring part of my ministry is a very active one; it's probably one of the busiest within the ministry. We have approximately 60 to 70 restructures, amalgamations and reorganization plans in the works now. We are always encouraging organizations or areas to try to create efficiencies and organize themselves differently -- as they grow they need to look at amalgamating their services or boundaries. Of course, though, I would say that 99 percent of my philosophy is that those amalgamations or future directions of local communities should be locally initiated and locally driven. But we are always there with my staff to give assistance where possible, and we indeed have staff who are constantly giving that kind of advice.
A. Cowie: I'm delighted. I had suggested earlier one possible amalgamation, and now we find we're possibly looking at 60 or 70 amalgamations. Some people call it boundary alignment. It's the same thing, just a different word. But I'm delighted to find that the minister is in fact looking at perhaps 70 of these. Perhaps he could give me a list so that I could do some consulting and find out how people feel about it. Would the minister do that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Those restructures are public, and I'd be very pleased to provide that list to him.
[8:15]
L. Fox: On the topic of clause 2, hon. Chair.... I appreciate the dialogue that's happening and, having gone through a restructuring, I know the tools that are available to municipalities if they so wish. But it's my understanding that clause 2 is a result of the community leaders of Trail and the regional district looking at ways and means of accommodating an industry that's in trouble. Certainly this provides some protection to the industry from tax increases. In fact, it allows for some reduction in tax or a variation of taxes, as I understand it.
I guess my concern here is one of principle, and I mentioned that in second reading of this bill. I think we could see more industries in situations similar to Cominco's. Could the minister, just for my information, tell me what kinds of cost savings this particular legislation will give to Cominco? Does he have that kind of information? What kind of protection does it provide, specifically in terms of dollars, over the course of the agreement?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The information is that local government property tax savings for Cominco are $2.6 million phased in over three years.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
A. Cowie: I just want to get one clarification on this section. Of course, I'm very familiar with the Boundary Bay Airport in Delta. It was privately handled for many years. The federal government essentially leased the land to a private owner. In this case it's going to the municipality, and I understand that the municipality wants it. My question is: is the municipality therefore going to take the full responsibility for its management and make sure that it's staffed properly? And I take it that if there's a problem, and only if there is a problem, the federal government would come in and bail them out. Or how would that work?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The federal government is transferring for the usual $1. I imagine that's the usual transfer cost. No?
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is not the $1 transfer. There are some lands that are going to be used for residential development. That's my understanding. However, I understand also that the federal government will be providing some grants for capital improvements. But the reason this is here -- and I think I've explained it to this member before, because we did one of these for another airport this session -- is that under the Municipal Act there is no way you can grant a buyback from the federal program. We have to enable that through this legislation.
A. Cowie: Just a small clarification, hon. Chair. The other day there was a plane crash at the Delta airport. A resident had complained, and he demanded that the flight path be altered. Because of that there was an accident that was almost fatal. Naturally you don't want residential development around airports. Would the minister assure me that there are going to be no houses in the flight path around the airport?
The Chair: Shall the section pass?
A. Cowie: No, I want an answer.
[ Page 7855 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: As the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we cover virtually the waterfront, but there are some things we leave to the federal government and Transport Canada. So you may wish to raise that issue with Transport Canada.
We are validating an agreement to transfer this airport to Vanderhoof, and give the federal government the ability to repurchase if it doesn't go well. The member may wish to pursue that with the federal government.
L. Fox: Just by way of information, first of all, what we have happening here is that a piece of land turned over to the municipality for management in 1945 has been operated as an airport in that area since 1945, and because of the problem we have in that community, the municipality cannot offer a long-term lease when it's federal property. The need for the community to acquire this was so that it could offer up to five-year leases to provide some security for development on that particular airport.
Just to lay the concerns of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to rest, the $1 was not for residential property; it was to accommodate the Vanderhoof Fall Fair Association in their acquisition of land on this site, which is under direct lease from the federal government. It will give them the autonomy they want. There will be no residential properties around this airport.
R. Neufeld: In regard to this section, I have information here that is a little different from what some of the other members have. Actually, my sources tell me that this is a plot by a previous mayor of Vanderhoof to purchase land in order to obtain a building site for the next provincial Legislature. To back that up, I'd like to table a document from the Province of Wednesday, October 22, 1986, so that other members can see exactly what information I was able to uncover and bring forward.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 43, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I thank all the members and wish them a pleasant evening. I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:51 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
Hon. L. Boone: It appears that we've left our BCBC person downstairs, so we'll do the best we can until he gets here. We may be able to answer some questions without him.
K. Jones: I'm agreeable to waiting until you've got staff here.
Hon. L. Boone: Well, you must have some questions that we can deal with.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister how much input BCBC had on the Colony Farm land issue in Coquitlam. I understand that there's a process underway, as you indicated. I'm wondering what type of involvement BCBC has in this process.
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC is organizing and pulling everything together. They will be organizing and holding the public meetings around Colony Farm. We are trying as best we can to involve the public as part of the process and to make sure that the land use decision on the Colony Farm issue takes into consideration their needs and concerns as a community, as well as those of the native band there. You know that Colony Farm is within the agricultural land reserve, so everything has to be considered within those parameters.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of the scope of the proposal that's being looked at there? How big an area does it include? Does it include Riverview, the former facility for persons with mental disabilities? Does it also include the forensic facility at the same location?
Hon. L. Boone: It only includes the 640 acres and only Colony Farm. That's strictly the area we're concerned with for your question right now.
K. Jones: To clarify: is the minister talking about that area south of the Lougheed Highway that is east of the Mayfair industrial park?
[ Page 7856 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not too up on my directions, but I've been given the answer yes. It's Wilson Farm and Home Farm.
K. Jones: On that site is the provincial forensic institution. Is that included in the proposal? Are there plans to rebuild that on that site? I understand it's also in rather deteriorated condition, yet it's still being used as a facility for holding people with psychiatric difficulties.
Hon. L. Boone: It's subject to a new rezoning approval to build a new facility on that site.
K. Jones: Has that application for rezoning to build a new facility been submitted to the local authorities?
Hon. L. Boone: A preliminary meeting has been held with the Coquitlam council.
K. Jones: What size of footprint of land is being set aside for that out of this original Colony Farm?
Hon. L. Boone: Approximately 50 acres.
K. Jones: What size of facility would be going on that site? Do you have any idea of what type of structure the BCBC will be building on that site? Is it under BCBC construction? Or is it going to be contracted out?
Hon. L. Boone: We believe it's 225 beds. But those decisions would not be made by BCBC; they would be made in working with the Ministry of Health to meet their needs there.
K. Jones: But is the construction actually being done, or being contracted out, by BCBC? What is the estimated in-service date for that facility?
Hon. L. Boone: We don't have that. It's in the very preliminary stages right now.
K. Jones: What type of usage is the Colony Farm proposal intended to provide for the site?
Hon. L. Boone: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has recently announced that there is going to be a land use study for Colony Farm, and that will enable the public to have input, so it's a bit premature to anticipate what the results of that study will be.
Interjection.
K. Jones: The hon. member for Nanaimo is saying: "Don't rule out nuclear reactors." He's got a great sense of humour. He would be scaring off his entire party if that were the case.
Has the proposal that has gone to the public and the city council got any housing included with it?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Then why is BCBC involved in developing the site and putting forward a proposal, when you're just going to leave it in pastureland and build a new facility that matches the existing facility there?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC owns the land, and as the owners we have a responsibility to make sure how that land is used. As I said, it's in the agricultural land reserve, so that limits what can be done with the land right away. But we want to make sure that whatever happens to that land is done with full participation of the public in that area.
K. Jones: I realize there is a need for full participation, but I don't think the public is particularly concerned so long as you keep the existing usage of pastureland and farmland. It's only when you're going to change it from that that they might be concerned. Why is it necessary to go to public hearing and zoning changes to accommodate this?
[3:00]
Hon. L. Boone: The zoning change is needed to accommodate the new facility being built there. There are other things that one could do. One could turn it into a park. There are a number of things that one could do with that area that would still take into consideration the agricultural land reserve. I can tell you firsthand that the public in that area are very concerned and aware, and very much want to be part of the process in deciding what takes place in that area.
K. Jones: I'm absolutely certain that the people in that area are concerned, because there have been proposals -- such as a horse racing track -- on that site which would probably be compatible with the agricultural zone. Is that also one of the concepts that's before the public and the studies?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us examples of some other things that are being proposed for the site?
Hon. L. Boone: Nothing is being proposed. That is why we are going to the public for a land use study. You don't go for a study when you already have some proposals. We are going forward to the public for a land use study.
K. Jones: I think we'll leave that subject for now and go to the area of valuation of the assets of B.C. Buildings Corporation. Could the minister give us an idea of just how often these valuations are done? Has a complete one been done lately? You were unable to give us figures on it last year; perhaps this year you've had time to get those figures.
Hon. L. Boone: One-fifth of our land is evaluated every year, so every five years it's evaluated.
[ Page 7857 ]
K. Jones: Based on that information, on current figures that are available, what is the total figure of the valuation of the land?
Hon. L. Boone: Would you like to ask me another question while we look for the answer for this one?
K. Jones: In the terms of the Peat Marwick report that was thoroughly canvassed by the member for Surrey-White Rock during last year's estimates, what can the minister tell the committee about recommendations made in the report?
Hon. L. Boone: Could the member be more specific, please?
