1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 22
[ Page 12295 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
R. Neufeld: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House another resident of the city of Fort St. John. Sue Popesku is in the gallery today. Sue is very active in the cultural community in Fort St. John and devotes a lot of her time to that. I would like the House to make Sue very welcome.
Hon. P. Priddy: We have in the House today some students from an English-lessons class at Kwantlen College, for students learning English as an additional language. They are from the Newton campus, which is in my riding, and I'm very proud of that fact. These newcomers to Canada have worked very hard over the last few months to learn about Canada and about B.C. government, and have managed to convinced their instructor, Ian Brown, that question period would be the finest time to come and view what they have learned. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: I notice in the gallery today we have two very capable former MPs who were, each in their own way, incredible fighters on behalf of British Columbia. Lynn Hunter was the MP for Saanich and the Islands prior to the last election, and Jack Whittaker was from Okanagan-Similkameen. They are the kind of MP that British Columbians appreciate, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.
PREMIER'S TELEVISED ADDRESS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND LAND USE PLAN
G. Campbell: Yesterday the Premier spent $55,000 of the taxpayers' money on a misleading infomercial promoting NDP policies for Vancouver Island. On television, the Premier left the impression that only 50 jobs would be lost through these initiatives. Later he said it would be between 900 and 1,000 jobs. Vancouver Island community groups have suggested that 3,500 jobs will be lost.
My question for the Minister of Forests is: will the government undertake today to table all economic analyses that were prepared prior to the government making this decision to forfeit so many Vancouver Island jobs?
Hon. A. Petter: I find it incredibly ironic that the Leader of the Opposition would raise a concern about jobs, when he and his party voted against the forest renewal plan that -- as it was announced today -- will result in $52 million of investment in forests in this province, to create more jobs for forest workers and forest communities. For the member opposite to shed crocodile tears on behalf of forest workers, when he voted against a program to create new forest jobs and opposes a program to stabilize our land base, is disgraceful, and he should apologize to each and every British Columbian for taking that kind of stance.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: The disgrace is that that minister will stand up and talk about fake jobs and fake initiatives that will not provide security for one family in British Columbia. In fact, the minister just said that they didn't do any economic analysis. They don't know what they are doing, except promoting the propaganda of that political party.
As a result of the loss of direct jobs, the minister should understand that a number of indirect jobs will also be lost. Very specifically, does the minister have any idea how many indirect jobs will be lost as a result of the NDP government's ill-conceived pre-election strategy?
Hon. A. Petter: I know that the member, coming as he does from the slick side of politics, doesn't understand that these are investments in the future; these are real jobs for the future. I wonder what his economic approach is to protected areas. We have some indication, because when he was mayor of Vancouver, here's what he said about how he would deal with protected areas: "There has to be some sort of new mechanism for spreading the cost of preserving Carmanah around the province -- a new tax perhaps." I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell us what taxes he would bring in as part of his protected areas strategy, if he has one.
[2:15]
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I'm still trying to get used to this sort of stuff from that minister. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, you have let down the families of Vancouver Island. The fact of the matter is that your policy means more taxes, more costs and fewer jobs for the families of Vancouver Island. The question is: when will the NDP put aside the failed socialist policies of the past, which mean more costs, fewer jobs and more government, so that we can secure long-term, sustainable jobs for the people of Vancouver Island and the rest of this province -- not this phony stuff that you are trying to put off on the people of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, sir?
Hon. A. Petter: It's always sad to see that the new politics are really just the old politics. It's sad to see a Leader of the Opposition who is so mired in the past.
This government has brought forward a program to change the way we manage our forests through a forest practices code, a forest renewal plan and now a land use plan that will produce stability and jobs. It's visionary -- obviously too visionary for the Leader of the Opposition, but not for most in this province.
I noticed today that Bob Findlay, the head of MacMillan Bloedel, said he's willing to go along with the land use plan if it means peace with the environmental movement. "There has to be give-and-take on everyone's part," said Findlay, "and we're willing to do that."
More sadness and regret that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to make that sacrifice. He puts his personal political interests ahead of the interests of British Columbians every time -- every time. Shame on him!
W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, the people of the province of British Columbia were subjected to the most expensive infomercial in the history of the province of British Columbia last night -- an outrageous abuse of public funds. In light of the fact that the Premier's staff has been fanning out across Vancouver Island over the last two weeks and the government held a press conference today, what justification can there be for spending $55,000 of taxpayers' money to attack not only the opposition but also environmentalists in this province?
Hon. A. Petter: The justification is quite simple. The justification is that British Columbians are entitled to know
[ Page 12296 ]
what their government is doing to renew our forests and to put to bed the sad legacy of the past, which the Leader of the Opposition and his party want to renew. That's all they want to renew, because they voted against the forest renewal plan. They don't want to renew our forests.
I am not for a minute ashamed that every penny spent is spent to bring the message of the government to British Columbians. British Columbians need to know that their government cares about their future and is working to renew their forest and secure their future. It's only the opposition that's afraid for British Columbians to find out what this government is doing, as well they should be.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, this government campaigned for a 12 percent preservation figure on Vancouver Island. Some 20,000 British Columbians gathered on the lawns of the Legislature, and they asked for 12 percent. Why has the government sold them out? Why have they sold out the workers on Vancouver Island?
Hon. A. Petter: This government has not sold out the workers of Vancouver Island. The party that sold out the workers of Vancouver Island was the one that voted against the forest renewal plan, and the people of Vancouver Island know that that party sold them out.
But I ask the member, if he thinks that this government has preserved too much through this plan, why doesn't he tell us what exactly he would take out of the protected areas? Is it the Carmanah? Is it the Walbran that he would sacrifice? Or the Tahsish-Kwois or the lower Tsitika? Stand up today and have the guts to tell us: which protected areas would you take out?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
A final supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: The government set up 23 parks....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members!
Proceed, please.
W. Hurd: Yesterday the government set up 23 new parks on Vancouver Island without any boundaries attached to them. What kind of honesty is that with the people in forest-dependent communities on Vancouver Island?
Hon. Speaker, will this minister tell the people of British Columbia and Vancouver Island how many jobs his government is going to sacrifice in North Island communities? Give us a number.
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that not one job is going to be sacrificed. The jobs that the people of British Columbia should be concerned about are those that would have been sacrificed if we didn't have a forest renewal plan and a land use plan. Those are the jobs that will be sacrificed if that dinosaur party, with its backward view and failure to come to grips with the problems that we need to come to grips with, were ever to come to power. We are changing the way we manage our forests because we need a strong forest economy for stable employment. Through the forest renewal plan, we're going to create on Vancouver Island alone more than 1,000 jobs, and many more jobs in addition to that.
FUNDING FOR PROVINCIAL PARKS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Parks. Yesterday the government announced 23 new parks on Vancouver Island. At the same time, the parks branch announced that it's going to eliminate or reduce service to three parks in the Peace region. Can the minister tell us how this government can, on one hand, tell people in other regions of this province that there isn't enough money to keep their parks open, and at the same time announce the creation of 23 new parks?
Hon. M. Sihota: This government is proud of its record of doubling the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia. We made a commitment to make sure that 12 percent of our representative ecosystems in this province are protected. The decision last night to create 23 new wonderful parks here on Vancouver Island adds to the remarkable legacy of this government in terms of the work we've been doing here in Victoria on the marine trail, the Gowlland and at Tod Inlet. Hon. member, I want you to know that this government put in the resources that are appropriate and necessary to make sure that British Columbians for generations to come enjoy those wonderful parks that we are creating for those children of the future.
The Speaker: Supplemental?
J. Weisgerber: Last week I had to go to a park in the Peace region, the Sudeten Park, and meet with the local residents there, who are mad as hops because their park was being closed down. The ministry had told them there was no money this year to open the park, the first park that you hit when you enter British Columbia from the Alberta side. The ministry wasn't going to open that even for the peak tourist season on the Alaska Highway. How can the minister expect us to believe there's money for parks elsewhere in this province, when he can't even keep open small, local parks in northern British Columbia?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's an astounding comment from the member opposite who, in his previous life as a member of the Social Credit Party, stood up in this House and demanded that more parks be closed in British Columbia; stood up in this House and allowed for privatization and commercialization of our parks; stood up in this House and supported mining in parks in British Columbia. Shame on that hon. member, who has no sensitivity to the maintenance of parks in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: As we used to say, perhaps those two in the corner should go for some milk and cookies after question period.
Obviously the minister hasn't got the faintest idea how he's going to fund services in those new parks. Can he at least tell us if his ministry has calculated the compensation that's going to be necessary for the tenure holders and
[ Page 12297 ]
stakeholders whose rights are being taken away to create these new parks?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member wants to join me for milk and cookies, I'll be happy to answer the question for him.
BASIS FOR PROVINCIAL LAND USE DECISIONS
G. Farrell-Collins: I think we have seen a pretty outrageous demonstration this afternoon by the Minister of Forests.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Forests has just said that the Brundtland report recommending 12 percent was written by dinosaurs, and that the 12 percent promise that this government made in the last election is a position of dinosaurs. When did that minister change his mind? When did he decide that he could mislead, directly or indirectly, the people of Vancouver Island? When did he decide to sacrifice the working families of British Columbia on the altar of the special interests in this province?
Hon. A. Petter: It's always interesting when the opposition tries to divert attention from the real issue. I still want to hear from the opposition which parks they're going to remove. The opposition knows full well that the Brundtland commission talked about 12 percent of representative ecosystems, and that's the commitment of this government. On Vancouver Island, the CORE report and the consideration this government has given it has led to a 13 percent figure. There's nothing inconsistent there. But what we don't know, and what we need to know, is: is it going to be the Carmanah? Is it going to be the Walbran? Is it going to be the Tahsish-Kwois or the lower Tsitika that the party over there would sacrifice if it becomes government? What taxes are they going to impose to pay for it?
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister had any idea how big his parks were going to be, or whether or not he had enough money to keep them open, we'd be able to answer that question.
Can the minister tell us if he intends in his travelling road show this weekend to go into the Cariboo and the Kootenays and tell those people how many thousands of jobs they're going to get, and when the Premier will be signing their layoff notices?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me assure the hon. member that wherever I travel in this province, I carry the message of how many thousands of jobs the official opposition would sacrifice because of their lack of support for a reinvestment program like the forest renewal plan. Time and again I tell people. Today I can tell them that they are not only opposed in principle, but the consequences of that opposition would mean that British Columbia would not have received $52 million of investment in forests, forest communities and forest jobs, because of their dinosaur views, backward thinking and negativity. That's what I'll be telling them, hon. member.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
G. Wilson: I rise on a point of personal privilege that has to do with last night's broadcast.
[2:30]
Last night a significant portion of British Columbia's population was offended by remarks made in the response by selected members of this government with respect to the manner in which our land use is being strategized. Last night Mr. Careless said that it is time we stopped the "Bosnia approach" to land use. Hon. Speaker, any connection of civil disobedience, with respect to disruption of logging or loggers gathered on the lawns of the Legislature, to the kinds of human atrocities that are going on in Bosnia now is both trivializing and offensive to a number of people in that community. Today I have spoken with Dr. Mel Dilli, who is the president of the B.C. Bosnian association. He finds it as regrettable as I do that in a government-funded statement such a statement would be allowed to be made. I ask this government to stand up today and distance itself from that statement and to apologize to those families who have suffered so terribly in the atrocities that exist in Bosnia today.
Hon. D. Miller: With respect to any comments made by members of the government or others concerning the issue we have so vigorously debated in question period, I would certainly offer any apologies if people have taken offence. That needn't be the case. Perhaps the parallel that was being drawn was that in circumstances where people don't have the ability to compromise to reach agreements, the consequences are quite severe. Having respect for what the member had to say, and certainly if people have taken offence, I offer apologies on behalf of the government.
The Speaker: That would appear to satisfy the concerns of the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington rises on a matter?
U. Dosanjh: I'm asking for leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, thank you. I see Mr. Nannar, a former president of the Ross Street Temple, the Khalsa Diwan Society of British Columbia, on Ross and Marine in Vancouver. I want the members to welcome him. He has a companion with him.
Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
On vote 42: minister's office, $436,943.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a pleasure to introduce the '94-95 budget estimates for my ministry and offer a few introductory remarks about how this ministry's priorities fit into the government's overall direction. Then I want to turn
[ Page 12298 ]
in some detail to what we're doing to preserve and protect medicare and maintain access to quality health services for the people of this province.
Before turning to that detailed discussion, hon. Chair, I have a brief word about the budget as a whole. I want to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Finance for an excellent budget. The public reaction has clearly been favourable, as has been the response of the financial sector. In fact, I cannot help noting a couple of paradoxes in all of this. Here we are at a time when the federal government, after 20 years of monopoly by Conservative and Liberal administrations of one stripe or another, is sinking further and further in debt, while some of us responsible for provincial governments are finally turning things around at this level.
An Hon. Member: This budget puts $2 billion in this little debt.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Here in British Columbia we have more than halved the deficit handed over to us by the previous administration -- down 60 percent in three years, in three budgets. By the end of our term, we will have fulfilled our pledge to the people of British Columbia to eliminate that deficit entirely.
An Hon. Member: Your research is way off. Maybe you should check your facts.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I hear some heckling from members of the Reform Party, and I must say I constantly hear talk from federal Reform members about doing this -- much talk. But here, in this administration, we are actually taking action.
At a time, hon. members, when there is talk about the federal government's credit rating being under attack by bond-rating agencies, paradoxically there's talk of some provinces being upgraded by those same agencies. I suspect that Saskatchewan and British Columbia are near the top of that list -- both New Democratic governments that inherited a financial mess from right-wing administrations and that are doing the hard job of turning things around.
There's a second paradox I want to draw members' attention to. The opposition parties in this House have been virtually silent on the budget. I can't remember the last time I heard a question to the Minister of Finance about this budget. I guess that's a compliment, and I'll take it as such. I'll take it as an endorsement by the opposition parties in this House of the good fiscal management of the current Minister of Finance.