K. Jones: Aside from the Purchasing Commission documents that I'll want to discuss a little further, what has the ministry done to address the serious concerns expressed by Peat Marwick?
Hon. L. Boone: Could the member be more specific in his questions, please? Ask a specific question and I will give you an answer. Is this one about the Purchasing Commission or BCBC? What is your question about, hon member?
K. Jones: It appears that the minister hasn't read the Peat Marwick report with reference to her ministry, so I think we'll probably skip that area of questioning, because it would be unfair to her to go into having to explain every issue in it.
H. De Jong: This morning there was some discussion about the vacancy space, and I must commend the minister for her memory. She was very close to the actual figures: the total I have here is 9,100 square metres of vacant office space; and as the minister said, it was less than one-half of 1 percent. So I just want to confirm that answer with her.
There is a higher percentage of facilities, though, that are facilities considered in non-rentable condition in the province. In fact, they account for about 22,000 square metres. They're in different places, such as the Glendale Lodge here in Saanich, and the Dogwood building, and a part of a building in Abbotsford that is a basement floor, so you couldn't very well do anything with that unless the entire building was taken down -- but the rest is used.
The west lawn building site at Riverview is 16,000 square metres, which is one of the largest ones. I assume that that is the area that was discussed prior to me getting up. In Kamloops there is a small building as well.
What does B.C. Buildings Corporation intend to do with those buildings that seem to be in non-rentable condition?
Hon. L. Boone: I can tell you that we currently have an advisory committee developing a long-term and broad-based land use plan for the future with regard to the Glendale lands. The Glendale lands were considered at one point for a facility for the Attorney General. The community there did not think that was appropriate, so the whole idea was abandoned. We are working with the communities to decide how to best use those areas, what to do with the facilities and how we can best accommodate public use there.
We are working closely with the B.C. Mental Health Society in planning the future needs for the Riverview Hospital area. We are consulting with senior levels of all affected parties prior to proceeding with an urban study plan for the entire property. The corporation is also having an inventory survey conducted of the entire lands. Nothing is going to continue in the way of downsizing for that area, as the ministry has done, until consultation with all the community interest groups -- the district of Coquitlam and other interested parties -- has taken place and been evaluated.
You mentioned Kamloops. I am not aware of what that building is. I am not sure where the other building was, but if you can get me that information I can get the information to you on what is taking place. I can assure you that when a building becomes unoccupied and it is, as you state, unoccupiable, BCBC will work to find out whether we are going to sell that land. Currently the province has pulled together a land use plan -- it's a study that we've just done, called "Public First" -- working in conjunction with the Crown lands, Municipal Affairs and other areas where we have considerable lands to figure out a policy. There was no actual policy as to how government disposes of land when it becomes available. We are working together to develop a policy. For example, does it go at market value? Should there be an advantage given to societies if they want to bid on land? Do they get a deduction if a non-profit group, such as a mental health society or a senior citizens group, wants to gain access to land? We have been working with an interministerial committee to develop a policy regarding how government land and property is disposed of. It's something that's really important, because there was no policy there beforehand.
H. De Jong: Another question is about the initial stages of planning for the facility on Colony Farm. It surprises me that under current government policy regarding the agricultural land reserve, every community in the lower mainland has problems getting even school sites approved within the agricultural land reserve -- as well as churches and other institutional uses. The municipal councils, together with the land commission, absolutely refused those types of applications. I understand that the provincial government, being the caretaker of the agricultural land reserve, is exploring through this Crown corporation the idea of putting in a rather large institution, taking up 50 acres of good agricultural land. Besides that, it's within the floodplain for this type of use. I have some difficulty with that, because if the government can do those kinds of things or even spend money planning facilities in those areas, should not the rest of British Columbians be allowed to do the same thing?
Hon. L. Boone: As the member should understand, there is already a forensic facility there.
[ Page 7858 ]
This is a replacement facility for that. I'm sure a farmer, for example, would be allowed to replace a house or a barn. And it's only a portion of the 50 acres that would be for the building, and the rest would be for the inmates of that facility.
You really surprise me, hon. member, because your government suggested that they turn Colony Farm into a racetrack, a hotel, a golf course and a leisure complex. We're looking at preserving the majority of the land for agricultural use and replacing only an outdated facility. We're not looking to expand or utilize any more of that agricultural land for houses or anything like that.
H. De Jong: Well, I guess that's what keeps interest alive, in that we have surprises from time to time. But at the same time it boggles my mind that even though there may be an old facility at the present time, a government, which has been so strong on preservation of agricultural land and would not allow any other municipality to use any ALR land or floodplain for those types of institutions, would even consider rebuilding a building such as this. Having said that, I will be glad to convey the news to our community and to other communities that it is possible that institutional uses can be utilized in the agriculture land reserve.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have some questions for the Minister of Government Services relating to the impact and cost of fair wages, which we've certainly discussed at other times -- more briefly, however. An incident came up about a month ago with regard to the Prince George jail, which is a $30 million-plus project. We came into possession of a pre-tender cost estimate done by BTY Group, which had an extra contingency of $818,000. It was calculated at approximately 3 percent in addition to the estimated cost.
[3:15]
The minister stated that the person who made the estimate had made a mistake. Would the minister be willing to confirm that here today, if necessary? Supplementary to that, would the minister be willing to bring forward all of those pre-tendered cost estimates done since this policy has come into place, so we can know what the impact is for her ministry on the expenditure of government?
Hon. L. Boone: It's true that a first document came out, and it did inaccurately attribute $818,000 to fair wages. It was brought to the attention of the estimator that this was not accurate. After that, we corrected documents to read $818,000 for locational allowances, and it was not attributed to fair wages at all.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm certain that after the fact the minister did go back and have that document changed, or had the criteria for it changed. My understanding....
Hon. L. Boone: Point of order. I did not go back and ask for these documents to be changed. I did not see any of the documents, nor do I see any tenders or documents regarding tenders before.... I never see them, in fact. These are all done under very strict rules and regulations. It was brought to the attention of the people by the Building Corporation, but it was not me who changed that.
The Chair: Hon. minister, thank you for that clarification.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is welcome to engage in a debate, but I don't believe that was a point of order. Perhaps she can let me finish my comments, and then she can rebut them, which is the normal proceeding.
The minister stated that her ministry went back to the estimator's company and advised the estimator that this wasn't the way it should be done, and in fact any contingencies of that sort.... I assume she called them a location allowance, because of the overheated construction market in Prince George, given the wide range of construction taking place -- particularly at UNBC.
It seems to me that somebody who's a professional estimator, of the quality that the government would look for to do this type of cost estimate for a $30 million project, would be competent enough to make whatever contingencies they felt were necessary. It wouldn't have been an error that somebody would have put fair wage down there. It would have been done as a deliberate calculation in order to determine what that impact was. If was a location allowance, one would think that the estimator would make that comment.
I'm just wondering what process took place to get that estimator to change that determination, or the naming or description of that contingency. Is that common practice? Has it been done in other cases? What other contingencies do we have? Are there other cost analyses or projections done for other construction projects that also included that type of contingency for fair wage, that have since been changed?
Hon. L. Boone: There was not a contingency there for a fair wage. It was corrected after the corporation drew it to the attention of the estimator that this was not correct; the estimator then changed it accordingly. Contingencies are in most estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me whether or not this firm has been used before by the government, during the tenure of the fair wage policy, to do these types of estimates? Or is this the first project they've been engaged in? Given the amount of construction going on in Prince George, I would assume that this estimator and company have been used in the past. Can she tell me if that's the case? If so, what other projects has this estimator worked on?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure whether or not this company was used before. I would have to look into it and get back to you on that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just to follow up on that, can the minister advise me approximately when I can expect to hear back? Will it be before or after these estimates are finished? Or will it be as in the case of the
[ Page 7859 ]
Minister of Labour, when it took 12 or 13 months for him to get back to me? I'm just wondering what the time frame on that is, if she can give me a realistic estimate.
Hon. L. Boone: Less than 12 or 14 months; I don't know when they'll get through. We're hoping to have these estimates before we leave here tonight. But there's a good chance that we may not be finished by tonight, so you may not have them by tonight. We'll get them just as soon as we can get out of here and get the information.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given the fact that we are trying to finish these estimates in a reasonable time, perhaps I can get some sort of assurance or guarantee from the minister that, once those documents are made available, I'll be able to contact her and discuss them at greater length.
Hon. L. Boone: Certainly. I'm always happy to discuss things.
G. Farrell-Collins: As for the fair wage contingencies that were, according to the minister, made in error for this project in Prince George, can she tell me whether or not that error has been made in any other estimates done by the province outside the Prince George area? Is this the only instance she is aware of where that type of error has been made?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not aware of any.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know that in my discussions in following up this policy of the government.... This policy was brought in without debate or discussion and has never received any supporting document.... Certainly the House has never received any reporting documents from the Minister of Labour to support the policy, nor have I, despite repeated requests. I believe I asked the Minister of Government Services on one occasion for that also.
People I have talked to -- estimators around the province and people responsible for project development on many government projects -- have indicated to me that in fact the fair wage policy has had an impact and has accounted for a 3 to 5 percent increase in the costs on these projects. Is the minister willing to counter that, despite those comments made by a wide range of people? Is she convinced that there has been no impact whatsoever on the costs of these projects?
Hon. L. Boone: I've had no estimator indicate that to me.