Yet when we get into estimates on particular ministries we hear a litany of complaints and problems -- not enough money for this or for that. I'm sure we're going to hear some of the same over the next few days in the Health estimates. Well, hon. members, you can't have it both ways. I will be asking the members opposite who raise spending issues over the next few days: "Where were you on the budget? Where were you on our government's plan to eliminate the deficit? Where were you on our commitment to hold taxes constant over the next three years and eliminate the deficit by the end of our first term as government?"
This government is successfully guiding our province through a period of worldwide change -- economic change, as world marketplaces increasingly overpower national and regional economies; social change, as technology and growing population alter what we do at work, at home and during our leisure time; and government change, as limited finances force us to address increasing demands with static or decreasing resources. Sound fiscal management has required some tough decisions, but it is essential for our province to have sound fiscal management as we turn this corner.
My ministry's overall mandate is clear. The goal of this ministry is to provide quality health services for all British Columbians. It's as simple as that. Through this time of change and in the face of limited finances, we are doing everything we can to protect the health of our citizens. This is a real challenge, one that presents us with only four options.
We could simply do nothing and stand by as an outdated health system, while the health system described by Justice Seaton in his royal commission report is strangled by increasing demands in the face of limited resources.
A second option would be to turn away from the principle of universality. As a Reform Member of Parliament recently proposed, we could allow the rich to buy whatever services they want whenever they want them, while leaving the rest of us to take whatever is left. That's surely the policy in the United States, where the rich can pay and 30 million people simply don't have health care.
A third option would be to follow the example of the federal government and the province of Alberta. These governments have responded to funding shortfalls by cutting back on health care and allowing the system to starve.
The fourth option is the one that this government has chosen, and I believe it is the only responsible option. We must change our system to make it more efficient, to make it work better and to make it more responsive to the priorities of communities across this province. Those who oppose this approach had better be ready to pick their alternative. Will it be a system that is neglected, in crisis and in decline? Will it be an American-style, two-tiered health system? Will it be a system plagued by savage cutbacks? Or will it be a universal, accessible and affordable health system that preserves medicare while adjusting to changing needs and resource limitations?
To me and to our government, there is really only one choice. Our 1994-95 budget maintains our commitment to making sure health services are there when British Columbians need them. In the face of cutbacks in most other Canadian provinces, this budget provides increases to protect and preserve medicare and our key health services while putting more services into B.C. communities, emphasizing health promotion and illness prevention, and providing more community control of the system.
Over the last year we have made good progress. We now have a tripartite Medical Services Commission, marking a new era in the comanagement of our financial resources for physician services. We have a long-term agreement with the British Columbia Medical Association, which is allowing us to move forward in the spirit of cooperation. We have a health accord, which for the first time in Canada enables employers and employees, through their unions, to work together to minimize the impact of change. We've made steady progress toward community decision-making, including designation of British Columbia's first community health councils. I'm pleased to say that today I designated the eighth community health council for British Columbia, with dozens more to come in the next few months.
We've made significant changes to the structure of the Ministry of Health by introducing a more streamlined and integrated structure based on four major divisions rather than the previous six.
[ Page 12299 ]
Finally, we launched prevention care -- a new health promotion initiative aimed at reducing death, disease and injury due to preventable causes.
As the debate over the next few days will no doubt show, this year's budget is a challenging one for our health system, but it's sensible and fair. It allows us to sustain the progress we have made over the past two years to preserve and protect medicare and to provide universal, accessible services.
I want to now focus on four cornerstones or major components of our health agenda. First, we've continued this government's exemplary record of supporting health care and defending medicare. Nothing speaks more strongly to that point than the billion dollars of increased annual health funding we have provided since our election -- $6.4 billion this year. The figure in the estimates for this year is the strongest possible statement of this government's support for health care. With this budget, health spending is up an additional 3.3 percent this year. We have not succumbed to cut-and-slash politics. Instead of eliminating funding for supplementary medical services, as some were speculating in this House, we are maintaining them and increasing their funding by nearly $16 million this year, while developing long-term solutions to the cost pressures that face them.
Instead of slashing Pharmacare, we are taking a rational approach that controls costs while still providing support for the people who depend on it. The changes we have introduced will ensure that the integrity of Pharmacare is protected, so that B.C. will not be forced to gut or dismantle this vital program the way other provinces have been forced to do with their prescription drug plans.
Our acute care sector, our hospitals, will receive a $29 million increase in funding this year, an increase of about 1.3 percent. I recognize, perhaps better than anyone, the challenge to hospital administrators that this presents, a challenge much the same as those faced by many families in British Columbia who must find ways to get by with a very small annual increase or with no increase at all.
If you think a 1.3 percent increase for B.C. hospitals is tough, I'd ask the hon. members to look at the situation elsewhere in Canada: in Saskatchewan, where the acute care budget received a 3 percent cut this year on top of the 3 percent cut the year before; or in Alberta, where hospitals funding is being slashed by nearly 18 percent over the next three years. So in relative terms, we are doing reasonably well.
We've said to the hospitals in the province that in order to make this work, we need to work with them on a new way of funding hospital services and a new way of planning for them. We've established that funding plan with a longer-term financial planning framework -- up to two years -- a new, more equitable hospital funding formula and improved information for hospitals on specific ways in which they can improve services and deliver them more efficiently. We've asked hospitals to respond to that challenge by reducing administrative costs by 10 percent over the next two years, by instituting improved clinical management practices and by working more closely with other hospitals to develop joint initiatives. Last, we've said very clearly to hospitals not to reduce patient accessibility and services -- at least, not until my ministry has reviewed their plans and reviewed alternatives.
[2:45]
Meeting these expectations will be difficult for some hospitals, but the ministry is working with them to help improve efficiency and make sure this plan succeeds. We are defending medicare by dealing with the extra billing by a small number of British Columbia physicians, by opposing federal off-loading and by saying no to a two-tiered health system. Simply put, we are maintaining the heart of our system by working to make it sustainable for the long haul.
The second cornerstone of our health agenda is bringing health services closer to home for British Columbians. That's why we have announced a new cancer clinic in Surrey, that's why we gave substantial funding increases to community-based health services and that's why we've committed to building long-term care facilities in communities all over this province. In the coming fiscal year, we will devote more than $41 million in new funding to the community sector. That adds up to a total increase of nearly $300 million in new funding for community-based services over the last three years. This will allow us to continue shifting more resources toward community-based services.
The new funding that is being provided through the Closer to Home initiative is designed to provide for hospital replacement services in communities throughout the province: services such as out-patient clinics, in-home IV programs, home-based palliative care and a variety of other programs to enable people to recover from surgery or illness at home. The services are designed and proposed jointly by hospitals and by community care providers. Perhaps most importantly, the funding decisions on allocation of this money will be made locally, in the regions, ensuring that the best services are provided for the people who live in those communities.
We will also continue investing in new and upgraded facilities. Our capital plan will provide not only new hospital facilities where they are needed -- in high-growth areas in our province, for example -- but also more extended-care and long-term care beds for our elderly, supporting the orderly move of service closer to home. This budget calls for total spending of some $235 million on new capital expenditures -- one of the largest building plans ever proposed by this ministry. This will create an economic stimulus and jobs, and it will enable the completion of projects that bring health services to local communities.
The third cornerstone of this government's health care agenda is a greater emphasis on health promotion and the prevention of illness and injury. As I've already mentioned, we started the PreventionCare program during the last fiscal year. Based on an old but simple adage that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, it uses the media to deliver some very simple, commonsense messages on how all of us can take care of our own health. The people of British Columbia are changing the way they think about health; they're changing from thinking about health as a set of services to be accessed when you fall ill to a personal and community resource that needs to be preserved, protected and enhanced. We expect PreventionCare to play an increasingly important role in helping improve the health of British Columbians and reducing the need for hospitalization and expensive medical treatment.
The fourth cornerstone of the government's health agenda is taking the control of our health system out of the hands of a few bureaucrats in Victoria and putting it into the hands of people in communities all over this province. We call it New Directions, and it's all about providing better management of health care by giving control to knowledgable local people. We're doing this because communities want more say over their local and regional health services, and because we know they can do a better job. The mechanisms for this local control are regional health boards and community health councils, which are being organized all over this province. Virtually all of British Columbia's new regional health boards will be in place by October of this year, and
[ Page 12300 ]
community health councils will be designated by April 1995. This is an ambitious schedule, but the people of B.C. have made it clear that they want to start seeing, sooner rather than later, the tangible benefits that will result from community control over health.
So that is the agenda: continued support for health services and protection of medicare, more care in people's communities, increased emphasis on health promotion and more community control. Funding increases in this year's budget are modest, and there is no question that our health system continues to face major challenges. But our approach to health care provides real hope for meeting those challenges, maintaining the system and providing quality health services for all British Columbians.
If we weren't following a plan to meet these goals, we would face the only three other alternatives I mentioned earlier. We could stand idly by while the system becomes outdated and completely unsustainable. That option has been rejected by just about everybody who studied the challenges facing Canada's medicare system, and it has been clearly rejected by taxpayers. We could dump the concept of universality, forget about medicare and accept the American model of outstanding care for the few, no care for the many and uncertainty for everyone. We have been hearing from British Columbians that that goes against their best judgment and their sense of identity, and it is completely unacceptable to them. I suppose we could pursue the harsh program of cutbacks and service reductions that Alberta has undertaken, and lay-off hundreds of nurses and other health workers, close thousands of hospital beds and substantially reduce services with no alternatives.
But none of those choices are acceptable to this government or to British Columbians and their families, and none are necessary. We have a way to protect and preserve medicare while keeping the system affordable and bringing services closer to home for all British Columbians. It's a sensible plan, and despite all the challenges, it is working.
L. Reid: I rise in the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health to talk about a subject which is near and dear to my heart, and that is the patient in British Columbia. I'll quote from the Seaton royal commission's report Closer to Home, on which this government chose to launch a radical and chaotic shift in health care. It says:
"We are unanimous in our opinion that the system of health care in this province is one of the best, and quite possibly the best, in the world. We do not make this claim lightly.... We have talked to representatives from many different health care systems, and we have not found a system that we would accept in exchange for the one currently in operation in British Columbia."
This document launched us into this government's health care initiatives. This document said that the health care system we have was doing us proud and that it was something all people in the world could be proud of. I accepted it. This government certainly accepted it, because they used it as a huge launching pad for a public relations exercise, which cost the government and taxpayers in this province untold millions, to state what British Columbians already knew. Frankly, they took credit for what British Columbians already knew.
Their objective, as they stated then, was to improve the delivery of health care in this province. I would submit to you today that there has not been an improvement to warrant the frustration, the sacrificing of patients and the needless expenditure of public dollars. This government, in my view, has made health care a pawn in the political process, and that does not serve the best interests of the patients in this province.
The Seaton royal commission was absolutely clear that there was enough money for the delivery of health care. That comment is riddled throughout this document. We have heard the Minister of Finance -- the previous Minister of Health -- make that claim again and again and again.
[B. Jones in the chair.]
The issue today is whether or not we accept that notion by the Minister of Finance. The hon. minister must, because in his opening remarks, he talked about the important budget the Minister of Finance brought forward and how much he believed in it. The Blues will show that he suggested that that was the case. I accepted the notion that there was enough money for the delivery of health care. The issue is how we choose to spend it and whether or not British Columbians can expect the government to have a reasonable sense of priorities around health care delivery. That is the issue for the official opposition, and that is the issue that confronts us today as legislators in this province.
We cannot stand by and watch money being badly spent, when this government is spending other people's money. That is a significant issue to be debated in the estimates process. It is a a major concern for both myself, as the official opposition's Health critic, and members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Where this government chooses to spend money is an issue, and that's where we will be addressing our concerns today, as we proceed through this estimates debate.
Thinking people wouldn't tear down the B.C. health house, if you will, until there's something in its place. Today we see this government and this Minister of Health dismantling the health care system. There are countless examples of individuals in this province who know full well that the facilities, resources and plans are not in place in communities in order to receive people who leave hospitals and health care facilities early.
The anguish and emotion out there must be recognized and dealt with. With all the doublespeak that is going on, this minister is not recognizing those issues. We are not simply going to stand by and allow something that everyone has agreed, under the Closer to Home document, is possibly the finest health care system in the world unravel because this minister is not a good manager.
That is the issue today. We have some serious concerns about the management of the health care system. They're not concerns before just members of the official opposition. They're concerns before the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. As 179 resource communities in this province said: "Slow down. Take a look at what you're doing. This is not in the patient's best interest." Very rarely did I hear this minister in his opening remarks this afternoon mention the patient. That is the focus for the official opposition, and that is the issue for today. One hundred and seventy-nine mayors across this province took that position because of their constituents, the people who have come to them and said: "It's not working for us."
The health care system is being dismantled. There are not resources in the community to pick up the slack. The ministry documentation -- all through it -- is riddled with comment that the transition is slower than anticipated. The program is not in place, but the dismantling continues. That's simply not fair to the patient.
Somebody -- all of us, I'm sure -- would find the service if we dramatically needed it. I have concerns for those
[ Page 12301 ]
individuals who do not have the resources that we here today may have. That is the issue all British Columbians are concerned about -- individuals who are being discharged early from hospital, who are wait-listed for extended care and whose community nurses today are not seeing them in their homes, because there's been no vision around the move to community care. That is a huge concern for me today. And it has to be a concern for every single British Columbian, who somehow was led down the garden path when this government suggested that when they needed those services in their communities those services would be there.
I speak specifically of what is going on -- as we speak -- with municipal nurses in this province, because it's part of the bigger package. It says to me that if this government cannot provide some direction and vision around ensuring that, when someone is discharged early from a health care facility in this province, someone will be at home to provide that care -- if 800 community nurses can't do it today -- they are not going to be able to do it for this province once Closer to Home is in place. I don't accept the notion that somehow at some future point all will fall into place magically. The 800 community nurses today are the tip of the iceberg. If this government doesn't have the gumption to commit to ensure that essential service designations are in place, then they must ensure that these individuals do receive a contract, with other provincial nurses.
[3:00]
This is a leadership question. It's astounding to me that again we see this government sacrifice patients in this province by throwing up their hands and suggesting it's not their responsibility. If you are going to take a whole system and revamp and change it, these are the basic building blocks. Community service nurses are the basic building blocks for what you say you want to do with British Columbia's health care system.
If those pins cannot be put in place, why would any British Columbian have any assurance that you indeed can provide some leadership around the future of health care in this province? This is where the rubber hits the road. It seems to me that after the two and a half years public service nurses in this province have been without a contract.... Some of them now have had a contract for a little over a month, but 800 are still left. If we can't resolve basic issues such as this, there is no way this government is ready to put in place a reasonable health care system for British Columbians.
It's a travesty that somehow we should all just back up and accept the fact that nobody is visiting patients in their homes today in this province -- patients who were promised by both this minister and the previous Minister of Health that Closer to Home would provide care in a more humane and cost-effective manner. Neither of those is true. I believe this government has done this smoke-and-mirrors trick in promising something they cannot deliver. I have serious concerns, as I'm sure most MLAs do -- and probably MLAs on the government bench -- who have constituents come to them because they can't find the services in their community. We have a minister who will stand up and say there's a single tier of health care today. Tell that to those patients waiting at home for a community care nurse to visit them. It is not a single tier of health care in this province.
Some questions, hon. minister. How long are you going to allow that kind of disregard for patients in this province? I think you need to come back to that as we begin this estimates process, because British Columbians are looking for some significant answers. I can tell you that I've attended the health care forums in this province, and there have not been answers. There has been a lot of chit-chat, but very few answers. Any administrator can tell you that you don't shift a system into such disarray, unless you can answer the very basic questions -- and the very basic questions have not been answered.
I talk about no one being at home today. The 800 community nurses are certainly part of that. But we are also in the 1990s where the general economic reality is that it takes two incomes for a family to survive. We talk about early discharge; we talk about moving people closer to home. Frankly, nobody is at home in British Columbia to care for the number of patients who are going to be leaving acute care facilities because it's deemed to be more appropriate and cost-effective to provide those services in the community.
I have asked this government for two and a half years for some kind of cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate what this is costing the taxpayer and where the benefits will be. That information has never been forthcoming from this Ministry of Health -- never. It suggests to me that the studies have not been done. Similar to the Ministry of Forests today, the studies have not been done. We are talking about impact analysis on people's lives and families. Extending that, we're definitely talking about impact analysis on people's communities.
I know the minister has spoken many times about inadequate transitional measures. What does that say to the person who is at home waiting for some kind of service? It is not a reasonable answer. It is not an answer this minister would accept for a member of his family; it's not an answer British Columbians will accept for themselves or for members of their families. We have significant wait-lists in this province; we have significant emotional anguish around the delivery of health care, from a minister who promised that he could improve the system. I have not seen it.
I firmly support the contention that voters in this province were sold a bill of goods. This is about this NDP government rationing health care and not having the gumption to stand up and tell British Columbians that that is exactly what they are doing. They are somehow suggesting that the decisions will be reached at the local level. I am contending that the authority will remain in Victoria, while the responsibility will shift to the communities. It is rationing of health care; it just has a different name. I think if that's where this minister wishes to go, he should have the gumption to stand up and say so.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I come back to the minister's comments about health care being delivered in a more humane fashion and being more cost-effective. I trust that during this estimates process we'll be given some documentation that supports that contention. I can tell you that we have asked for that documentation for two and a half years, and for two and half years it has not come. There have been grandiose promises both from the minister and from individuals in the ministry, but it simply has not come. That is not fair. That is not an appropriate way to govern in this province. It doesn't suggest that this is the open, honest government that this individual campaigned on. It suggests that something is being hidden. Again, that causes British Columbians great concern. It causes me great concern and suggests, once again, that the smoke-and-mirrors approach to delivery of health care is the norm for this government.
I also have tremendous concern around this minister and the previous minister talking about this move to regionalized health care, this shift to New Directions, as somehow
[ Page 12302 ]
being a grass-roots exercise; it was sold to the voter as something that was going to be grass-roots. Somehow we were going to create councils, and those councils were going to come together and grow into a health region. I can tell you that this government is in a pre-election mode, because that time line has been accelerated. We are going to see regions this October; we are going to see councils next April. It's no longer a grass-roots exercise, if that was ever the intention. If it was a promise from this government, it's time this government learned to deliver on a promise as significant as one that touches the lives of every single British Columbian.
We are talking about the health of every single British Columbian. We are wrapped into some kind of political exercise in a complete and utter about-face that does not serve the patient well in this province, and which causes great concern to every single British Columbian on the wait-list today. I'm sure there are members here who have family members who are waiting for service. It's a huge issue, and it's one that has not been addressed. It has been sloughed off exceedingly well by this minister, but this is where the rubber hits the road. It's time that there was some commitment in this province about wait-list care and service delivery that makes sense. I believe that we are shifting the responsibility to local government but we're not shifting the authority. A lot of individuals in this province believe those changes are purely cosmetic -- that things are not going to dramatically change.
I have some real concerns. When I started this debate this afternoon I was talking about patients, and I look at the creation of 21 parallel bureaucracies as not providing direct care to patients. It will provide a lot of bureaucratic jobs, but it's not about direct care to patients.
Let me give you the New Zealand example. You have a country of approximately the same size with similar geography and population. When they went this route, they went to four regions. They decided that four was more than adequate for a different decision-making framework. There would be fewer political appointments, less bureaucracy, and hopefully, more direct service. I await the estimates to find out how this minister believes he can justify 21 regions. I am not convinced that it's going to provide us with any more direct care, and I have some huge concerns about that.
There are some fundamental issues about how we deliver and receive health care in this province that need to be addressed over the next number of days, so that people have some kind of comfort zone about where this government is headed. We need to have a sense of what will be treated -- what will be core service in this province. In two and a half years of debate -- a year and a half fairly intensely -- we have not established that. There has been no leadership or vision about that -- hardly a suggestion of that. To suggest that 179 regions in this province as a whole will come up with that indicated to many of them that this ministry was in disarray, that they couldn't make a decision. I will await the minister's response to that, as we move through this process.
We need to have a clear and open public discussion about how much will be covered under the Medical Services Plan. There is nothing more alarming to me than to have the minister stand up and talk about one tier of health care, and then to go to the 1992-93 report of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors and look at the millions of dollars that are spent on out-of-province service. That's an absolute fact. So it's happening in this province, and it has happened for a long time. If the minister had any grasp of reality he would admit there already is more than one tier of health care. To suggest that there isn't is way off the mark.
We need to have a discussion around comprehensiveness. Who provides that treatment and what does it look like? That is something that the public needs to be involved in, and something that the official opposition has said should be a topic for full and open public debate. How do we intend to pay practitioners in the field? How do we intend to look at all the people who wish to provide care in this province? Those are issues that need to be more broadly discussed, and they haven't been. Those issues are far more significant than one more glossy brochure on how people are going to get less direct care. I have serious concerns about what looks slick on the surface when I'm not convinced it has a great deal of substance underneath it, and I have not seen a great deal to suggest that there is substance under it. In his opening remarks the minister talked about increases to health care. The minister also talked about 4,800 people leaving the acute care sector and somehow being realigned in the community care sector. The phrase was: "Guaranteed jobs in community care." How many today, minister? Three hundred? Five hundred?
There are some issues of accountability that need to be brought forward. There has been a cloak of mystery around a lot of what has happened under the accord. It certainly has not bought labour peace in this province. It was sold to the taxpayers in this province as having the ability to do that. Why would you sell out taxpayers to purchase something that was fleeting? That is a concern for every single person who pays taxes in this province. We will come back to that many times during the course of this debate.
The promised savings have not been realized. The promised benefits to community care are not occurring. This government continues to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. If you are on a wait-list, that is not an appropriate response. Today, more and more British Columbians are sitting on those wait-lists. More and more are part of the early discharge program, where you leave the hospital after a day or two and somehow, magically, those community supports are supposed to be there for you. They are not finding that.
We're reducing funding to hospitals and beds will close, because the dollars will go to the accord. Hospital administrators in this province have no choice. They believe they were sold a bill of goods, because they believed the minister when she said that the dollars would be there to fund the accord. Well, the dollars aren't there. There probably isn't a hospital in this province that isn't going to experience a significant deficit.
[3:15]
Again, we see this government and this ministry shifting the responsibility by saying: "Williams Lake, it's too bad you don't have a second surgeon. We gave the money to the hospitals, and they are choosing where to spend it." It is not a reasonable response, because they have no choice about funding the accord. This government made that abundantly clear. Who is compromised and sacrificed in this process? The patient. Once again the government stands back and says: "We gave them the money. They just didn't choose to spend it in the right place." It's a lame response, hon. minister.
I want to make some remarks and come back to the discussion of the one tier of health care. It's clear that there is more than one tier of health care in the province, and there has been for a long time. Anybody who lives outside the lower mainland knows that the level of health care they receive is different from what is available there. That is a fact that we have to acknowledge in order to address it as reasonable legislators. To suggest there is only one tier of health care simply denies the issue and the need for a solution. It's not fair to continue putting off British
[ Page 12303 ]
Columbians by saying: "You must be wrong. Of course there is only one tier of health care." It's simply not true, and I trust some reality checks will come to bear in this estimates process over the next number of days.
There are significant issues around honesty, integrity and realism. They have to be taken in just that context, because they're dramatically real issues for every single British Columbian that needs health care. They're not removed from reality or divorced from their life experience; they are issues that they are immersed in at that particular moment.
When we as British Columbians listened to the Ministers of Health from this government talk about the finest health care system in the world, we didn't expect to be disenfranchised or put off or buried under some bureaucratic snarl somewhere; we expected some answers. Frankly, both Ministers of Health promised appropriate care in a timely fashion. That was an election promise, I think. We have to continue to come back to what we intend to achieve.
We had ministers in this province talk to us about health care spending being out of control. It wasn't true then, and it's not true today. As a percentage of gross provincial product, health care spending has remained basically stable over the past five years. That is a complete and utter fact. Accept the notion that we do have enough money; how we choose to spend it is the issue. Those are the words of previous Health ministers in this province. If that has changed, come to the table and tell us. I am convinced that it's the growth of government that is a threat to health care, not the other way around. British Columbians' health care is threatened by growing bureaucracy and by other issues becoming priorities over health.
I think British Columbians are looking for a government with some sense of priority. There isn't a single statistic, not a single document in this country that doesn't put health care as the number one priority for Canadians. Number two, nine times out of ten, is education. It seems to me that we should fund those two initiatives, and then we should come back to the table. Number three is job creation. This government does a lot of other things that have nothing to do with what British Columbians believe are the priorities, and that's an issue. The day of reckoning will come in the next general election.
People believe in their health care system; they believe in their physicians. They didn't appreciate seeing this government spend millions of their tax dollars bashing health care providers. It was simplistic, old politics, and it wasn't a good use of the taxpayers' dollars. Frankly, this government knows full well that they're guilty of that. What's really disgusting is that the average taxpayer doesn't realize how much money was spent. It causes me great concern.
I want to see something that's organized, that has some vision. I want to be convinced that it is possible for this government to manage the health care system, and today I'm not convinced of that. For two and a half years I have been asking for some kind of measurement around the delivery of health care, what it costs and what the benefits are. It has never come. I firmly believe that if you cannot measure something, you cannot manage it, and that's where I think we are today.
I think New Directions is in chaos. There are significant regions of this province that do not believe it is workable, that it is doable or that it is even necessary to improving their quality of health care. That is a significant issue that I think this government will see during their travels this year and probably early into next year.
I am convinced that this government must come to grips with what the taxpayer wants, and I don't see that around the delivery of health care. I see some kind of ideological job creation scheme. I don't see how this is going to impact positively on direct care for patients, and I have some real concerns about that. I have some real concerns about the false expectations that have been created. Again, I come back to my notion that I don't think this government is going to deliver. I'm not convinced they ever had any intention of delivering on timely health care in the most appropriate fashion. I think it is about the rationing of health care
Over the next number of days, I trust that we will see this Minister of Health stand up and demonstrate some leadership on these questions, because I do not want to see a health care system which is universally bad. I'm not convinced that this is about striving for excellence. I'm wondering if this government is truly on the road to mediocrity simply to free up some dollars for some issues that they think are more important. But I can tell you, there isn't an issue that British Columbians believe to be more important. I will be bringing many, many of those issues to the table for discussion, because this is a people issue; this is not just an economic question.
The economic question must be addressed. This government must be accountable; there must be some sense of fiscal priority. But health care is a people business, and I truly want to see the patients in this province be recognized for the contributions they can make to their health care system and to have them suggest what their priorities are for health care.
L. Fox: Initially, I hadn't intended to make an opening speech, but given the political nature of the minister's speech, I feel compelled to put some of the facts on the record.
Let's first look at the history of this government in health care and what it has done to the health care service since it came to power. As the previous speaker mentioned, B.C. used to have one of the best health care delivery programs in the world, by far.
What's the record of this government? Well, the first thing this government did when it came to power was to pick a fight with the doctors, to the point that many doctors in my constituency and the minister's constituency opted out of MSP. Today that is creating real havoc in the community of Prince George and the rural parts of northern British Columbia. What was that fight over? That fight was over a $25 million pension plan, which the previous minister subsequently brought back in a more expensive form than was removed. That was a very key issue in that dispute, and this ministry and this government made a mess of it.
Let's look at what has happened. For two and a half years I've been standing in this House and requesting that we slow down this initiative to create health councils and regional health boards. I requested, number one, that we design some pilots -- go out into various areas of the province and come up with some models; number two, that we do some efficiency tests to see whether or not the programs will even work. There is much doubt in rural British Columbia that this Closer to Home initiative is even going to work. Over the course of the last two and a half years we've heard two successive ministers pay a lot of attention to the Closer to Home document. But what they've really done is use it when it was convenient and cherry-pick from within that document to further their own cause.