G. Farrell-Collins: That doesn't surprise me, because the minister has indicated that she doesn't talk to the estimators, and that in fact she never sees these estimates. In so doing, I would assume that she wouldn't know one way or the other what the result was, because she never sees these estimates nor has she taken the time to review them. So I'm wondering who in her ministry is doing that impact assessment. Who in her ministry is doing that type of study to ensure that the fair wage policy is not costing the taxpayers of the province anything and that the people working on these projects get the fair money that they are entitled to? What impact assessment is being done within her ministry, if the minister herself is not doing it?
Hon. L. Boone: We are not doing any such impact study.
G. Farrell-Collins: Could the minister tell me why not?
Hon. L. Boone: Because we merely follow the policy. The government has set the fair wage policy. BCBC works on behalf of the government and merely does what the government asks us to do, which is build the buildings to the best of our ability within the cost frames we have.
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly the Prince George jail did not fall within the government's cost estimate. You had to go back, renegotiate and put more money into it. In this case -- the one that's most obvious, the one that's been discussed and the one we had the pre-tender estimates on -- there was an $818,000 cost contingency that was allocated to fair wages. This was originally done by a professional estimator, whom the government was confident enough in to hire. That impact alone raises the question.
Certainly the minister is responsible, even though she says: "We only follow the policy of the government." Well, she's part of the government; she's the Minister of Government Services. She sits around the cabinet table, and she makes these decisions. So I would assume she was involved in the development of the fair wage policy to some extent. If she wasn't, then we have real problems. The minister should know the impact of this. If she doesn't know it, and if she is not doing that type of assessment within her ministry or in BCBC to look at whether or not there's an impact, she's completely abdicating her responsibility to the taxpayers of the province.
This question is out there in the construction field. Lots of people -- not two or three, but hundreds -- have said that this is going to cost us a lot of money. Clearly the Prince George case is the best example. The tenders came in well over the estimate, and there was $818,000 given for fair wages by a professional estimator -- error or not. As the minister responsible for the type of budget she is, the minister should be investigating that to see whether this is just an isolated incident or whether there is in fact an impact permeating through all capital construction of government -- specifically the one she's responsible for -- in order to account for the money she is spending as a minister.
Hon. L. Boone: It is not up to us to second-guess the fair wage policy that comes from the Minister of Labour. If you want to question the Minister of Labour, then you should do so. We follow the Minister of Labour. We try to keep our costs contained, and we did so, as you mentioned. We went back and renegotiated to
[ Page 7860 ]
get those costs down. There is an overheated market in the Prince George region. Anybody will tell you that this leads to additional costs with regard to construction, and that came about as a result of UNBC construction going on there. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with the fair wage policy.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says it's not her job to second-guess the policies of the Minister of Labour. Well, hon. Chair, I would say that is exactly her job. As the Minister of Government Services, with the type of budget she has and with responsibility for BCBC, her job is to account for every single dollar and penny that is spent out of her ministry and to ensure that it is an expenditure that is reasonable, that is efficient and that she personally can account for. That is exactly what we're doing here today. So it would seem to me that any minister worth their weight would ensure that those types of expenditures were within line. A minister responsible for the type of budget that she is responsible for would want to ensure that every dollar is being spent wisely.
If some member of her government has brought forth a policy -- and I know she won't answer the question if I ask it, because it took place in cabinet -- I assume she was involved in the development of that policy and in determining its appropriateness, given the expenditures that come out of her ministry. If not, we have serious problems.
If the minister is responsible for the money that is spent by her ministry, surely there must be some review process within her ministry, or BCBC, to evaluate the impact of the fair wages -- not just in Prince George but around the province -- to ensure that those moneys are spent wisely. Will the minister commit to engage in that type of study, at least as it pertains to her ministry, and use it as a test case or pilot project to do the impact assessment on the budget that falls within her jurisdiction? Perhaps she could take the lead on this so that the other ministries involved in large levels of capital construction, education, etc., would also do this type of impact study. It would originate in her ministry, and she would show a little leadership on this one.
Hon. L. Boone: No.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to put this clearly because I want to get the minister's answer on record. The minister is stating to me that she will not make the effort within her ministry to ensure that every dollar of capital construction is being spent efficiently; that she will not do an assessment on the impact of the fair wage policy despite the widespread concerns that exist with that policy, including those of the Minister of Labour; and that she is not willing to do an impact assessment on her own budget in her own ministry to determine whether or not those funds are being allocated in an efficient manner. Is that correct?
[3:30]
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC is constantly reviewing to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent. I will not commit to do a special assessment with regard to the fair wage policy. I will commit that BCBC, as they always do, will be reviewing and making sure that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.
G. Farrell-Collins: Either the ministry is doing an assessment in a general sense and part of that assessment is the impact of the fair wage policy, or the ministry and BCBC are being directed to do a general overview of the efficiency of the ministry and those expenditures without looking at the fair wage policy and its impact. Either the assessment is being done in a responsible manner, as she said, or the assessment is not being done. Is the impact of the fair wage policy part of the assessment that her ministry, and BCBC, is doing?
The Chair: I believe this question has been answered. I think you've canvassed this area quite well. Perhaps you should go to a different line of questioning.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm asking the minister to clarify whether or not fair wages falls within the general review which she said her ministry is doing. I just want to get that clarified one way or the other.
The Chair: I understand that that question has been clarified.
G. Farrell-Collins: It certainly hasn't been clarified to my satisfaction and that of other members of the opposition. It's a clear question. Either it is part of the review or it's not; that's a straightforward question. The question hasn't been answered sufficiently to clarify that issue. It's a simple question; I'd like a simple answer from the minister.
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I was fairly clear. To clarify it once more: no, we are not doing a specific impact study on fair wages. That is another ministry's policy. It is not the responsibility of BCBC to review another minister's policy. Yes, BCBC reviews the cost of projects all the time. We are not doing an assessment right now of BCBC's costs or anything like that. On an ongoing basis, BCBC constantly looks at how costs are impacting the taxpayer. Once again, no, this ministry will not undertake an assessment of another minister's policy.
G. Farrell-Collins: That does clarify it, and I am glad we finally got that clarification. It is really unfortunate, however, that this minister is not willing to undertake that study with her budget. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Education, when asked in estimates, was not willing to undertake that study. The Minister of Labour himself, the minister responsible for the policy, is not willing to undertake that study.
Given the fact that the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Education, among others, have not been able to table one shred of evidence that this policy is not impacting on the costs of capital construction of the government; given that they refuse to even look at it, that shows to me a complete and total abrogation of the fiscal
[ Page 7861 ]
responsibility that these ministers assume when they take the oath of office, become ministers of the Crown and are entrusted to expend the funds of the public. It seems to me that a minister who is conscientious and is determined to spend those moneys wisely -- and certainly a government that is in as much fiscal difficulty as this one is -- would be looking to save money wherever possible. There are real concerns out there, and I know this minister has heard them. I know the Minister of Labour has heard them. I know the Minister of Education, among others, has heard them. The fair wage policy is costing this province not $1 million, not tens of millions of dollars, but over $100 million per year.
That figure may be low or it may be high, but this government has absolutely no way of determining that. The government has the resources and the ability to do that type of an impact study, but it has refused to do so. I hoped that the minister would take some leadership role on this and go to the Minister of Labour and ask him to initiate an investigation, if she is not willing to do that of her own accord. But somewhere along the line, the buck has to stop. Somewhere along the line, one of these ministers finally has to take responsibility.
I guess the only recourse left to the opposition is to go to the Premier himself and hope that, despite his record, he may finally take some responsibility for some of the policies of this government -- given that he is the Premier -- and ask his cabinet colleagues and his government to initiative that review. However, I do not hold out much hope. Somewhere along the line this review will be done. It will be done either while this government is in office or when this government is no longer in office. We will know the true facts, and we will know exactly what this program is costing.
I do want to come back to one specific aspect that deals with Prince George. The Minister of Government Services stated that the $818,000 contingency that was, according to her, erroneously allocated to the fair wage policy by a professional estimator and subsequently changed, was in fact due to the overheated construction industry in Prince George, and that that $818,000 was to cover the cost. That $818,000 is not attributed to fair wages, the minister says, but I believe in the House earlier she stated that it was due to the overheated market and to the fact that it is very competitive to get highly skilled labour in Prince George right now. Was that an additional labour cost that went into the production of that facility?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. It is my understanding that that allowance was made because of the labour market in Prince George.
G. Farrell-Collins: That is interesting to know. Is the minister telling me that when the market is left to itself, it determines the level of remuneration for labour? In the case of Prince George, where there is a great deal of construction going on -- a project that everyone is excited about, which is the University of Northern British Columbia -- the labour market hasn't been overheated, but it is certainly hot. In fact, labour costs are higher due to that market. Is that the reason for it?
Hon. L. Boone: The information we have is that that figure was put in because of the overheated labour market.
G. Farrell-Collins: I find that interesting, because the government recognizes that the market does have an impact on the cost of labour, and that it is not due to unscrupulous contractors but to a shortage of supply or, I should say, an overabundance of work that is inflating or increasing the cost of labour, which is the way things work. Would the minister also agree to the corollary, which is that in cases of a depressed market or where there's not nearly as much construction going on as there is in Prince George -- her own riding, I might add -- that wages may go below an anticipated level?