What we heard from this minister in his opening statement was not the concern about health care in British
[ Page 12304 ]
Columbia or even directions in terms of how he's going to solve the mess that this government has created in the province. What we heard was a political statement about how great the Minister of Finance was in decreasing the deficit -- a real fallacy, which British Columbians are not buying into, no matter how many ministers stand up and try to convince the province that the deficit has decreased. What we've seen this year is a statement that the deficit has decreased, but we've also seen some magic bookkeeping. What we actually see in this budget is expenditures of $3 billion over the revenues that this government will collect. We've seen the debt in British Columbia grow to $7.5 billion over the last three years that this government has been in power, even taking into account the Peat Marwick report and the fixed, cooked-up numbers this government presented in the spring of 1992.
Let's look at what's happened in Health. Health has increased spending by $900 million, $600 million of which has gone into wages. We see a health care accord that was drafted by the then Finance minister, who went around the Health minister of the day and cooked up a deal that will cost British Columbians over $500 million over the course of that contract. What we've seen happening because of that is that hospitals are not able to meet their payrolls. The minister talked about the fact that he did not want to create a two-tiered health care system and that he didn't want to see radical cuts that cause beds to be closed. But what do we see? We see bed closures all over this province. We see shortfalls all over this province -- $463,000 in the Alberni Valley. We see in another hospital.... I have them all. Virtually every region in the province is in a deficit.
That brings me to another point. We see this minister rushing to create regional health councils. Why is he doing that? It's very obvious; it goes along with these deficits. They are allowing the hospitals to deficit-finance this year, which will compound negatively on them next year. It will be in the hands of the regional health councils to deal with, and this minister can step away from it and say it's all their fault. That's the real rush in this time frame. It has nothing to do with the delivery of health and everything to do with politics.
Let's look a little more at this government's history in terms of what they've done. We see that the per capita debt was $5,900 when the NDP came into power. We now see a per capita debt of $7,800. That's the real fact of what this government has done with its spending. It's created larger debt and more costs to the government in order to service that debt. In fact, this year alone there's almost $500 million more in the budget to service the debt of this government. If that debt had not been created or had been reduced, it would make that $500 million available for other services.
[3:30]
We've heard members ask: "What would you do?" Well, the first thing I would have done, if I'd had the privilege of being the Health minister, was create some pilots to find out whether or not this process could work.
An Hon. Member: At all.
L. Fox: That's right.
That's the first thing I would have done. I've been stating that for two and a half years.
The second thing I would have done is examine the government's spending in all areas. Where are we spending our money? Our budget has increased substantially. We have collected $400 billion more in revenues since this government came into power. Where has that money gone? It certainly hasn't gone to the patients; it hasn't gone to the students in the schools. Where has that money gone?
G. Wilson: Debt servicing.
L. Fox: Well, $500 million went into debt servicing. The member is absolutely correct.
Let's look at some other initiatives of this government and at why we're in a difficult time. We've seen the size of government increase phenomenally since this government took over. Even in this minister's own ministry we've seen a substantial increase in employees. The minister talks about the fact that he's put more money in health care, but most of it is eaten up -- and we'll examine that throughout these estimates. Most of the money that's been put into health care has been eaten up by the growth in government.
This government's fixed-wage policy has cost this government a substantial amount of money every year. The estimates are anywhere from $200 million up.... That in itself is a substantial outgo. We've seen $1.6 million for salaries to political hacks. We see $12 million-odd this year alone for human resources management in government. We've seen an increase in welfare costs under this government of $800 million. I can go on and on, and list where the government's priorities are and why we have a problem in the delivery of services such as health care. We need to identify that it's not so much that we need to collect more money from taxpayers; we need a government that has the priorities to put the spending in the right areas. That's what we need in British Columbia.
Through the course of these debates, I hope it's evident that this minister is concerned about health care. He hasn't proven it since he's been in the ministry. The hospital in his own riding is in extremely poor condition, and not only in terms of the physical plant. One new wing will be opened on Monday, but that wasn't an initiative of this government. That initiative was started by the previous government, and now this government is going to take credit for that -- not unlike the UNBC, and not unlike the Minister of Government Services when he takes credit for the Commonwealth Games. That was an initiative of the member for Okanagan-Vernon when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and responsible for recreation. The credit for some of these good initiatives that this government is taking credit for can really be given to the previous administration.
The Chair: Member, however fascinating this debate on the budget and other sundry issues, could I just suggest that we perhaps focus on the Health ministry estimates.
L. Fox: As I said at the opening of my statement, I hadn't intended to get up and speak until I saw the political nature of the speech from the minister.
Interjection.
L. Fox: That's the individual who opened up this speech.
It is evident all across the province of British Columbia that this whole new Closer to Home initiative is in a huge mess. It's being recognized by the communities, the regional districts, the hospital boards and the provincial associations of those particular identities, and this minister is failing to recognize the importance of their concerns. Through the course of these estimates, I hope that he can prove to us and to British Columbia that he's going to make some changes; that he's not going to continue to go down that political road,
[ Page 12305 ]
but that he is going to show that he has some concern for the health care of the patients in British Columbia.
The Chair: Just before I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, may I clarify for the member for Prince George-Omineca that I certainly was not for a moment suggesting that making political statements was out of order. Far from it. It's just that the political statements ought to refer to the Health estimates. I hope that is clear. I certainly wouldn't attempt for a moment to stifle any kind of debate about politics.
G. Wilson: I am really pleased about that ruling, or it would have really limited the debate for all of us in this House. However, we might get more work done; I don't know.
I'm pleased to participate in these estimates, because they are among the most important of government expenditures. We have to clearly recognize that there is a very serious attempt by this government to alter the manner by which health care is delivered in British Columbia. Whether that's good or bad is something the public will have to decide. We have our opinions on this side of the House; the government has its opinions on the other side. Ultimately, the people of British Columbia will have to make up their minds as to whether or not this can be supported.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
It's important for us to recognize that among British Columbians there is probably no greater issue of concern, with respect to all of the statutorily obliged expenditures of government, than health care. In fact, of the three big expenditures -- health care, social services and education -- it is the one the people of British Columbia are perhaps most sympathetic with. I don't think there's one that they are more sympathetic to see their tax dollars spent toward than health care. It's something that affects the lives of every individual, family and community in this province.
At the outset, I would like to say that in my dealings with this minister, I have found someone who has always been extremely accessible and has gone out of his way to listen to the concerns I have brought to him with respect to matters arising in my constituency of Powell River-Sunshine Coast. While I do not necessarily agree with the direction the government is taking in general, the record should show that on more specific matters, this minister has attempted to resolve issues of local concern. For that I would like to express appreciation.
Now I'd like to bring to the minister's attention matters that really do need some close scrutiny in this estimates debate. If we're to be honest as politicians -- and all of us attempt to do that -- and if we're to be open in our comments to the public and then to be taken seriously when we bring forward objections to the manner by which government attempts to deliver services, we have to be able to say what is right as well as what is wrong. Clearly, no government does everything wrong. Some governments do more things wrong than others, and that's a matter of opinion. Of course, members of the opposition are likely to point to the bad more than the good. Ultimately, as I said earlier, the public will decide.
We have to recognize that the commission report that came forward with the New Directions idea put in place a concept that was generally supported among people in the province. That was the Closer to Home concept. Generally speaking, people in British Columbia thought that if we could find a better, more cost-effective way to deliver quality health care -- and I emphasize quality health care -- within the communities, which would allow our citizens to have better access to health care, that would be a good idea. We should explore that proposition wherever possible. In exploring that proposition, we should make sure there is some way to provide evidence that whatever new direction we take is, in fact, going to be a better way.
The problem that members of the Alliance have is that it has yet to be demonstrated that this New Directions program is going to be a better way. There's considerable evidence, as the member for Richmond East pointed out in her opening remarks, to suggest that it isn't going to be a better way and, in fact, that it's going to be a more expensive way. It's going to introduce more bureaucratic red tape and provide the government an opportunity for a quick and early downloading to these new councils, without any real discussion as to how that downloading is going to be affecting communities.
Within my riding there are four principal areas of concern. One is with respect to how referral patterns are going to work. How are we going to deal with that as this new system comes forward? The second is the question of dealing with the distribution of funds within the regions. My region is not unlike some others in the province where communities are isolated from each other. The third is the designation of the region itself, which we're told is to be completed by the end of this month. In looking at that designation and how that's going to function, I think there is a really serious concern because of the nature of diversity that exists within those regions. People who do not traditionally travel or communicate may be lumped into one health region and may have to share very scarce or limited resources. That may be impractical, if not impossible.
The fourth is the provision of tertiary care centres, which is a hot issue that we need to discuss. How are we going to be able to provide for that? How are we going to be able to access those health centres between the regions? Each of these are issues that have been raised by health care providers as well as by members of various community groups that are currently working on this Closer to Home provision.
However we look at each of those four categories that I've just alluded to, it's important for us to recognize that where the government introduces significant changes with respect to that process -- and significant change is on the way -- it will be much faster than many people assumed. The member for Richmond East suggested that it's a pre-election gear-up to get things done more quickly. I don't know if that's so. There's some evidence to suggest that it might be so. It's creating a greater degree of anxiety than there was among people in various communities. They are now recognizing that time lines are shifting, but they don't understand why. They don't understand if it will be in their interest to have those shifting time lines -- if we're looking at long-range planning.
We have to recognize that where these changes are going to occur, it's going to potentially alter.... I say "potentially," because I'm giving the benefit to the minister. In this estimates process, he will be able to tell us where we're correct in our assumptions and where we may be incorrect. This could alter the kinds of freedoms that patients now have with respect to choice, selection and the venue for procedures. That will vary from person to person. While preferences at the moment may be broad and somewhat varied -- depending on geographic location and facilities, centres and referrals -- they may be limited and
[ Page 12306 ]
substantially constricted, and patients and physicians have some concerns about that.
The process for referrals and choices may be limited. Future funding by region may look toward tertiary care designations. There may be interruptions in the existing referral patterns. That's something that has been identified in many instances. Physicians are saying: "Look, this is my traditional pattern of referral. I've built up relationships with various institutions and specialists. Is this going to interfere? Will it mean that my choices as a physician will be limited? How is that going to affect my ability to provide adequate care for my patients?" These are legitimate questions that are causing substantial concern, and I think the minister has to accept that that's so.
[3:45]
I'm prepared to go through my correspondence on these questions -- and I'm sure the minister's must be ten times mine. We need to flesh some of this out in these estimates. If possible, we need to relieve the anxiety that people feel if we are to be constructive in our opposition and in our discussion on these issues.
Similarly, let me say that we have a problem with the distribution of funding. This is going to be a critical component of how we look at health care financing. There is a lack of basic research to substantiate the kind of direction this government is undertaking. Both the member for Prince George-Omineca and the member for Richmond East alluded to concerns that people have in the community. They don't understand the rationale, the empirical evidence on which we are actually starting to base these councils. How are we going to justify changes in the distribution of funding within those regions if, in fact, we do not have good demographic information, for example, if we haven't looked at long-term projections, if we don't understand where demographic changes may occur, and if in that analysis of demographic information we do not have a good handle on the age and gender proportions of populations? There are substantial differences in terms of the provision of health care; we know statistically that as populations age, the demand on health care differs between genders. We know that there are different demands and special needs. The minister knows full well the long and hard fight we are waging to get mammography screening in Powell River, as an example of what I'm talking about. Those are the issues that the public is asking about. They're saying: "Give us some hard empirical data that tells us that there is going to be some rationale for how these funds are to be distributed."
The other thing being asked is: if one LHA is working really hard to reduce costs, is the reduction of those costs going to be a penalty in the future? Because by its formula process, the government will turn around and say: "Look at this in your expenditures. You've been hard-working, careful and very frugal in your expenditures." Or because of some statistical variance in one year over another, demand in your region may have allowed you to save money. Is that going to be an excuse to prohibit funds in future? If that's so, then we get into a typical bureaucratic nightmare where you spend or overspend your budget; you know that if you've overspent, you have a greater chance of getting more next year than if you've underspent, which would be an excuse to reduce your load. Those discussions are going on all over the province right now, with respect to how we are going to adequately fund and reward those who are genuinely trying to reduce health care costs. Those are legitimate questions, and I think the minister needs to come back and give us some answers to that.
I will try to focus my remarks and keep them short today, because we want to get into the specifics of each STOB in this report. I thank the member for Richmond East for giving me the outline of how, as official opposition critic, she would like to proceed. Similarly, there are some divergent views on the provision of tertiary care and diagnostic centres. I think the minister has to accept that. Because on the one hand, there is a group that advocates a broad range of centres to allow for continued freedom of choice, and there's another group that says there ought to be designated tertiary referral centres. That discussion is taking place within communities. The minister is looking a little puzzled. Maybe I'm not being very clear on this. When we get into a more direct exchange, I'd be happy to deal with this in more detail.
The concern is that if there's going to be a grass-roots decision on how that's going to work, the communities will best be able to determine how those referral centres or tertiary care centres are going to function. But what if we have an accelerated process and have to meet time lines being set by government on each of these processes? If the community fails to decide -- because there are wide and very divergent views within the community -- is the government going to say: "If you can't decide by this date, we're coming in and we're going to impose this system upon you"? In some communities that could deteriorate the service and create the possibility for a great deal of disruption with respect to tertiary care centres that have currently been promoted. Therefore the question is: why would you ask and why would the government expect to agree on a plan of funding on these issues before it has either clearly adopted or accepted a local plan that would give it that level of expectancy?
Those are, I think, really legitimate questions that the minister is going to have to answer, because they're being asked by everybody. On the one hand they were going to say: "Look, we're not going to force communities to come forward and take these decisions with respect to LHAs within each of the health units until such time as we've got an agreed plan." Now they're saying: "We're going to change those time lines. We've got a June time line, and next we've got an October time line. We're going to expect you to meet the June time line before we clearly know what's going to happen by October." Well, that doesn't make any sense to us. What it tells us is that the government is not really interested in a community-based development of ideas of how these should work.