Hon. L. Boone: You're asking me to guess, and I'm not doing any guesswork here.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Chair, her ministry guesses all the time. They guessed that the cost of the project in Prince George was going to be $818,000 more than what an estimator would normally allow. That's an estimate; it's a guess. Can the minister indicate that in other areas where there's not as much construction.... I mean, does she have any proof? She has certainly done the programs. Are there any countercontingencies out there for construction of projects in areas where the demand for labour is not as high -- some of the more depressed areas of the province? Are there contingency savings, so to speak, that would come forward, much like we have in Prince George but in reverse?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not an estimator, but I've been told that when estimating is being done, many things are taken into consideration -- the market, the economic situation of the area and all those kinds of things.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assumed that that was what an estimator would do. Could the minister commit to make available to us some of the other projects that are taking place, where these types of reductions or savings in labour may have existed due to the converse of what's taking place in Prince George? Would BCBC be willing to look through the contracts they've put out or the pre-tender estimates they've received in the last 18 months or so and show us where some of those savings have been made?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm really finding some difficulty in figuring out what you're getting at on this. An estimator estimates a certain amount, but from my understanding I don't think they would say "minus X number of dollars." They might throw in something if there was a heated market, but they would say: "This is what it is estimated to cost in this area."
[ Page 7862 ]
As I stated, I'm not an estimator, and you are getting far too picky on some of these items for me to answer you.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not expecting the minister to have an answer at her fingertips for some of these, and that's why I was asking if she would ask her officials to come back to us with that information at a later date, like the information she offered earlier. I don't expect her to have that sitting on her desk.
I'm not trying to be picky. I'm just trying to analyze the Prince George situation, which we're all aware of, and then analyze another situation. I wonder if there are savings being made in other places to counter the increased costs in Prince George. I think that's a fair question to ask.
One of the things I'm concerned about is that if the government is aware and is willing to allocate extra funds for an overheated market, then why is the government not willing to take advantage of areas where the construction level isn't as high and where savings may be made, in order to counter those types of costs that occur in an area like Prince George when it's overheated?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm sure we do take advantage of the cost of land and all of those different things. I hope the member wasn't suggesting that we take advantage of the working person out there and try to get them to work for substandard wages.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, hon. Chair, I wasn't. I was going to draw to the minister's attention that if the government is willing to set a minimum wage for construction workers and say, "Here is the fair wage scale, and we are willing to pay you that wage scale despite what the market may indicate in your district," and they make a conscious decision to do so, shouldn't the government turn around in a place like Prince George and say: "This is the maximum amount per hour we're going to pay for this construction? Why should those workers then be able to turn around and take advantage of the government because of an overheated market?
It seems to me that if the government makes a conscious decision that they're going to instil a floor in the wage rate, there should be a quid pro quo. The construction industry should be able to make the same concession in an area that's overheated, and say: "The government is being fair with us in this situation. They're paying us a wage rate that's perhaps above the market rate. So when we get into an area like Prince George, we'll be able to say that we're not going to charge you extra -- we're not going to try and scoop the government, the taxpayers, for that extra little bit -- because we're being treated in a fair way somewhere else.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm having a great deal of difficulty with seeing how this relates to BCBC. You're talking about a fair wage policy; you should talk to the Minister of Labour on something like this.
I also think you don't quite understand how one gets people into the market. You have to pay more there, because there are a limited number of skills. We simply wouldn't be able to get some of the tradespeople, for example. They'd go elsewhere if we weren't able to pay them the amount that they could earn elsewhere. That's the reality.
[3:45]
The whole issue on the fair wage policy is the Minister of Labour's jurisdiction, and I'm not really willing to get into a debate on that issue.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not trying to debate the policy itself. What I am trying to focus on is the expenditures of her ministry and draw some analogies of what's taken place in the province to ensure that the dollars she's spending are being spent wisely. Almost a million dollars extra was added to a Prince George jail as a contingency, she says, for an overheated market -- which according to her has nothing to do with the fair wage policy. So it's not a question that can go to the Minister of Labour; it's a question that has to go to the Minister of Government Services.
I know full well how the market works, and I'm sure that when the minister goes into her office and closes the door she knows how the market works too. But if the market is being used in Prince George to set the wage rate -- if the market is dictating the costs and expenditures of the government for wages in Prince George on a project there -- then surely the minister should say that the market should dictate it elsewhere. I'm asking the minister to perhaps refrain from speaking out of both sides of her mouth at the same time, in saying if we're willing to make the.... She has to decide which she wants to sit with.
If she's going to pay a wage rate across the province that she considers fair, there's no need for these types of contingencies and extra expenditures. Construction workers working for the government at every project around the province -- wherever it may be, on projects over half a million dollars -- would be paid the same rate, and there would be no price-gouging by the government or by the workers. If that's the decision she's making, if that's what she's setting and what she's telling her people to expect when they go out and take these pre-tender estimates, then that's fine. That's a government policy. I may or may not agree with it, but at least we know what the process is.
The minister seems to be saying that in areas where the market is overheated, we're willing to pay extra in order to get the people to come in and do it. But in areas where the market isn't overheated, we're not willing to let the market rule there also. In fact, we're going to increase the wages there to a union level, or some percentage of the union level, as negotiated by the B.C.-Yukon building trades.
So I'm just wondering which it is. Is the government making a decision that they're going to pay a fair wage scale across the board for everyone? Or is the minister going to let the market determine those wage rates?
Hon. L. Boone: This seems like a ridiculous question. You know that the government has a fair wage
[ Page 7863 ]
policy and that this ministry, as all of the ministries and corporations, must act within that policy. But you are very incorrect in stating that we had to pay a million dollars more. BCBC went back and renegotiated that down, and the project cost was not increased. We managed to negotiate that down a million dollars. So BCBC is very much aware of the taxpayers' dollars and how the process works and is doing what they can to keep the costs of projects within the amounts that ministries have estimated.
As for getting me into debate on fair wages and whether we should be up or low or down or whatever it is, I'm not willing to participate. This is between you and the Minister of Labour, and I have nothing to do with the policy of fair wages.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's true. The minister doesn't have anything to do with the policy of fair wages. I guess she's finally answering the question that I was afraid to ask for fear she wouldn't answer it. She doesn't have anything to do with the fair wage policy, and in fact the policy was brought in without consultation from one of the ministries that spends a good deal of money on capital construction.
But I am asking the minister: what is her policy within her ministry as it relates to those types of contingencies? Certainly the minister is not responsible for setting the minimum fair wage level. That's not her job. As part of the cabinet she's responsible for it, but it is the Minister of Labour who brought down that policy. I'm well aware of that, and I've had this discussion with him.
That's not the question I'm asking. I want to be clear on it. What I am asking the minister is: what is the policy of the government in relation to situations when they're factoring in these contingencies? An $818,000 contingency -- almost a million dollars -- and I know what happened in Prince George. I'm fully aware that all six estimates were above what the actual estimate was, and they had to go back and renegotiate that down. But certainly within that a portion of this $818,000 was due to the overheated market which we've just had a lengthy discussion about. So I assume the minister accepts that that was part of the increased cost.
So I'm trying to determine the rationale between setting a floor in one place and yet not setting a ceiling in another place, when you have an impact of this amount of money on one single project. I just want to get the minister to say out front that the government is going to set a wage floor but is not willing, on behalf of the taxpayer, to set a wage ceiling on some of these projects.
Hon. L. Boone: Our projects are tendered. They are on an open-tender basis, and factored into the estimate are a number of things, as I stated. You've got the price of land. The price of land here is far higher than the price of land would be in Zeballos or Fort St. John -- or Prince George, but it's getting higher there now. I can't crow as much as I used to because of the cost of land.
So the corporation has to take into consideration all of the contingencies that might come around, like land costs. There are other things we might consider, like environmental costs -- whether any environmental cleanup that has to take place. Hopefully we don't have any spaces like that.
There are a number of different things that BCBC has to take into consideration, and we do so when we are getting the estimates. The estimate comes in; we put out for tender; and we wait for the tenders to come back. I don't see the tenders; BCBC doesn't see them until they're open. They're opened, and then we negotiate with them to try to get them within what we figure is a fair price.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can I assume that one of the things factored in there by the government and the estimators is a contingency for fair wages? Was the Prince George project for $818,000 -- despite the assurance from the Minister of Government Services -- a contingency for the fair wage policy? I think the public and the taxpayers are aware of that, and I'm sure that they will remember it. With that I finish my comments.
Hon. L. Boone: The member can repeat it as much as he wants, but it was not a contingency for fair wages. It was a contingency due to the overheated labour market, and that's the situation.
I'd like to answer a question -- I'm not quite sure why you asked this, because this information, with regard to the market information on B.C. Buildings' properties, was given to you on June 6. A letter was sent to you on June 6, giving you all this information. So I'm not quite sure why you wanted that, but here it is. The values of the B.C. portfolio is $1,313,976,780, but you already have that information, hon. member.
K. Jones: Yes, I did have that information. Yes. I just wanted to know whether you knew it. Should I know more about the ministry than you do? I thought you would have it in the same state that I do -- available in a nice binder like this, just sitting here.
I'd like to ask a question on behalf of the member for Chilliwack. He would like to have an idea of how much the land for the Chilliwack courthouse cost?
Hon. L. Boone: We will get back to him with that information.