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I regret to inform you that your time has expired.
G. Wilson: On a point of order, could the Chair clarify this. With respect to other estimates debate, in terms of both opposition and opening speakers, could I be granted time if I would ask for leave to continue?
The Chair: Under the standing orders, the rules that apply to recognized parties and unrecognized parties determine that your time has expired, unless there is an intervening procedure.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I have a few comments I'd like to make, but I'd be pleased to hear more of what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has to say. I was following his comments with interest, and I'd be glad to give way to him right now.
B. Jones: As the member for West Vancouver-Capilano hasn't served as an intervening speaker, I was so fascinated with the remarks of the member for Powell River-Sunshine
[ Page 12307 ]
Coast that I would certainly serve as an intervening speaker so that he may continue.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. I actually don't have much more to say, but I would like to conclude, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.
The point I was making is that because of the two time lines that have been put in place, the minister may wish to explain why there is a request for the communities to come forward to meet the provisions of the regional health boards with respect to the time line that's been set down -- to be operating in October 1994, which I believe is the time line the government has now decided upon -- when in fact the CHCs, the community health councils, aren't going to be functional now until March of the next year.
If those October and March time lines are in place, the government is effectively enabling itself to off-load the aspect of funding, dumping it off into the community before the community is really prepared to make adequate provision for how it's going to allocate it. I think that was a point that the member for Richmond East was alluding to earlier on. There's some real concern about that.
I would just conclude by saying that there are two other areas in which concern has been expressed. I pointed out earlier that one is with respect to access within the health units, the ability to trade services or to share resources between LHAs within them. Clearly there have been expectations, as well as comments made by the minister, that where one particular area may be in excess of its funding, it would make sense to utilize the resources within other areas of the same health unit rather than to seek help from outside the area.
On the surface, I would argue that that's not a bad idea; in fact, that's probably a sensible way to look at allocation. However, there are many communities and many regions, as will be established, where that's functionally not possible by virtue of geography, transportation systems and isolated communities. As a result, those communities fear that they will be penalized under this process, because they will not have access to the same kind of resource-sharing within their region that other communities might. They will be penalized in terms of local funding if they don't have that kind of flexibility.
I'm not talking about the urban centres in rural British Columbia but small B.C. communities, where health care accessibility is a key component for people who wish to live the latter part of their lives in those communities. Many have lived there all their lives. They don't want to move into an urban centre; they'd like to be able to access the kind of primary care they would expect in those communities. This is a very real issue of concern, and I think the minister needs to address it in these estimates.
Let me close in my last statement, then, with respect to the matter of local health areas. Virtually all health care providers have been excluded from nomination to the community health councils and the regional health boards. This doesn't make any sense from my perspective. From a philosophical point of view, I don't understand why the government.... When they looked at post-secondary educational institutions, such as colleges, they created these new college boards and allowed instructors, staff members and students to sit on boards and make decisions, and they allowed new educational councils to come in, presumably because this government.... In fact, if we can take this minister's argument that they know most about what they are administering because they are part of that system, why wouldn't that same principle apply to community health councils and regional hospital boards?
Let me be quite honest here. I would prefer that we didn't have this system in the first place. I believe that this system is going to be to the provision of medical services what regional districts have become to municipal systems of government. It's going to be a huge and very expensive bureaucracy and it is going to take greater and greater portions of the taxpayers' money which should be going into the delivery of service. However, if we are going to go that way, I don't understand how on the one hand the government can argue that in the educational sector it makes sense to have those people involved in the delivery sit on boards to make decisions but then on the other hand in the health care sector, put people who often have no knowledge or limited knowledge -- laypeople -- on those boards and exclude the very useful advice from people who are involved in health care provision at all levels. I think the minister is going to have to explain that.
[4:00]
I thank the members of the House very much for their leniency in giving me the additional time to complete my opening remarks. This should hopefully be a stimulating set of estimates, one that will enlighten the people of British Columbia as to what exactly this government has in mind for the province, because there can be no more important set of expenditures than those on the people's health.
D. Mitchell: I would like to make a couple of brief points on the opening comments that have been made. I have listened with great interest to the minister's opening remarks for this very important set of estimates. I think this is the most important set of estimates that will come before the House during this session. I say that not only because health is perhaps the most important ministry to British Columbians but also because in terms of dollar value, it is the single largest expenditure facing British Columbians. We are being asked to approve almost one-third of the provincial budget in this Committee of Supply.
I think the minister's opening comments captured the essence of the government's defence of its health care reforms. I think the minister will be called upon to defend some of those statements during the course of this review. I note that the comments made by the official opposition Health critic took those comments by the minister to heart and her comments were appropriately serious. I'd like to commend her, because I think if all critics for the official opposition took the same approach, this Legislature would be very well served. The comments from the member for Prince George-Omineca and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast also raised some very serious questions, I think, which no doubt are going to be canvassed very thoroughly during this estimates review.
I would like to raise two issues right now with the minister. I had a chance this morning to talk very informally with the minister about an issue that is before us right now in British Columbia, and it deals with community health nurses. I know that this will be canvassed in more detail and more comprehensively during the estimates, but I'd just like to make one comment with respect to this. The minister quite correctly indicated to me during an informal chat -- and I hope he doesn't mind me stating this -- that this is a labour relations issue, and indeed it is. It deals with municipal nurses in four municipal regions: Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby and the North Shore -- an area of most particular interest to myself.
Right now, this labour relations dispute is affecting a number of people in terms of important health care services.
[ Page 12308 ]
Nursing programs in our schools are being affected. There are effectively no school health nurses in any of the municipalities affected. Likewise, chronic health services to the elderly and frail are being affected. Somehow the health care reforms that the minister referred to in his opening comments -- the Closer to Home strategy and the health care accord signed by this government last year -- have not been able to capture all elements within our health care system. We like to think of it as an integrated system, but here are some community health care nurses who seem to have fallen through the crack.
Yes, this a labour relations issue, but my hope is that during the review of these spending estimates the minister will be able to show some needed leadership on this issue. My hope is that the issue will perhaps be resolved within a matter of days, because it's a very serious situation, and it needs to be resolved now. The GVRD must take control of this and get back to the table, and we must have a resolution of this labour dispute. Ultimately these are tax dollars. There is an issue as to whether or not community health nurses receive parity with provincial nurses. Right now they don't. The minister will need to address this. I'm hoping that he will show some leadership on this very serious issue. That's one matter I wanted to raise.
The other one is a larger issue that deals with the reforms the minister inherited from his predecessor. This minister hasn't been in office long. I know that it has just been seven or eight months since he assumed the largest portfolio in government, and he's new to the executive council as well. That's not an easy task. I'd actually like to offer the minister some personal commendation. I know that he has helped a number of my constituents, and on a number of specific cases that I have brought to the attention of his office since he has become minister, he has been extremely cooperative, and I thank him for that. But on the larger issue of the health care reform program he has inherited.... It's not an easy task. I have some sympathy, and even empathy, for the minister, but the program does not seem to be working right now. The minister must agree that there is broad-based concern in communities throughout our province as to whether or not the program should proceed before we iron out some of the difficulties, problems and challenges in administering it.
The Union of British Columbia Municipalities has come out with a position paper on health care reform, and I'm sure the minister is familiar with it. The UBCM actually needs to be commended for taking this issue very seriously and for providing a thoughtful response. The UBCM studies a lot of public policy issues in our province, and sometimes these task forces go on and on and never have any end. But this UBCM task force needs to be commended, because they've come out with some specific recommendations to government.
In a nutshell, the UBCM task force has recommended that the government postpone or delay the implementation of the health care reforms the minister spoke of in his opening statement and that we should perhaps proceed with some test cases in a few communities, on a pilot project basis. That was the essence of the UBCM recommendations. It seems to make eminent sense to me that maybe we should go slowly. There is concern that we're going too quickly, that it's going to be more expensive than we ever contemplated and that there is going to be difficulty with representation on the various councils and boards being established. I'd like to know if the minister would respond specifically to the UBCM task force's recommendation that we delay the implementation and perhaps proceed on a pilot project basis with a few select communities, to see if this can work, before we extend it to the province as a whole.
With those few comments, I'd be pleased to give way. I look forward to some interesting debate over the next number of days.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to thank the members opposite for their thoughtful comments as we move into the estimates debate for this ministry. As the previous speaker just mentioned, this is the largest budget the Legislature will be approving this session, and it has been for many sessions. I don't think British Columbians value any other government-delivered service as highly as health services. So it is of great concern to everybody in British Columbia and to all members of this House -- and to each of us in our own separate way. We've spoken of the needs we've heard about from people in our communities, from patients in our hospitals, from those who receive services in their homes from home support workers and from health professionals who deliver health services. I think we will have an interesting set of debates around the major issues facing the provision of health care in this province. The members opposite have raised some interesting initial questions, and I want to canvass them briefly.
Before that, I will introduce staff who are with us today and outline how we are going to move through this. To my right is the Deputy Minister of Health, Mr. Lawrie McFarlane; to my left is the assistant deputy minister for regional programs, Ms. Vicki Farrally; directly behind me is Mr. John Greschner, assistant deputy minister for strategic programs -- his is the hardest division to pronounce; and behind me and to my right is Mr. Bob Cronin, assistant deputy minister for corporate programs.
Let me canvass a few issues that people have raised. First, I believe that this government has demonstrated its support for health services in the budgets that we have presented during our first three terms, and I think the one we have before us today is further evidence of it. Contrary to what some members have said, we need to recognize the reality of this government's commitment not to decreased but to increased funding for health. Over the five years leading up to '93-94, health care spending in this province went from approximately $1,500 per capita to over $1,800 per capita. That's in real dollars, adjusted for inflation. That is a substantial and significant increase, and it is counter to what other provinces have done.
Like other provinces, we have been faced with federal off-loading. For this province, in the area of health, that amounts to about $1.1 billion this year in funds that we would have had available if the federal government had kept in place the cost-sharing arrangements for health which were originally passed. We don't have that.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: "It's nothing new," the hon. member says. It's not worth dwelling on it a great deal, except to say that we have accepted the challenge of making health a top spending priority for this administration. We have demonstrated that over our term of office, and this budget continues to demonstrate that that is our priority.
I want to respond to a couple of concerns raised. One of the things that we heard very clearly -- starting with the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and through the implementation of the New Directions initiative -- is that as we accept the Seaton commission's recommendation we need to ensure that acute care hospital services are
[ Page 12309 ]
downsized. At the same time, we must ensure that community services are enhanced. Both of those recommendations are part of that commission's report. Let us not ignore what Justice Seaton said. He said very clearly that we have a health system that we should be proud of as British Columbians. But he also said: "It is not a sustainable system. We cannot continue the way we have; we cannot stand idly by. Significant and substantial change is required." He pointed to some of those changes. He said we need to change the way the health system is governed -- and we're doing it. He said we need to change the way we spend health dollars in order to make sure that we have an integrated system of care with less focus on services provided on an in-patient basis, and more emphasis on services provided in clinics or home-based situations. Those are the major directions, among others, of that report. And we are following through on it.
Over the three budgets we have presented, approximately $300 million of new money has gone into community-based services. That's real money and real services. We will get into the substance of that as we get into debate on the regional budget. I just want to mention a couple. In 1991 approximately 6.3 million hours of home support service were provided to patients in British Columbia. Last year the projected hours of service was 7.8 million hours. It's necessarily projected, because the final tally isn't in for the year. That's a real increase -- not a fictional increase or something that somehow is not there -- of close to 25 percent in hours of home support service over three years. When people say that community services have not been built up, we need to point at figures like that and say: "Yes, they have, and they will continue to be built up."
Another example is adult day care services. In 1991 there were approximately 139,000 client-days of adult day care provided to seniors in the province who wanted to avail themselves of that. In 1993-94 we are projecting that the tally will be approximately 183,000 hours of service. That is an increase of over one-third in the last three years. So we are following through on our commitment to enhance and build community and home-based services, as the royal commission recommended and as the people of the province expect.
I want to address another item in the community-based area, and that's the Closer to Home fund. This is new money this year. It's $42 million designed explicitly to make sure that we are creating and expanding community-based health services to replace services that have traditionally been provided on an in-patient basis to patients in hospitals. We think it is vital to maintain the high standard of health care for all British Columbians by moving those services closer to home and by providing employment, as some members have pointed out, to health care workers who now provide services through acute institutions.
Finally, we think it's vital that the expenditures from this fund be authorized closer to the communities where the services are delivered. We are acting on that by asking regional steering committees to assume the role of making decisions about which services should be funded. Those are a couple of items, in talking about our commitment to more care in the community. That was the second pillar that I presented to you. We are doing it, and we will continue to do that.
There has been much said in the initial speeches here about the deterioration or chopping of health services, the closing of hospital beds and a whole range of issues that would somehow lead to the conclusion that the health care system is being diminished and decreased for British Columbians. Hon. members, that is simply not the case. It does not fit the facts of what is going on in British Columbia; it does not fit the facts of the services that have been provided.
The member for Richmond East talked about wait-lists for surgery that have somehow expanded exponentially over the last three years. The facts simply do not support that conclusion. The Ministry of Health, as you probably know, has been monitoring wait-lists for surgery for some time -- a decade, in fact -- and adjusted for population, wait-lists are pretty much the same as they were a decade ago. They are not increasing rapidly. That's simply not the reality of what is going on for the people of British Columbia.
[4:15]
I want to address a couple of specific items that members opposite have raised, and then we'll get into details of the regional programs budget. A couple of members opposite rightly pointed out that Justice Seaton said clearly that we do not have one standard of health care in British Columbia. He said clearly that we needed to change the way we deliver health care and that those of us -- I count myself among them -- who live some distance from major urban centres probably have poorer health and poorer access to health services than those who live in major urban centres. He said we needed to take some steps to remedy that. He also said that if you happen to be a woman or a person of aboriginal descent in this province, your health is apt to be poorer and your access to services more difficult. We are taking steps to address those issues through partnerships with aboriginal communities and the aboriginal health policy branch, which we'll discuss later, and through the initiatives around women's health.