K. Jones: I will give the hon. minister a series of other questions that are directly related to it, and I'm sure she will probably have to come back with information on those as well. Could you tell us who the owners of the property were that the government purchased from, and who the real estate agents or developers were that arranged the transactions? Could you also please give us the names of the companies involved?
Hon. L. Boone: We'll get back to you.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask a few questions with relation to the former Oakalla lands in Burnaby. Could the minister give us a rundown of how it was
[ Page 7864 ]
determined that this land would be developed? What is the present process under which it is being put to the public as a development project?
Hon. L. Boone: The process, which was actually started by the previous government and was carried on by this government, is to actually rezone and divide it into 12 parcels of land. This was done after they learned from their mistakes -- after the whole fiasco of the Expo lands situation. That is what the situation is. The first four market parcels were offered for public proposal call in January. Offers on two of the four properties were accepted, and the properties have currently been re-tendered.... No, four properties have been sold for $12,515,000. There was considerable community involvement in how this took place. If you have been out there, you can see that it's going to be an exciting development and one that takes into consideration the requirements and the needs of the municipality of Burnaby and all the residents in that area.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of what type of development is intended for all the property that's involved there?
Hon. L. Boone: There will be 539 multiple-family units, a combination of social housing, townhouses and apartments.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of how much of the project will be social housing and affordable housing?
Hon. L. Boone: Under the city of Burnaby's rezoning bylaw, a minimum of 20 percent of it will be non-market social housing.
K. Jones: Is there any co-op housing involved in this?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there will be an equity co-op.
K. Jones: Has there been any difficulty with any of the present four -- I think there were four -- properties that were developed? Have there been any difficulties experienced or any messages addressed to the minister about difficulties relating to those Oaklands properties?
Hon. L. Boone: There is one company, a proponent of one of the properties, that did not demonstrate to BCBC the capacity or ability to carry through on a project of this magnitude. Another company was subsequently chosen.
K. Jones: Did the minister receive any correspondence from that company with regard to their position on the decision that was made?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it was raised. Officials have met with the corporation, and I believe Mr. Farrell-Collins and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale have also met with members from BCBC. They would be happy to meet with you again if you have more questions on this issue.
[4:00]
K. Jones: I was interested in the minister's response to the problem, since she received letters explaining the problem. Did she, from her political standpoint, see any way of resolving the problem put forward by one of the tenderers -- initially the high tender? I think the name of the company was Ranotech, just for clarification, and they made the highest bid in the proposal process. Could the minister explain why they did not get the proposed project?
Hon. L. Boone: I believe that BCBC did handle the situation correctly, as the company in question did not demonstrate the necessary experience and capabilities for this particular project. I am a little concerned that the member mentioned my "political standpoint," because politics does not play a part in decisions made by BCBC. BCBC's decisions are strictly business decisions.
K. Jones: As a minister you have an appeal responsibility, beyond the ministry's, to adjudicate or try to bring to resolution the concerns brought to you by people who have made presentations and who are aggrieved by any of your ministry segments or Crown corporations. What role did you play in that? Or did you just pass it off to BCBC and say: "You are the party that has turned them down, you give them their answer again"? Have you used any of your responsibility as the appeal step and the adjudicator to bring resolution to this problem?
Hon. L. Boone: I review the correspondence. I get the information. But the member has to understand that he is suggesting that he minister interfere in decisions made by BCBC. If I were to do that the member would be the first one to cry foul and claim that I was playing favouritism, or what have you. The decisions made by BCBC officials are made in a fair tendering process and are based on good, sound business practices. I can ask them, or I may ask the board, to look into a situation and to review a case, but I certainly would not instruct BCBC or any other Crown corporation to alter the way that they do their business.
K. Jones: This is an interesting approach -- being adjudicator and the process of appeal for people who have grievances. Does that mean that the minister, at all times, would not make any decision and would automatically turn over responsibility to the party that made the decision not to accept a tendering process that was done fairly -- and was the high bidder and had experience? Maybe they didn't have as much experience as B.C. Buildings Corporation people thought they should have, but they did, for all intents, bring forward the best offer. When you don't get the right person you want, is it appropriate to give another bidder an opportunity to bid on it again and bring in a higher bid, so that they can obtain the tendering process? It's the most unusual process I've ever seen.
[ Page 7865 ]
Hon. L. Boone: Well, it's not an unusual process to get the best value for your dollar, and it's not an unusual process to ask for people who are competent and can do the work. All tenders that go out state quite clearly that the low bid will not necessarily be accepted. If the low bid was accepted in all cases, we would have some pretty shoddy work out there at different times.
I do not consider myself an adjudicator here. I'm the minister responsible for this Crown corporation. If I was seriously concerned that a company was not being treated fairly, I would refer that to the board, as I stated earlier, and ask the board to review the decisions of the Crown. That's what a board is there for: to look at all these things. But it is certainly not the intention of anybody in this government to politically interfere or to change the way business is done. That may be the way you want to do things, hon. member, and that may be the way things have been done in the past, but it is not the way things are done in this ministry or with this government. If I was concerned that there was a problem, I would refer it to the board and ask the board to review it.
K. Jones: First of all, could the minister tell us what correspondence from either the aggrieved party or people on behalf of the aggrieved party was forwarded to the board?
Hon. L. Boone: As I told you earlier, I was satisfied from the information I received from the board that the decision was a fair one based on sound facts. The decision was not referred to the BCBC board because I felt this decision was a fair one.
K. Jones: If that's the case, then the minister did an evaluation and made an adjudication on the issue and decided not to consider the person's appeal to her. Is that the process by which people appeal when they feel they were not given fair treatment in a bidding process with any of the Crown corporations?
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I made it quite clear that I do not adjudicate, and I do not do appeals. If a letter comes to me and I review it, and it looks like somebody may have a fair case, I would refer that to the board. If they have an appeal, they can appeal to the board, and that is the way people should be going.
K. Jones: Therefore we should direct these people to make their appeals directly to the board of B.C. Buildings Corporation, because that's the process by which people can have a fair assessment of their grievance. Mind you, they have to realize that that board made the decision to let the contract to somebody else. It doesn't sound like a very good process for appeal, because I think in a court of law you are supposed to have somebody who's independent of the process as the adjudicator hearing the appeal.
The normal appeal process has always been -- maybe the minister is new to the field and isn't familiar with her responsibilities -- to the minister, and the next step is to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Perhaps she needs to bone up on parliamentary process so she will be more familiar with her responsibility as minister. Perhaps she would like to change her direction with regard to what she told us -- that the only way for these people to appeal is through the board?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: I will pass that information on to the president of Ranotech and ask them to make their appeal through the board of BCBC, so they get a response and see what can be done. It would have been more helpful if the minister had used her adjudicative powers to bring a satisfactory resolution to this. Those people could probably have done a very good job there. If the minister wanted to solve some of these problems, she should be working with both BCBC and the persons who bring concerns to her in order to bring a settlement. That's certainly the approach I've always used in solving these things, and I've met with both parties in trying to bring about resolution.
The Chair: Shall vote 43 pass?
K. Jones: I'd like to look at the downtown area with regard to the Q lot. Could the minister tell us what the plans are for the Q lot?
Hon. L. Boone: There will be a mixture of office buildings and multiple housing. That is what's proposed, but I must state that whatever takes place will be done after consultation with the community. As I stated earlier, the community is very concerned about what takes place in this area, and we want to make sure that whatever takes place in the precincts does so with the full cooperation of those who live in the area.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us who will be the occupant of the Q lot facility?
Hon. L. Boone: It would be government ministries and potentially Government Services. We're not sure about some of the other areas.
K. Jones: Is it primarily intended to handle your ministry, hon. minister?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: The minister said no, it's not intended to house her ministry principally. I understand that your ministry is scattered throughout a lot of temporary buildings. Are you not making provision for proper accommodation at this time?
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: It would be my ministry and possibly Education in there, but not primarily my ministry. As you know, my ministry is actually small in comparison to other ministries. You're right, we are scattered, and we very much look forward to the day when we can be much more coordinated and much
[ Page 7866 ]
more together, but that will be a little while down the road.
K. Jones: With regard to that property, it's going to take over a parking lot, which is used by a lot of staff in this building and by visitors. What provision are you making to accommodate those people?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC has actually done a transportation study with regard to the Victoria accord and all the things that take place, recognizing that it's to our advantage to try and get people out of their cars, and to try and do different things that will make people use an alternative method or public transportation to get to work. The transportation plan has been referred to a committee that represents all ministries to find out how we can best accommodate our goal, which is to try to cut down on the traffic here, to encourage car-pooling and to get people using public transportation. The task of the interministry committee is to try and figure out how we can best do this, and meet the needs of all the people who work in this area.
K. Jones: My colleague for Saanich North and the Islands suggests I should take the minister up on her suggestion of having an all-party committee involved in helping out with the decision-making. I'm not sure if we would really want to take all that responsibility. I think it's going to be a fairly big task to take on. I'm sure that the people who are assigned to doing it will do a fine job.
[4:15]
With regard to the parking needs that will be generated by the Y lot property development, what plans do you have to free up the parking in this area? We have quite a lot of commercial and tourist traffic here, and people can't find a parking lot. If you did a traffic count, you'd probably find most of the time people are circling the block and being counted several times over trying to get a parking stall, rather than there being extra traffic in the area. What's being done in that regard to get better parking in the area?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we are trying to reduce the parking for government by actually providing an incentive. There's no incentive when you have cheap parking quite readily available, which we have right now for employees as part of their contract. There will be some underground parking available. But it's not our responsibility to provide parking for all of the tourists who are around. You'd have to talk to Mayor Turner on that; I'm not going to step on his jurisdiction, I'm afraid.
K. Jones: It's interesting that you bring up Mayor Turner. Is the scheduling of this construction and the Victoria accord really part of the campaign program of the NDP to try and get their NDP mayor re-elected in November? Is that where the push comes from in this issue?
The Chair: Hon. member, I bring you to order on that. I don't think that's an issue to be directed at this minister, and it's quite inappropriate. Please continue a line of questioning that the hon. minister is familiar with.
K. Jones: I was just discussing the timing of the projects, and it seemed to be coincidental.
With regard to the parking, is it the intention of the minister to suggest that parking rates should be increased for the staff in the facilities around here so that they adequately match her intention to reduce parking in this area?
Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, that's actually part of the contract negotiations. We're working with the union, and that's one disincentive to driving your vehicle here that they are looking at. It's all part of the transportation plan that, as I said, an interministry committee is reviewing. It is trying to find disincentives, I guess, and then other incentives to encourage people to use alternatives rather than coming down one at a time in a vehicle. There may be some really good incentives that one can give for car-pooling, for example, or incentives for people who choose to ride their bikes or walk, or what have you. The transportation committee is looking at all those things and trying to reduce the amount of traffic in the precinct area.
K. Jones: To give some time line, what date is the transportation committee scheduled to report?
Hon. L. Boone: The report has only just been received by that committee, and they are currently costing out some of the ideas that are presented there. Obviously, we are not in a position to do things that are going to cost a lot of money. The costing out is currently taking place, and then we'll see just what recommendations are feasible for us to follow through on.
K. Jones: To scale the traffic and parking problems to this resulting construction of the Q and the Y lots, what would be the number of workers in those buildings when they're completed?
Hon. L. Boone: We are guessing at this -- because we are not in the business of putting the people in there -- but we think it's around 1,200.
K. Jones: Is that 1,200 in the Q lot building, the one intended for your ministry and maybe Education, or is that the figure for the Y lot?
Hon. L. Boone: That's 1,200 additional people for the whole precinct.
K. Jones: I see. Who would be going into the Y lot property? Which ministries would be consolidated in the Y lot property?
Hon. L. Boone: The Ministry of Health mainly, and maybe Social Services.
K. Jones: Are any of those people currently located in the precinct area? How many of those people would presently be located in the precinct area?
[ Page 7867 ]
Hon. L. Boone: Health isn't in the precinct area. Social Services is along the periphery; it's close.
K. Jones: The information I got from the Victoria accord was that there would be about 2,000 people in the Y lot property. It seems to be quite different. They obviously aren't coming from this area because, as you say, they are currently housed elsewhere, so there seems to be quite a large number of people who are going to be involved in that Y lot facility. In addition, whatever number is scheduled to be at the Q lot is substantially more. Perhaps some of those are already in the precinct area.
Hon. L. Boone: Y lot is not in the precinct. The additional people in Y lot would probably be in the order of about 2,000, but we're talking about the precinct area here.
K. Jones: I see. I guess we were probably being broad in the true sense of "precinct" because when I was talking about that, we were trying to include St. Ann's and Y properties and the surrounding Humboldt valley area as part of this area. But you are probably correct; that is maybe outside the precinct area. One thing is for sure: the traffic is still going to be heavy in all of this area, right down to this intersection. What are we going to do about that? Are we going to widen the streets? Are we going to have one-way traffic? How are we going to address that?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't tell you what the city of Victoria is going to do with regard to their streets or their traffic or any of those things, but I told you originally that we are very concerned about the traffic problems. That is why we have instituted the transportation study. In fact, the city of Victoria insisted that we have the transportation study. So we are completing that, we are concerned, we are going to do whatever we can to try to reduce the amount of traffic coming down here and to encourage people to use alternative means of transportation.
K. Jones: I would like to look at another area there -- I believe it is called Old Town -- where we presently have offices in older, private buildings. Some would suggest that they need upgrading. Could the minister tell us how many people are down in that area, and what plans BCBC has to try to bring about a change in those accommodations?
Hon. L. Boone: I am not sure. We don't know how many people are down in Old Town. If you could be more specific about a particular building or a particular office, we can give you information. You are asking a rather broad question.
K. Jones: It is intended to be broad, because I want to know the scope of the government offices and staff in that area that are, I understand, scheduled to get better facilities. I understand that there is a proposal that would temporarily move those people out of that site and into some other location. I am not quite sure where they will go while the owners renovate. To encourage the owners to invest their money in the improvements, they would need to have the assurance that the government people will go back in.
I understand that with a zero vacancy rate, as you have already attested to in the business district here, there is no incentive for people to upgrade their properties. Therefore, if there isn't a government tenant coming back in, they will just leave it the way it is, because they can fill them with other people. That is not going to be in the best interest of our community, nor is it in the best interests of the government in finding proper facilities for their staff to work in.
Hon. L. Boone: The hon. member is correct: there is an Old Town study being worked on right now. People are going to be relocated to allow for the redevelopment of those areas down there. But these are private entrepreneurs, and I can't comment on what they are going to be doing. But it is part of a study, and it shows the way that BCBC is working in cooperation with the city and with businesses to allow for the redevelopment of that area.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us who is taking the lead in bringing forward these proposals?
Hon. L. Boone: It is a joint study between BCBC and the city. It will be made public in the next few weeks.
K. Jones: We will look forward to that. It certainly sounds like the approach to take to revitalize the city centre. I think it is an approach that could be used in other city centres too, where there are similar situations. We need to make sure that we support the business community -- the people who have existing properties -- and not just have government establish all the private buildings so that in the future we don't have derelict buildings because the vacancy rate has gone up due to government people moving into precincts and therefore leaving large vacancies throughout. I think the Victoria accord was concerned that there would be that devastation of the privately owned buildings which up until now had government tenants and therefore had been able to maintain a fairly good mix of office supply.
We will move on to B.C. Systems. We will leave the B.C. Buildings people; I think they'll be very relieved to find that that's come to an end. I congratulate the staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout the past year. They have been very capable. I understand that they have maintained their very high rating in the business world as a corporate operation; I'm glad to see that. I hope the minister doesn't cite that in her final windup -- like she did last year -- as the only item about which we said positive things.
[4:30]
We won't take advantage of the absence of members on the government side to derail the estimates process. It would be a little bit embarrassing, to say the least.
[ Page 7868 ]
Could the minister tell the committee if the dividend paid to government by BCSC will be the same as last year, which I believe was approximately $3 million.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm proud to say it will be $5 million this year.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the reason for that difference? Could she identify why there's more money being made by the BCSC?
Hon. L. Boone: It was $5 million last year and $5 million this year as well. B.C. Systems has eliminated almost all of its deficit of $3 million and has built up some retained earnings. Therefore the dividend has been getting higher. It was five last year and five this year.
K. Jones: If that's the case, does that mean that B.C. Systems is overcharging the ministries for which it is providing the services in order to make that profit?
Hon. L. Boone: No, it does not. It means that they're introducing some efficiencies; they've been saving moneys where they can. In fact, this year B.C. Systems went to Treasury Board and actually reduced the charges to the various ministries. They are doing what they can to be good corporate citizens, to recognize that government dollars need to be spent very wisely and to save the money wherever they can.
K. Jones: If they were able to bring in a reduction, that would indicate they recognized that they were charging too much; therefore that was an admission that there were extra costs. Now that they've paid down their operations, how are they reducing their operating costs, hon. minister? They had a building that had a lot of vacancies in it. I understand they filled that. Is that how they cut their costs?
Hon. L. Boone: The member always jumps to conclusions; you don't listen. Listen to me, okay? I told you before. We are able to give a good dividend back because we increased efficiencies within B.C. Systems, not because we overcharged. They've done so by changing some of the technology and by some very competitive bidding processes. They have been good corporate citizens for the people of British Columbia, and it has nothing to do with any overcharging. They are in fact giving good competitive rates to ministries that don't have to use B.C. Systems. Many government offices don't use B.C. Systems, but some do because it is more cost-effective and reliable for them, and they give them good service.
K. Jones: Has the minister done an audit of their rates versus commercial rates in the marketplace to determine whether what she's saying has been ascertained by the marketplace?
Hon. L. Boone: I understand it is very hard to do a comparison between the market rates, but we do compete with businesses and have won business with the various ministries based on the rates we give.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain why it is difficult to do a comparison between an office within the government and an office across the street that's run by a corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: As you know, B.C. Systems is a very large entity that has a large mainframe. It's really very difficult to compare. It's like comparing apples and oranges when you look at a company that has a small system and compare it to government operating a large mainframe and some other services that we have at Seymour Street.
K. Jones: Perhaps I could help you. I'm sure that the chairman of B.C. Systems would be very capable of getting that comparison. I'm sure that as far as their MIS or data system capabilities go, you would find an equally comparable company in Vancouver -- it's called B.C. Telephone. They have about the same size of facility mainframe operation, plus localized networks and units. It would be very simple to compare costs there. Has the minister attempted to get a comparison to find out whether the people of British Columbia are getting the value for money assessment that should be done on a regular basis in all of our government operations?