Some of you in the last few days may have seen in the paper the advertisements asking people from around the province who wish to step forward and serve on a Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health to put their names forward. Quite frankly, it's the first one I can remember in this province, hon. members, where membership and nominations have been solicited not by some sort of closed process but by open advertisement in the newspapers throughout British Columbia.
Finally, I want to address some of the issues that have been raised around building community control of health delivery in this province. I've heard a number of things and am sure we'll get into extensive debate on the regionalization initiative on establishment of community health councils and regional health boards. I welcome that, because I think we need to have an exchange on some of the difficulties as we move forward with this and some of the challenges that we're overcoming.
Let me say a couple of things very clearly. This is no cosmetic exercise. This is not a process to keep all the authority in Victoria somehow and transfer only responsibility to the regions. This is an establishment of true community control, a fundamental reworking of how we govern and deliver health services for the people of this province. We are giving regional health boards and community councils real say over how health in their communities is designed and delivered. We very clearly believe, and are demonstrating by our commitment to this, that people in communities and regions around this province know best what their health priorities should be and who can best design a system for delivery of the health services they require.
D. Mitchell: Are they prepared to accept the responsibility?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me address that in two ways, hon. member.
[ Page 12310 ]
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, not question period -- but it's a very serious issue, nonetheless.
First, we have thousands of citizens of this province working on over 100 steering committees for establishment of community health councils and regional health boards, and thousands more working to advise and prepare for the establishment of community health councils and regional health boards. I submit that this fact indicates the appetite in many communities for assuming greater responsibility for this vital service for themselves and their communities.
But that may not be the exact question that was asked. Another question is lurking here, and that is: are we going to be asking community health councils and regional health boards to run before they're able to walk? Are we going to be handing off to them responsibility for major sections of health care delivery before they feel they have both the administrative structures in place and the competence to handle this. The answer, hon. members, is no.
An Hon. Member: What about the time lines?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's be very clear about what is happening here. After very clearly hearing that we needed to accelerate the development of regional health boards, we asked communities around the province to look at October of this year for establishment of regional health boards. There is simply not a plan here to give over to regional health boards, as of October 1994, sole responsibility for running and administering all health services in their regions. That is not the plan, hon. members.
If you wish to ask specific questions as we get into debate...
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: ...we will get into those.
The Chair: I hate to interrupt, but according to the standing orders your time has expired, unless a speaker intervenes.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, the minister was responding to a number of issues that were raised in some of the initial comments. If he's not finished his comments, I'm sure members of the committee would be pleased to hear further from him.
The Chair: The hon. Minister of Health may continue.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As we get into further discussion of the regionalization initiative in the New Directions plan for administering and governing health care in the province, I hope we deal with some of those concerns. There is no doubt that this represents a fundamental change in the way health care is administered and governed.
Let me point out a couple of ways in which it's fundamentally different. Some members opposite have said that this is a vast increase in bureaucracy and that we're going to be wasting money on administrations instead of on service delivery. Let's look at the reality of our health system now -- or lack of that health system. There are presently over 700 governing bodies for health in this province: home support societies, long-term care societies, hospital societies, municipalities.... The list goes on and on.
The duplication here is not in the board members who voluntarily give valuable service to govern health facilities in their own communities; the duplication and bureaucratic inefficiency, which the Seaton commission clearly identified, is in the fact that each of these 700 boards must have its own administrative structure -- and does have. We are proposing a vastly smaller government administration system for health, consisting of 21 regional boards and 80 or 90 community health councils.
Those are a couple of issues I wish to deal with off the top, as far as some of the main principles I outlined in my opening remarks are concerned. But I want to offer one other challenge, and I'm going to be coming back to it. I warn you: it will happen again. I asked very clearly in my opening remarks what the member's solution was to the difficulties facing our health system.
Are we just going to stand idly by? Are we going to continue to pump money into it and tax more? Are we going to make the fundamental changes that Justice Seaton proposed, or are we simply going to abandon Canadian medicare as an experiment that we can't possibly continue because the challenges are too great? The last generation managed to set it up for all Canadians and British Columbians, but we're going to fail in the task of developing a health system that will carry us well into the next century. I say that we can make the necessary changes. We must accept that challenge.
I heard a variety of views over there. Some simply ignored it. I must say, though, that I did hear about three different things from the Liberal Health critic. I'm not quite sure, so maybe she can clarify which side she's actually on. Initially, I heard her say that we have a marvellous system and that the royal commission said it was a marvellous system; therefore we should just stand idly by and watch it go. Well, hon. member, that's not what Justice Seaton recommended. I hope that's not your position.
I also heard her -- actually, I guess I heard her on the radio this morning -- talking about the fact that we need to have a full debate on whether we can purchase the right to health care. I'm certainly curious to know whether we're looking at a Liberal opposition that believes, as some Reform Members of Parliament seem to believe, that we must consciously move toward two-tiered medicare in this country and in this province. I'd be interested in hearing what this hon. member feels is the solution here.
Quite frankly, I hear her saying that she's not so happy with a change. It's a good system, but maybe we can't do that; maybe two-tiered is okay. So it will be very interesting to hear exactly where this Liberal opposition is coming from on measures that need to be taken to ensure that we have high-quality health care for the future needs of British Columbians. With those responses -- some general and some specific -- I will take my place, and we will deal with some of the details of the Health budget.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll get to that. We have lots of time.
I suggest initially that we focus on the regional program budget. Is that your wish, hon. member?
L. Reid: I will touch on these issues over the next number of days. As the minister has stated, we are going to start with regional programs, followed by corporate programs, strategic programs and the Medical Services Commission.
Interjection.
[ Page 12311 ]
L. Reid: The next number of days, hon. member.
I know that information has been shared directly with your office.
I want to begin this afternoon with a joint press release from the British Columbia Nurses' Union, the Hospital Employees' Union and the Health Sciences Association. It says:
"According to Debra McPherson, president of the B.C. Nurses' Union: 'Health care reform consists of the shifting of resources from hospitals to community and homebased care. So far, we have seen the reduction in services in hospitals, but we have not seen meaningful expansion of services in the community'."
Is Debra McPherson wrong, or is there information the minister can provide this afternoon that resolves this for us?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The figures in this budget and the previous ones speak very clearly for the way we are shifting funds. I'd like to provide the member with the percent change in various objects of expenditure in the regional programs estimates. Prevention and promotion budgets are up 3.4 percent; community support programs are up 3.4 percent; acute care programs in hospitals are up 1.2 percent; the provincial programs, which are largely acute, are also up 1.2 percent; and one other area, program management within the ministry, the administrative part of it, is down 5.1 percent. Earlier in my remarks, I alluded to the significant changes that are taking place in this area. I gave you the examples of adult day care, home support workers and others where we have seen substantial changes in the last few years.
Finally, if you'll indulge me, a couple of members raised the issue of the municipal nurses' dispute in the lower mainland. I want to assure all members of this House, and those people residing in the lower mainland who depend on the services provided by community care nurses, that I take this matter most seriously. I have been greatly concerned that we have a labour dispute there. I have been in contact with my colleague the Minister of Labour, who has had people involved seeking to assist the parties in finding a resolution to this matter. The mediator has now booked out but is in touch with both parties and continues to be prepared to assist at any time in finding a solution to this most difficult labour dispute.
L. Reid: I would like to follow up on the minister's comments about the municipal nursing situation. What those nurses are interested in is whether or not you believe they should have parity with provincial nurses. That's the question. If you are indeed serious about shifting to regionalized health care, will there at some point be one contract for all nurses who work in the community? It certainly seems to be the suggestion of this government that that is where we are headed. Could you either confirm or deny that?
[4:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be very interested to know what your position is, hon. member. Have you actually costed out what it would require to have one contract for all nurses in the province? Are you prepared to look at the financial situation of this province and blithely go in there and say everybody deserves the same pay?
I am quite committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That's the principle on which we signed a contract with the community nurses who are employed by our ministry. I hope they find a similar resolution to the dispute that's currently taking place on the lower mainland.
L. Reid: If this minister is committed to equal pay for work of equal value, he should stand up and tell me the difference between the work of a municipal nurse and the work of a provincial nurse.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have indicated my concern about the dispute that is going on. It is totally inappropriate for me to intervene in a labour dispute by supporting one side's bargaining position or the other's. I will be providing all the assistance I can to help the two parties reach a resolution.
L. Reid: I would hope that the minister realizes how inappropriate it is to stand up and say, "equal pay for work of equal value," and then suggest that those two positions are different. A community service nurse does the same job, whether employed by the province or by the municipality. If you are supporting equal pay for work of equal value, you would see some kind of contradiction about the fact that 800 nurses can be separated from their colleagues and justify it. I need to know where you are coming from on that point.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This will be my last answer on this matter. I have stated very clearly that I respect the collective bargaining process that is going on between the employer, who is not this government, and the representative of the community nurses. I hope they find a resolution to the matters in dispute there. I want to say very clearly that the services provided by community nurses, whether employed by municipalities or by this government, are highly valued by their employers and by the people who receive them.
L. Reid: Twenty-two thousand nurses have a contract; 800 don't. The question that was posed to you two questions back was whether one contract is the direction this government is headed under the move to New Directions.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would advise the member opposite to stay tuned for the debate on Bill 48, I believe it is, which talks about how we intend to move ahead with jurisdiction in the health care field as we move towards community health councils and regional health boards. To suggest that we should impose one collective agreement on all health workers, I think, does a disservice to the representatives of those workers and to the employer organizations that deal with them.
L. Reid: This is not about the minister being asked to impose. Nurses in this province are asking for one contract, right down to the T-shirts, the buttons and the organized withdrawal of service. No one is asking you to impose. Do you believe that there should be one contract for nurses working in the public sector?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I referred to the bill that is going to be before this House later. One of the principles of that bill is that we will be seeking the advice of a commissioner on how labour relations can be harmonized in the health sector. I am sure that this is one of the issues that they will have before them.
L. Reid: It's your government which is interested in the move to regionalized health care. It seems to me the people who provide the service in the community are the basic underpinnings of that service delivery model. If it's not them, there truly will be no one at home in this province. We have had discussions in the past about essential service designations for those individuals in the community. The
[ Page 12312 ]
bottom line is: how long is your government prepared to let that withdrawal of service go on? Have you had discussions about a possible time line, when you might see fit to suggest that it's not fair to continue to compromise the patient?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We're now two questions past where I said I'd have no further comment on this. Perhaps I should have just held to my initial pledge.
Let me say this, hon. member. We have said very clearly that the services provided by community nurses are valued and valuable, both to this government and to the people of British Columbia. We have said very clearly -- through our spending initiatives, through building up community-based services and through the Closer to Home fund that we established this year -- that we think we need more of those sorts of services. And we said very clearly, through the regionalization initiative and the legislation we introduced to move towards that, that we think we need to sort out issues of union jurisdictions and comparability in the health sector. And we will be doing that, hon. member.
I must say that I think it is time for us to drop the posturing around a labour relations issue here. This is a matter that's between the two parties. We have had mediators and others involved with the dispute. We continue to stand ready to provide any assistance to enable the parties to reach a settlement. It's simply not the answer in every labour dispute to say: "Impose a contract; ignore the rights of the union and the employer -- just do it." I resist that. We will be assisting the parties with this and will be seeking a fair settlement for the community nurses in the lower mainland, which community nurses employed by this government have achieved.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. What the minister is really saying today is that if you happen to reside in Richmond or Burnaby or North Vancouver, somehow it's all right to experience a different level of care while this withdrawal of services is going on. If provincial nurses in this province are integral to what you intend to do with your ministry, why the disparity?
G. Wilson: In deference to the minister's comments about the appropriateness of debating this in Bill 48, I notice that Bill 48 stands in the name of the Attorney General. On the provisions with respect to the change in collective bargaining rights of health care workers, I wonder if this bill will be defended by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour or the Attorney General.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. member, I plan to be participating fully and vigorously in that debate.
L. Reid: I would draw the minister's attention to a news release from his ministry dated April 28, 1994: "New Funding Plan to Encourage Better Efficiencies in B.C. Hospitals. Speaking at the British Columbia Health Association's annual general meeting, Ramsey announced a new hospital funding plan with the following major components...." Our contention through this debate, hon. minister, has been that the money that went to hospitals is not sufficient to fund even the accord. That is the reason that a lot of those hospitals are experiencing major deficits...
Interjection.
L. Reid: ...and that is the reason that wait lists in this province are getting longer and longer -- and that is true. I will bring the minister's own statistics back into debate when we reach that part of the estimates process. He takes great delight in suggesting that the increases to health funding in this province.... The majority of those dollars -- I am sure the minister will confirm this -- are eaten up by what it's costing to fund the accord.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I can tell that these are going to be the lengthiest estimates: we now have the third Chair -- even in the first afternoon.
When I announced the hospital budgets a few weeks ago, I said very clearly to those who represented the administration and boards of acute care hospitals in this province that I recognized that these budgets presented severe challenges for them. I said very clearly that we were willing to work with them to find solutions to the problems the budgets may present, not to simply throw them an anchor and say: "Have a nice swim." I stand by that commitment.
We said to hospitals and to those who govern and administer them that we want them to do several things. We expect them to look at how they coordinate the services they offer with those offered by other hospitals in their region, where that is possible. Second, we expect them to work very closely with agencies and care providers that offer services in clinics or homes that would otherwise be provided to patients on an in-patient basis, and to work very carefully with them as they figure out how to adjust to these hard budgets. We said that we also expect them to look very clearly at services that can be provided by increased community services rather than on an in-patient basis through the Closer to Home fund. A substantial amount of funds have been allocated to this, hon. member, and it will provide a substantial amount of new community- and home-based services.