Hon. L. Boone: Independent private sector consultants have done studies to see what it would cost for an independent ministry to obtain comparable services rather than going through B.C. Systems. In every case B.C. Systems has come out very favourably.
The member mentions B.C. Tel. I know the member used to work for B.C. Tel, so you probably have a lot of inside information on that, hon. member. B.C. Systems does a tremendous amount of work for B.C. Tel. We probably have the amount of dollars here. Isn't this amazing that we do? You just ask for it, and here it is. B.C. Systems is B.C. Tel's largest customer. In 1992-93, 86 percent of the business that B.C. Systems did -- $55 million -- went to the private sector to purchase transmissions, hardware, software and maintenance.
We do a lot of private sector work. I think the private sector is very pleased with the work B.C. Systems is doing. If you went over to the show that was taking place at the trade centre, you'd see how pleased some of the private sector are with regards to the work B.C. Systems does in encouraging, working with and helping private sector development here. We do business -- and I know you probably don't want to hear this -- with Unitel, B.C. Rail and B.C. Tel. B.C. Systems actually does work with a number of different companies.
It's our business to get the best dollar value for our customer -- the ministry out there.
K. Jones: I have to admit I have worked with B.C. Telephone and do have some knowledge. That's why I used it as an example; I knew the two could be compared on a unit-cost basis. I've looked at both
[ Page 7869 ]
facilities and therefore was able to use that. We could have used Canadian Airlines International or IBM Canada. They have some similar facilities as well. I'm sure your staff recognize the comparability of those.
Could the minister give us an idea of what outside contract projects B.C. Systems is currently doing?
Hon. L. Boone: What do you mean by outside contracts? B.C. Systems does work for government; we don't do outside contracts.
K. Jones: I guess the minister was talking about outside contract work by B.C. Systems, suggesting that they did work for people other than government. I was referring to that. Was the minister talking about something else when she was referring to that?
Hon. L. Boone: We do provide services to other public sectors -- the Assessment Authority, B.C. Buildings -- but we don't provide services to the private sector.
K. Jones: I guess the minister was quoting contracts where B.C. Systems lets out contract work to other suppliers to provide them with services. Perhaps that was what she was referring to. At that time she gave the impression that B.C. Systems was competitive in the marketplace, but actually she was referring to purchases of services by B.C. Systems -- not really a comparison that you would use to evaluate the efficiency of your operation.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm sorry, hon. Chair, I was negligent in not paying attention. I would ask the member to repeat his question, and beg his forgiveness.
K. Jones: I apologize, I should have paused until you were finished your conversation. I thought you were distracted just momentarily.
When you quoted those contracts, they were actually contracts of service with B.C. Systems. They were not contracting out services that could be used as a comparison -- contracting out services to other public markets aside from government, which could then be used as a comparison as to the efficiency of the operation. I want to verify the figures you had quoted to us, which were contracting B.C. Tel, Unitel and several other suppliers, where B.C. Systems was actually paying out money for services that they were providing to B.C. Systems. It is therefore not really a valid basis to use as a comparison of the B.C. Systems operating costs.
[4:45]
Hon. L. Boone: I wasn't trying to use it as a comparison; I was just trying to tell you that we did a lot of business with outside companies. Yes, in fact, we were paying out a lot of money, and B.C. Tel got a lot of business out of B.C. Systems. This is money that has been paid out of B.C. Systems to B.C. Tel.
K. Jones: To be fair, I think it is basically B.C. Tel and other supplied services to B.C. Systems to make their facilities operate. Therefore it was a very important service that those people provided.
Hon. L. Boone: Would you repeat that question, too? Sorry.
K. Jones: I think we didn't bother actually asking a question at that point, because you were interrupted. Maybe we'll move off that area, because I think we have explored it sufficiently.
Is there any intention in making B.C. Systems into more of a commercial Crown corporation, as in the case of B.C. Rail?
Hon. L. Boone: No. If you are asking if we are going to go out and compete in the private market for business in the private sector: no. We are here to provide service to governments and other public sector bodies, not to go out and compete in the private marketplace for business -- say, to provide business to Crown Zellerbach or whomever.
K. Jones: Wouldn't it be appropriate to utilize your surplus facilities to maximize the dollar benefit of those networks, switching centres and computer data banks -- which are not fully utilized by the government -- to get commercial revenue? I believe that was how B.C. Rail justified to us why they were in the public market.
Hon. L. Boone: No, that's not the B.C. Systems mandate. B.C. Systems is here to provide a service to government.
K. Jones: I would like to have the minister give us an idea of what is planned for B.C. Systems in this year's budget, for the development of the services that B.C. Systems provides?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess one can say, as the member knows from last year, that the budget is developed by the board. I have nothing to do with the budget. The thrust of the board, in keeping with government's mandate and our request, is to keep costs down. They are looking at every means possible, through introducing new technology or their tendering processes or what have you, to try to reduce the costs to government.
K. Jones: Could you describe the role of the board in this regard? Are they a part-time board? How often do they advise the administration?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they are all part-time boards. They receive a per diem for a meeting once a month, and they function the way all Crown boards operate. They do not have a full-time, paid person. They are all part-time.
K. Jones: How much are the board members paid for their meetings?
Hon. L. Boone: The chair is paid $350 per diem, which works out to $4,000 per annum. The others are paid $225 per diem, or $2,500 per annum. As you can
[ Page 7870 ]
see, they are not overly paid, and we get good value from them. It is a very well-picked group that brings to this board a variety of some pretty incredible expertise on a number of different technologies, and they represent the regions. I think that we have a very active board there.
K. Jones: Was the board selected by some process? Was the CEO involved in that process of selecting the board?
Hon. L. Boone: No, the board was chosen by me working with the agencies, boards and commission office.
K. Jones: Did you consult with the CEO as to the type of people who would be suitable for a board like this -- someone to lead a very high-tech, forward-thinking, imaginative organization?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we did. As I said, we brought a tremendous bank of knowledge to this board through the individuals who sit on it. An example is Al Dexter, who is an associate professor of management information systems at the University of British Columbia. We have a labour representative, Sandi MacArthur, who is an information systems coordinator from Cominco. We have Tom Nordstrom, a retired former CEO -- 30 years with Hydro. Shannon O'Neill is the representative MLA, so it is a very good board. We currently have a space on that board because a woman has stepped down; she's not well. It's a board that brings a tremendous amount of expertise and good knowledge with it.
K. Jones: Last year at this time when we were going through estimates, the chairman of that board was a gentleman by the name of Geoff Hook. He is widely known for his competency, having been the chairman of the board of VanCity Credit Union. He has been both a CEO and a board chairman and has had a lot of experience. Can you tell us why you replaced him with all of that talent?
The Chair: I would remind hon. members that when the pronoun "you" is used, it means that you are not directing your comments through the Chair. So I would ask all members to address their comments through the Chair.
Hon. L. Boone: Geoff Hook contributed a tremendous amount to the corporation. He had been there a number of years. That board had not been replaced, as a number of boards had been right at the beginning. We wanted to bring in some new ideas and fresh faces, to make some changes with regard to gender and get some women on the board, to bring in some new expertise and some regional representation. Therefore we replaced the whole board, including Mr. Hook. But it does not mean anything with regard to Mr. Hook's qualifications or his actions; he was a very good chair. I have no qualms about saying that he did a very good job of keeping this corporation running smoothly.
K. Jones: Was the reason for the board change that the minister wanted politically correct or philosophically correct people on that board so that the direction of this government would be implemented? Was she afraid that others might not follow the new direction of the government? What is that new direction?
Hon. L. Boone: This member tries to read something into everything. I explained to you quite clearly that Mr. Hook was replaced -- as was the whole board -- and that all the board members had done a very admirable job on behalf of the corporation. I felt that if we were replacing some of them, we would replace all of them; we weren't going to pick and choose. We handpicked a board with the expertise that I think was required, and they have a tremendous amount to offer. They have proved that. They have brought some new ideas to the board. They have brought some fresh incentives, and I think that is good for the board. I think Mr. Hook did a very good job when he was there, but I am very proud of the work that our new chair and new board are doing. I look forward to seeing the corporation thrive even more under their direction.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when the new board was appointed?
Hon. L. Boone: They were appointed in December 1991. The first briefing session was in the latter part of January.
K. Jones: Did I hear the minister say that they were appointed in December '92 and they started work in January '93?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they were appointed in '92, and they started work in January.
K. Jones: Based on that, I presume that they have not really had an opportunity to make an impression on the operations of the corporation at this point. Do you feel that this board has had an opportunity to have an impression on the direction and has been able to increase the productivity and the service quality of B.C. Systems Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: Judging from the response I had from the B.C. Systems representative sitting beside me, who said, "They have had very much an impact on the board," I can say that yes, they have. I sit on this board, but my deputy minister attends on my behalf, and I know that they have been challenging this Crown corporation. I think that's good. I think it's good for everybody to be challenged and to do a lot of different things. There are some exciting things happening: the Open Systems Show that's taking place here; the action that's moving around; and some of the tendering that's taken place has saved the corporation literally millions of dollars. I think we'll see more exciting things coming from this board in the next year.
[ Page 7871 ]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what sorts of changes and what kind of impact there is on the corporation? What did the staff members mean when they indicated that a great change is occurring?
Hon. L. Boone: These are some of the board's initiatives, and I think this is kind of interesting. The board has strategic directions. They're interested in working with other organizations to export B.C. knowledge and expertise to other jurisdictions. So they're working to try to assist other companies, and they actually sometimes export the expertise that we as a corporation have. Another one is to assist the government in meeting its regional and economic development objectives. That's something this government has taken very seriously: the needs of the regions and the needs for us to reach out through all arms of government, whether it be a ministry or a Crown corporation or what have you, to try to see how we can affect regional development in the areas, and what we can do. Several years ago under the Social Credit regime, they moved the Lottery Corporation to Kamloops, which was a good move. It gave that community an economic lift that helped them through some areas there.
[5:00]
Those are some of the things they are looking at. I don't know if there are particular things, but if they are looking to move something somewhere, they are doing so to assist in improving the management, coordination and the use of information technology across government. For example, I asked that the board chair come up to Prince George to talk to the UNBC people and see how they can cooperate and what we can do to connect whatever technologies we have so that we're not duplicating things -- so that UNBC is not up there putting in a bunch of systems that we could provide for them. We're trying to do those things.
For the first time the Crown corporation board chairpeople are actually meeting to see how they can avoid duplications. A lot of exciting things are going on right now, and I'm really proud that this board has taken some leadership and tried to do what hasn't been done before: to connect some of the Crown corporations through the Crown corporations secretariat to reduce the duplications and see how they work in conjunction with each other.
K. Jones: The minister was talking about exporting expertise. Is this being done free? To pass out information and expertise in the software that's available would normally have revenue capability. Are we not getting some revenue off that?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, we haven't exported any yet, but certainly that's what our intention is. If we had expertise that we've developed at our level, and we can export it to an area that requires that expertise, yes, it would be revenue for British Columbia. I think that's good news for us. We're looking at all those areas there. The CEO was telling me the other day that he had a visitor from China, and they managed to connect up with a university in Beijing here in British Columbia. The technology is incredible. It's actually kind of scary for somebody who is not a technocrat, like me. They're doing all of these things, and I'm very proud of what they're doing.
The Chair: A division has been called. All members will move to the main House.
The Committee recessed at 5:04 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 5:14 p.m.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
K. Jones: I'd like to note the fact that the minister said the board's direction is to export expertise, intending for future plans to create another source of revenue from that. I think that's commendable. But it does seem to contradict the minister's previous statement that BCSC was not going to be doing any outside contracting out. Perhaps the minister and the board chair need to talk to each other as to the direction of the organization. I'm just wondering who's right as to the direction of it.
[5:15]
Hon. L. Boone: We are both right. We are not going into competition with the private sector, but we are selling expertise that we have. That's not in contradiction with what I said earlier. We do not intend to go out and compete, but we do intend to market the expertise we have.
K. Jones: That's a unique situation. I've never seen anybody market something in the public marketplace without being in competition. I think it's a contradiction in terms, if you say that you are going to provide the expertise you have out in the marketplace. You're obviously going to compete with other people, because other people are out there supplying the same talents and expertise.
Hon. L. Boone: No. It's mostly to other public sector bodies, and it's expertise that other people don't have.
K. Jones: Does that mean that B.C. Systems is going to work in the international market with other national governments, to sell its government systems and networks to gain revenues for the people of British Columbia from other countries?
Hon. L. Boone: We are exploring those possibilities. If it's possible, economical and feasible to do, then we would be considering it. Right now, we're looking at that to see if there are ways and means that we can take the considerable amount of expertise that B.C. Systems has and put it to use on behalf of all British Columbians, so that we can put that money for all of our use.
K. Jones: I hope that the board of BCSC has its shark repellent and shark cages around itself before it
[ Page 7872 ]
goes out there, because that's a really carnivorous environment to try and get into. There are a lot of big players in the business. Believe me, they are very challenging in their competition, and if you are not prepared to be in there in a big way, you are going to get burnt. And I'm not sure that this provincial government is in a position to try and experiment in a marketplace that it's really out of place in.
I'm also interested in the direction of B.C. Systems board in regional development. Could the minister tell us how regional development would be done? What sort of cost is allocated for that regional development?
Hon. L. Boone: There is no cost allocated. This is a goal of the board and the B.C. Systems Corporation in keeping with the goal of government: to assist where we can in regional development. I can use telecommuting as an example. The telecommuting that's taking place here in Langford may be small, but the mayor of Langford really appreciates it because it's putting office space in Langford and bringing working people who spend their dollars there at lunchtime -- all of those things. That's the sort of regional economic development that we can do if we're looking to put an operation in a space outside the parameters of the Vancouver and Victoria areas. We can see if we can accommodate it in some other region. If we can put something someplace and at the same time assist a community that needs some regional economic development, so be it. We would meet the need to give people the opportunity to work closer to their homes, as we have with telecommuting, and simultaneously assist the township of Langford in a small way.
K. Jones: I hope the B.C. Systems Corporation puts an allocation for regional development in their budget. I would be surprised if they could do what you're suggesting -- telecommuting for example -- without cost. There are the costs of providing the lines, the offices and the equipment in those locations. If you're going to do that in different parts of the province, those costs are going to expand as you move outside of this area. You will have to expand the network of B.C. Systems in order to provide additional services for those areas. I think you really have to look at the regional development aspect of the policy as an extra cost item, separate from an efficient operation which does not utilize any operation for regional development. That has to be an add-on to the most efficient form of operation.
Hon. L. Boone: You ought to talk to your former CEO, Brian Canfield, who is a big advocate of telecommuting. Telecommuting does not necessarily have to be an expensive way of doing things; you can save money. It's less expensive to expand an operation in Langford, where the cost of land is far cheaper, than it is to expand, purchase or build new space in downtown Victoria, for example. We want to increase productivity by having people working closer to their homes and being happier there as well. I think that is one of the things that will come about when we do our final analysis of the telecommuting project. But it is not necessarily a cost driver. What we do, we do on a business basis, and we are not putting into effect things that are going to cost the corporation more money.
The evaluation of the pilot project that we're doing on telecommuting, for example, will be finished in the early fall, so hopefully we'll have good news that we can report to government and then look for ways and means to expand this in other areas. Telecommuting is not the answer for everybody. It's not going to answer all our difficulties, but I think there are a lot of areas and places that we can use it to really cut down on the costs of government, make our people happier and cut down on air pollution and the amount of wear and tear on our highways. I think that's an admirable thing to be doing.
K. Jones: I agree with you that telecommuting has been proven successful. Actually, there was no reason for the government to run a trial on it, because B.C. Tel, with Bentall involvement in Vancouver and into the Langley area, was able to prove the benefits of it already. It was just a duplication of a proven trial that the government put into Langford. I'm sure that the government would have operated its operation as efficiently as private industry would have, and they would therefore have noted the benefit of that technology and of that approach to providing job opportunities closer to home. I'm surprised that more actual implementations weren't done -- rather than just running a trial -- and another evaluation run, which is still leaving it quite open as to whether you will proceed with it. I don't have any difficulty in acknowledging that there's a benefit to it. But from a corporate standpoint, this is a cost factor to the corporation, whereas if you take into consideration the other benefits to the government -- as you say, the reduction of your building costs, reduction of pollution and happier people because they're closer to home -- absolutely, those are the benefits. But they are not benefits to B.C. Systems Corp.; they are benefits to other departments of government, to those employees who may be working there or to the environment of our community and things like that. When you're looking at an entity like B.C. Systems Corporation, you should separate the bare cost from any policy changes that create new cost items, so that you can properly measure the costs you're taking on. In order to do that, you need to separate these costs in your budgeting. Has the minister directed them to separate that out, so that these can be evaluated and audited fairly and equitably?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, I thought we went through this last year. I don't do the budgeting for B.C. Systems. Their budgeting is done by their board members, and that's not in my jurisdiction. No, I have not instructed them in any way, shape or form with regard to their budget.
The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair, please.
[ Page 7873 ]
K. Jones: Has there been any attempt to bring all the computer data systems and telecommunication systems of the various government ministries under the one head of B.C. Systems Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: The chair of B.C. Systems, through the Crown corporations secretariat, is working with the people at B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and a number of others to figure out how they can cooperate better. But there is no move at this time to bring everybody under B.C. Systems.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what modernization is going on in the government precincts with regard to telecommunications?
Hon. L. Boone: There is a contract with B.C. Systems to provide new computers for all the government executive offices within the precincts.
K. Jones: Is there any possibility that similar facilities would be extended to the constituency offices?
Hon. L. Boone: No, that would have to go through LAMC. The Legislative Assembly Management Committee deals with all things that go to the constituencies.
K. Jones: Has the board of B.C. Systems Corporation contemplated recommending that type of efficiency by making available access to the data systems through B.C. Systems -- the on-line facilities, the Buy Smart facilities and the access to assessment authority information -- so that the constituency offices could act more fully in providing the constituents with the information they request?
[5:30]
Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Systems would be more than happy to provide that service, providing the Legislative Assembly Management Committee that represents you and me and everybody else in the precincts here were willing to pay for it. That's the situation. There would have to be a direction coming through LAMC requesting that BCBC install such systems in our offices, and the recognition that vote 1 would pay for those systems.
At this particular time, with the cost restraints that we're all under, I can't see that that would take place unless we all suddenly felt very rich when LAMC met. But I certainly know that all of my colleagues would certainly like that, and everybody would much appreciate it. B.C. Systems would be more than happy to install them, if we were willing to pay for them.
Seeing that the time has come to 5:30 p.m., hon. chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]