Finally, after we did that, we said to hospitals around the province to not take the step of reducing access to services for the people who rely on their services until they have done those things, and until they have talked to this ministry and identified whether our assumptions are right and whether we can indeed make sure that the same level of service is provided, though in different ways, and whether they have challenges that they need some assistance with. We've offered them some assistance as well; we said that if they require a longer period to take the necessary steps to achieve a balanced budget, then they should do that, and that if they require special bridge funding, they should talk to us and we'll try to make some assistance available to them.
Our goal is clear: we think that hospitals continue to be a cornerstone of our health system. People in communities expect those services to be there when they're needed, and we want to ensure that they are. But we also want hospitals to recognize that there's a new reality of delivering health care. It's what Justice Seaton proposed to this province under the royal commission established by the previous administration, and it's what this government has been following through on.
L. Reid: The minister talked about standing by a commitment. The majority of hospitals in this province believed that this ministry committed to funding the accord. In their view, it hasn't happened. Would the minister please comment on what happened to that commitment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, there are several aspects to this issue of the health accord and the funding provided to
[ Page 12313 ]
hospitals this year. Let me mention a couple. First, the size of the hospital sector we are funding this year means it will have fewer health workers in it. Remember, the accord had four assumptions to it. One was that we should not redesign the health system on the backs of the workers who have served that system well, and that they need to know that their services are valued and that they have a future in health care if they wish -- or in other areas of endeavour, if that is their choice, as well.
Second, we said very clearly that we need to assist hospitals in making those changes through a labour adjustment agency, increased job-sharing, retraining initiatives and early retirement funds. So I was pleased to announce at the end of February -- I think the hon. member might even have been in attendance -- that we were able to provide an additional $15 million to the Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency to make sure that the accord is working, and to assist hospitals in finding ways to reduce their staff to meet the targets in the accord.
[4:45]
But the other thing I would say is that the accord is very clearly based on the principle that there will be fewer workers in the system. I would suggest to the hon. member that if we take the assumptions of staffing that the accord projects, and the funding provided to hospitals, we are indeed following through on our commitment to make sure that our hospitals provide the services that people in communities around this province expect.
L. Reid: Hon. minister, the projections you state are not real. It would be nice if the projection of fewer bodies in the health care system had been realized, but that's truly not state of the art today. You're suggesting, based on the current level of money, that had those staffing reductions taken place, all would be well. Both you and I know that those staffing reductions did not take place. I think the answer you provided for hospital administrators moments ago is not valid; it's hypothetical. It's not fair for this minister, who always takes issue with hypothetical questions, to stand up and give a hypothetical response to people who are trying to balance health care budgets in this province today. Yes, they probably could do it with the amount of money you've allocated, if they had fewer bodies. The reality is that they don't have fewer bodies today. Kindly respond to the reality that hospitals face today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, we are dealing daily with the realities that hospitals face, and we are asking the Labour Adjustment Agency to deal daily with the realities they face, by assisting them in finding early retirement options for their employees and by looking for job matches to help shift employees to where they are needed; and through the Closer to Home fund that we've announced, which has as one of its criterion for the approval of projects the shifting of workers currently employed in the institution covered by the accord to a community or home-based service. Hon. member, there are a variety of ways in which hospitals are being assisted to deal with the accord.
I must add, and remind the hon. member, that the employers the hospitals represent signed that accord. They are one party to the accord, the unions and employees they represent are another, and this government is the third. We have very clearly said that we take our responsibilities under that accord quite seriously. I think we've demonstrated our commitment to carry through on what's covered by that accord, to make the labour adjustment agency work and to make sure that the downsizing of the workforce in the acute sector becomes a reality.
The final thing I'd say, hon. member, is that we have said to the 123 hospitals around this province that we want to hear from them about service reductions that they feel could be a result of the budgets we presented to them. We will be working with them when they present the results of their deliberations, the results of their work with other hospitals and community-based services and the work they've done to use the $42 million of the new Closer to Home fund to their best advantage.
L. Fox: There are a couple of observations I'd like to make. The first one is that the fact that the minister had to announce a sweetening of the pot by $50 million is proof enough that the process was not working and that the accord was failing to encourage individuals to take early retirement. It has not worked, and my speculation is that it will not work. Costs will continue to go up, it will continue to erode the delivery of acute care in this province and it will continue to drive hospital budgets into deficit positions. The minister almost implied that hospitals were willing to sign on to that program. They rejected that accord, until their arms were twisted by this government to get them to sign it. They were fully aware of the impact the accord was going to have on the delivery of services within the hospital.
What we've seen with respect to the accord is hospitals going into disrepair because they have been forced to take those people off the payroll. Yet they're sitting at home -- and in some cases even wandering around the hospital -- collecting a paycheque, but they're not allowed to do the job.
The minister only has to go into the hospital in his own riding to see the evidence of that. The disrepair in the Prince George Regional Hospital is a real shame. When you walk on the fifth floor, you see the water stains on the wall and on the ceiling. You see panels all over the hospital removed but not replaced. It's a real shame that we would let a hospital system get into that kind of disrepair. The accord is not working. It's costing British Columbia millions of dollars more than what that government predicted it would, and it is not reducing the labour force in hospitals.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, let's be very clear here. Hospitals around this province, including the one that serves both our ridings -- the Prince George Regional Hospital -- are clearly facing a variety of challenges. I recognize those. I've said today that I will be responding to their needs, as I will be responding to other hospitals in the province, when I hear clearly what that gap is. I've asked them to work with a local task force that I appointed today to advise me on what those needs are. I'll be glad to provide the member opposite with the news release and the terms of reference for this group, which I released this morning.
Second, let me say clearly that the specific issue the member identified, maintenance at the Prince George Regional Hospital, was indeed identified, as you well know, in the study that was done in the fall of 1993. That study very clearly told the hospital that it ought to pull up its socks and get on with the task of doing some needed cleaning and renovation.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member continues to assert that the accord is the root of all evil, and that may be possible for this member to assert. Quite frankly, I would expect nothing more from a former member of the Social Credit Party -- now a member of the Reform Party, since he didn't go that way -- who has consistently stood up in this House in
[ Page 12314 ]
opposition to initiatives to respect workers in this province -- whether it's the revised Labour Relations Code, the fair-wage policy or a health accord that for the first time in Canada says very clearly that health workers need to be treated with dignity and respect. As we are changing the way health care is delivered, we need to pay attention to the needs of the workers in that system. That is what we have done.
Hon. member, the choices are rather clear. We are doing something in this province that I think is innovative. We are doing something that tries to form a new relationship between employer and employee in the health sector, and I believe it is an initiative that is long overdue. I hope it will prove to be something that other sectors will look at and seek to apply in their own sectors.
Yes, I will agree with the member. Particularly in the initial setup of the Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency, I believe there were difficulties. I recognize very clearly that this accord was finally signed less than a year ago; I think around ten months now. The health labour adjustment agency, I would submit, finally got fully functional near the end of '93 or early '94. Since that time I believe it has had increasing success in placing people, in finding job matches and in looking at the area of job-sharing and other initiatives. I believe that more needs to be done, and with the cooperation of the employers, the unions representing employees and this government, more will be done.
L. Fox: Let's go back to the minister's statement about wanting to represent the interests of workers. I would suggest that this initiative has done anything but represent the interests of workers. When I go into a hospital and talk to the workers, I've never seen a more demoralized crew in all my life than the workers within a hospital today in the province of British Columbia. There is no morale at all in that workforce. They're being forced to enter more paperwork. They are being forced to deliver more non-productive activities to meet the requests of this minister and the shift than the actual services they want to deliver to patients. That is almost without exception.
Go into any hospital and talk to the workers; they're extremely unhappy. Prince George Hospital is a good example of that. I know the minister's been in that hospital. I'm sure he can read the notices on the wall, and the evidence in the eyes and tone of voice of the workers in that hospital.
I don't think the minister should talk about my not wanting to support the interests of workers. Indeed I do; I always have and always will. But this program and the accord itself have done anything but promote harmony and high morale in health workers in British Columbia.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The hon. member and I may have to agree to disagree about whether the new relationship this accord seeks to establish is worthwhile for working men and women in the health care sector, and possibly in other sectors of public or private service.
I would submit one general thing, and then perhaps we can leave this. This accord, and the way it establishes a new relation between employers and employees, is new. It is surely new in the health care field, where, with all candour, I would characterize past labour relations as less than progressive. With this accord we are taking a step towards more of a comanaged style in the health system, as has happened in other countries. Whether you look to Japan or Germany, you see relations between employers and employees changing. You see different sorts of relationships taking place.
Well, the hon. member shakes his head. Maybe he does not wish to see that. That sort of comanagement and new relationship, I would submit, is one of the things those countries have used to beat the brains out of North American industry in the last little while. We would do well to learn from them and try to apply some of the lessons that can be learned from labour relations in other jurisdictions.
[5:00]
Finally, on the issue of the accord, there are currently some 600 employees registered with the Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency. Currently there are close to 300 vacancies listed. The work of matching registrants to vacancies goes on, and increasingly matches are being found. We have also provided additional money so that those who wish to retire early may avail themselves of that option, and we are working with unions and with employers to increase the opportunities for both job-sharing and retraining.
W. Hurd: Hearing the minister's dissertation on the health care accord has certainly prompted me to enter the debate. I don't think he has done the union justice in this case. Indeed, it negotiated a very favourable arrangement with the current government that hospitals are grappling with as we speak.
Can the minister confirm the figures contained in the Hospital Employees' Union newsletter, which in bold banner headlines advises: "1,000 HEU Layoffs Averted" -- by the health care accord. Given that hospital budgets are stuck at a 1.2 percent increase, can the minister advise this committee where he believes the money is being saved? Somehow the money is there to deal with the 1,000 layoffs that would have occurred if this health care accord had not taken place. Where is the money coming from? Perhaps I can start with that basic question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First let me say that without the accord, I suspect we'd have the situation that maybe this member would find more agreeable. That's the situation which is happening in Alberta, where budgets for hospitals are simply curtailed, and hundreds and thousands of workers are told that it's their fault and they must suffer for it personally. I find that....
An Hon. Member: Hundreds of thousands?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hundreds and thousands. Is that better? Not hundreds of thousands -- not yet, but by the time Ralph Klein is through, who knows what may happen there.
I tell you that I think we need to deal with health workers differently. Every time I hear this opposition member stand up with crocodile tears in his eyes and talk about respect for workers, I look at the record of legislation they've supported and opposed in this House -- and I have to give my head a shake and wonder where the reality is behind that rhetoric.
Let me say this. I can't confirm the total accuracy of the HEU's figures. I can confirm that the targets set for reduction of overall employment in the acute care sector in the second year of the accord was approximately 2,000 FTEs. If the HEU number is about 50 percent of that, then the figure is accurate. A variety of initiatives are being taken to make sure that hospitals can deal with that sort of reduction. Some of them, of course, will come through attrition; some will come through job-sharing; and some will come through retraining. Some 500 to 600 of those FTEs will be accounted for by the $15 million of increased early retirement funds that have been provided. Through the Closer to Home fund, we have $42 million in new programs and positions being started in
[ Page 12315 ]
communities around this province that will absorb hundreds more HEU and other workers being displaced from acute care facilities.
W. Hurd: The minister has missed the point completely. The fact of the matter is that a 1.2 percent increase for acute care hospitals in the province really translates into no increase, given the costs of inflation and additional costs that any hospital faces. We're talking about a static situation...
Interjection.
W. Hurd: ...and the growth in the population, as the hon. member points out. Hospital boards have no ability to even make cuts now without the approval of the Ministry of Health. Under this health care accord, they have no ability to adjust the levels of employment to deal with that level of funding.
Where are the thousand layoffs, which were supposed to have occurred, being made up for in the system? Obviously, this health care accord is being financed on the backs of patients in British Columbia. There's nowhere else the money can come from. The minister forgets that this deal was not cut by the Minister of Health in this province; it was cut by the past Minister of Finance and the current Minister of Employment and Investment.
The union was taken care of; that's fair enough. I give full credit to the Hospital Employees' Union, which came to the government and cut a deal. Surely the minister recognizes the principle that, if this government is going to cut that kind of deal with the health care unions, they have an obligation to ensure that the thousand layoffs that would otherwise have occurred do not come off the backs of patients in this province. Will he at least accept that principle?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That is clearly the principle I am prepared to accept. That's why I've said very clearly to hospitals around this province: "Here's a budget. We want to work with you to solve problems that it may present for you." I will be continuing to work with hospitals to reach that goal.
Let me say very clearly that I think you're misreading some of what's going on. There is an adjustment to the level of employment in the hospitals in this province. The target for this year is a reduction of some 2,000 FTEs employed in the hospital sector. The HEU newspaper quite rightly says that because of the provisions of the health accord, hospitals, employers, unions and government must find ways of dealing with those workers other than simply laying them off. Some of those thousand layoffs will be absorbed by voluntary attrition, by people seeking to leave the system. I suggest again that hundreds more will be taken care of by early retirement incentives offered by their employers. There are community job opportunities -- hundreds more being provided by existing community services, through vacancies that are opening up there, through labour adjustment agencies moving people in, and the new positions that are going to be provided through initiatives under the Closer to Home fund.
We are respecting our commitment to both employees and employers in the health sector. We believe that this can be done and is a worthwhile initiative.
W. Hurd: Again I point out to the minister that nobody, to my knowledge, has been laid off. There has been no adjustment. Look at the numbers that are boasted about in the HEU newsletter: displaced workers placed in a comparable job to March 25, which is the start of the current fiscal year, 203; workers taking early retirement, 291 -- across the entire health care system. The fact of the matter is that there has been no adjustment. This health care accord has protected almost every existing job in the health care system as it was constituted at that time.
In trying to meet the budget cap by the ministry, what options do the hospital boards have at their disposal now? Let me canvass that issue. What options does a board have? First of all, they've only got three or four more months of useful life before they disappear.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not true.
W. Hurd: Well, how long do they have? Perhaps the minister could share that with us during the course of these debates. I asked the question: what can they do? They have to present a budget of cuts to the minister for approval. They can close beds, which is an option. But how much money are they actually saving, when every bed, I assume, has a full-time-equivalent employee attached to it? There's a union component to each bed in each hospital region. They're closing beds -- absolutely. You read about it in every hospital district in the province; every day there are beds being closed. But the reality in the province is that the boards are not saving any money, or are saving very little money. So if the hospitals are closing beds and not saving any money, how can the minister advise this committee today that that is not coming off the backs of patient care in British Columbia? Clearly it is. The last option that boards have left is bed closures, and they're happening.
Perhaps I can ask the minister an even more basic question: in his view, do bed closures at acute care hospitals translate into reduced services to patients?
K. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: I'd like to thank the minister for having maintained the standard of health care that I had discussed with him in regard to maintaining an anaesthetist at the Kitimat hospital, because I have the pleasure of introducing Lauren Alexandra Allen, seven pounds, who was born at 4:16 this afternoon in the city of Kitimat. Mother is doing fine, dad is very tired and grandpa is very, very happy.
The Chair: I'd just like to point out that she is the member's grandchild.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank granddad for the introduction. I think we do have good health services in Kitimat -- and in other areas of the province.
Let me address a couple things that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock was raising with regard to the accord. First, let's look at the alternatives. This member seems to be saying, consistently and repeatedly, that the only way you deal with downsizing staff is by firing the lot. I call it the Alberta method: okay, gotta close a few services here; whack, you're fired. Blunt, nasty, savage and disrespectful of workers -- simply tossing them away. Every time he talks about this accord, his language gives him away. He talks about the deal for the union as if unions are somehow disreputable representatives of workers. So, hon. member, I would ask you to look at your language as you talk about this. We are talking about real people who have served the people of this province well in hospitals and who will serve
[ Page 12316 ]
the people of this province well in new jobs in the health sector.
Let me again go over the principles of the accord. No, there will be no layoffs. These workers will not be involuntarily laid off. That is a principle of the accord. Will they continue to work for the same employer? In many cases, no. Through the auspices of the Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency, they may well shift to a different employer who has a vacancy. One of the premises of the accord was that we would have something like a voluntary attrition rate in the hospital sector of around 4 percent a year. Preliminary figures for 1993-94 suggest it was closer to about 3.3 percent. That still has provided significant opportunities for adjustments within the labour force in acute care hospitals and for workers moving from one facility to another.
Second, some of these workers may well choose to take early retirement, and we are providing additional moneys, through the Labour Adjustment Agency, to allow that to happen. Hundreds of workers may well take advantage of that. That is not a layoff. It is dealing with those workers who are displaced by the decisions on delivery of health care in their communities. Finally, there are increasing, and increased, job opportunities in community-based health services. Those have been enhanced over the last two years. This year, through the Closer to Home fund, $42 million of new money for new services and new health care positions is being provided. This year, unlike last year, we are asking those communities building these new community-based services to make one of the criteria for building them the accommodation of the shift of workers from acute care hospitals into community-based services. I submit that the provisions of the accord are appropriate for dealing with workers in a respectful way as we shift the way services are delivered in the province.
Finally, I want to deal more generally with the member's question -- I think it was a question -- as to whether I felt that bed closures would inevitably result in deterioration of service in health care to the people of British Columbia. I guess I would go back to the conclusions that Justice Seaton reached. His conclusions were very clear. He said that we probably have, in this province, about 20 percent to 25 percent more hospital beds than should be provided in a rationalized, integrated system. He said to the government that commissioned this study and to the government that received it: "You ought to look very carefully at whether you can provide the same service, perhaps better service, in clinic or home-based situations rather than looking at in-patient service provided in acute care hospitals as the only option for provision of care."
W. Hurd: The minister will surely concede, however, that if you have some standing with the Hospital Employees' Union in an acute care setting, you'd have to be out of your mind to move into a community-based situation. The benefits are not comparable; the working conditions are not comparable. If you were a member of the HEU facing layoff you would invoke the health care accord and sit at home, because there's absolutely no built-in incentive to move to a community-based health care model. As I've pointed out to the minister, I represent a riding which has had three strikes involving community health care unions. They're striking for conditions that a first- or second-year HEU member or a nurse would not be able to meet.
[5:15]
Does the minister not understand that there is a huge gap out there between working conditions for unionized employees in the acute care sector and what we're dealing with in the community care sector? There's currently no incentive -- none -- under this health care accord for anyone to leave a job with the Hospital Employee's Union or the Nurses' Union in an acute care hospital and move into this great unknown. This health care accord has guaranteed that. It's working against the minister's claims that he wants to move to community-based care. This health care accord is actually defeating the community-based model. It's an unmitigated disaster. It has ensured that boards cannot save money by closing beds -- the more beds they close, the less they save. It has ensured that there will be no layoffs. For people who normally would leave the acute care sector and move into community care, it's the last option they would choose.
I find it significant that this deal -- and I'll use that term again, this deal -- was not negotiated by a Health minister in this province. That's a significant statement to make. It was negotiated by the Minister of Finance, who now has moved on to the Ministry of Employment and Investment. He's moved on to conduct a deal on the Island Highway -- the same kind of arrangement. You know, I find it really disappointing that the minister would not concede that at the very least this accord has reduced the options for his ministry in dealing with the shift to community-based care. I can tell him honestly that it's happening.
Many of the community-based unions are realizing, I think, that there continues to be a law for the acute care sector and a contract for the community-based sector, and they're not going to catch up in a hurry. Societies providing community-based services simply can't pay or ever meet the kinds of conditions that exist for unionized employees in the acute care sector. They'll never make it.
In a strike in my own riding, I talked to both parties. The society advised me that they wouldn't even sit down and negotiate a contract, because a contract out in the Fraser Valley somewhere had to set a benchmark for a first contract. The parties weren't even talking. This is the reality that the minister wants to move from: he wants patients to leave their acute care beds, where at least a level of service is guaranteed by the terms and conditions of essential service, and he wants them to move into a community-based health care situation where they may be struck tomorrow. It's nonsensical.
I regret that I can't stay around for this debate. I certainly intend to follow it in Hansard. I really hope the minister will at least look at this health care accord and recognize that, at this point anyway, it represents a huge bulwark against a move to community-based care.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I regret that the member opposite cannot stick around for further debate on this issue.
An Hon. Member: Say it ain't so, Wilf.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Say it ain't so.
I want to treat his comments seriously, though. The member raises an interesting point. He says the movement toward community care and the shift of employees from the acute care sector to the community care sector would be "easier" without the accord. I submit that the reverse is true, hon. member. If you want to see disruption, demoralization and chaos, then go across the mountains and see what's happening in Alberta. Go to where these sorts of layoffs are being done without protection. Go to where workers are being treated without respect, either for the services they provide or for their advice on how a health system should be structured. I think he will find that the accord is well worth any minor inconvenience it presents.
[ Page 12317 ]
Let me also correct for the member a couple of assertions that cry out to be corrected because of their inaccuracy. Workers who are displaced from an acute care facility under the accord and are looking for another job through the Labour Adjustment Agency find vacancies that are listed. They must find one that's "comparable" within a range of salary and within a range of ability to do the job -- within a range; not identical.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, hon. member, not just in hospitals -- increasingly in long-term care facilities and in other health agencies. This is the progress the Labour Adjustment Agency has been able to make in the past several months. Hon. member, you continue to assert that there is no incentive for workers to accept such a position. There is a very clear incentive. If comparable positions are available and identified, then the refusal to accept one constitutes grounds for layoff. There are opportunities for workers under this accord, but those opportunities must be seized.
D. Symons: I would like to ask a question related to your last answer. Can you give us some numbers of those who have, through this accord, been placed in the manner you referred to, and how many did not accept the positions and therefore were dropped from that program?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have some figures. I regret that they are a couple of months.... It's April, so they're slightly out of date. Through the work of the Labour Adjustment Agency, through April -- and I think this is in one of their publications.... As you may know, they are now doing publications, telling very clearly, in a very open manner, the successes they've had and the problems they continue to grapple with. They found some 230 job matches in the first year -- through April -- before the early retirement incentive enhancement that was announced. Some 291 early retirement opportunities were approved, and after being presented with a job match, approximately 26 employees chose the layoff option. From these figures, it looks like something over 10 percent are choosing the layoff option rather than accepting a job match provided through the Labour Adjustment Agency.
D. Symons: That's about 575 out of a total of how many that were displaced during the rearrangements?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The document I have before me doesn't have that with precision. As of the date that this was prepared at the end of April, there were currently registered with the agency some 600 employees. I can find out the total number who were registered over the term of the agency's existence.
D. Symons: I was just after a ballpark figure. What you've given us is roughly fifty-fifty. About half of them have now found other places or have been laid off because they've chosen that option. That's a fairly impressive figure.
Another problem that may come, now that all health care workers are going to be employed by community health councils rather than individual societies, is the concept that all these people have labour agreements with their current employers, which are hospital societies. No doubt they will have, by laws which this government has seen fit to bring in, successor rights. When they're taken over by these new community health councils, these various contracts are going to come with them to their new employers. I'm just wondering how you're going to work out the variety of contracts you're going to have, and whether the increased costs.... Some of them are going to be lower than others. There's going to be quite a variety, I suspect, of wage scales. How is the ministry going to manage to meet the changes? If you take the highest one, certainly it's going to mean that a lot of increases in salary levels will have to be somehow met by government.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would invite this member, as I've invited others, to be sure to be present for the debate on Bill 48, which contains provisions for dealing with the shift of employers in the health system and for making community health councils and regional health boards the employers for most workers in the health system. Very briefly, what I would say about the amendments to the Health Authorities Act is that they will provide for appointment of a commissioner to work out jurisdictional issues among unions representing health workers. They will provide very clearly for looking at how workers are going to relate to their employers.
I recognize that the member has a valid point, in that there is a natural desire, when you have expanded units of representation for workers with different contracts within the unit, to seek comparability in the terms and conditions of employment. Indeed, that's one of the issues that those charged with provincewide bargaining for teachers are currently working on. There are those pressures, but community health councils and regional health boards, like the present employers -- hospitals, community agencies and others -- can obviously move toward comparable wages only within the financial means they are given -- that is, the ability of the taxpayers of the province to afford it.
D. Symons: If I read between the lines, what I'm hearing is that successor rights hold for businesses that aren't government. When government wants to do something, they can sort of bend the rules somewhat. Did I not hear that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I think you misheard. We recognize that as we move toward community health councils as employers, a variety of unions will claim successor status, and those rights to successor status must be heard. What we are saying is that we need a mechanism for sorting out jurisdictional issues among unions that have successorship rights. That is the purpose of the amendments contained in Bill 48, which will change some provisions of the Health Authorities Act.
L. Fox: I want to briefly get back to the principle of the accord, which was obviously to provide some comfort to health workers through the transition period. Let's not lose sight of the fact that what really precipitated the need for this was closing Shaughnessy Hospital and the uprising of all the health care workers. It wasn't too long after that that this accord was signed by the Finance minister. As a previous member said, I congratulate the health care workers and their unions for seizing the opportunity to get this arrangement with government. The timing was certainly excellent. One has to wonder how it can succeed.
[5:30]
In terms of the early retirements, as long as another job isn't identified, individuals can stay on and continue to collect a paycheque -- unfortunately for them -- without having to go to work. Most of them want to work; the ones I've talked to would certainly much rather be going to work. Because of the budgetary system in the hospitals, hospitals
[ Page 12318 ]
are forced to put them in this section of the budget rather than that section of the budget so it reflects fewer working employees. Obviously, he felt that there wasn't enough incentive. He announced this additional cash into the program in order to sweeten the pot so that he could offer a better program for early retirement, because the other one wasn't working. What kind of success has the ministry had since he sweetened the pot? Has there been an increase in the numbers?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have no figures right now on how many have chosen to take advantage of the new early retirement funds, hon. member. I'll see if I have any better figures on that to provide you with tomorrow. The document I have before me is, as I said, dated April.
Let me just say a couple of things about how this accord came about and how it is working. I may be recapitulating stuff that I covered earlier. The need for this accord is not just the decision to deal with the necessary shift of Shaughnessy Hospital's resources to the suburbs surrounding greater Vancouver, a rationalization of tertiary services within the greater Vancouver area and the avoidance of the cost of the very expensive renovations that facility would have required. This government felt that the shift from a health system based almost solely on provision of in-patient services in acute care hospitals to a system that balanced those services with those provided in clinics and home settings required that we treat the workers who were going to be involved in that shift respectfully.
If you read Justice Seaton's report -- and I know you have, hon. member -- he clearly said that this shift was necessary to preserve the high-quality health services that British Columbians expect from their health system. That means, very clearly, that we'll be building up community services while downsizing some services based on acute in-patient care. That, I believe, is the need for the accord.
During the past few months, we have been able to expand job placements through the Closer to Home fund and other initiatives to enable some of the workers you talk about to take advantage of employment opportunities in their communities. More of those opportunities will become available as Closer to Home projects are approved and funded.
Second, I have talked to a great variety of health workers across this province who are looking at the accord and at their future in the health care system. Many of them, I suggest, are going to welcome the opportunity to participate in job-sharing arrangements with their fellow workers. Many in the health care workforce are moving through, on average, their forties and late forties; many have a lot of experience. Their financial requirements are changing, and some of them have said very clearly to me that if they had a chance to work 20 or 25 hours a week rather than full-time, they'd take it. The accord provides them these sorts of opportunities. We're working with their unions and with the employers to make sure that's available to them as a realistic opportunity.
But finally, hon. member, you congratulated the workers on achieving this accord. I congratulate you on recognizing, unlike the member for Surrey-White Rock, that this is an accord with workers, who happen to be represented by their democratically chosen unions. But I would hope, hon. member, that you would also choose to congratulate the employers who signed on to this accord, because they recognized that this accord was necessary -- necessary to achieve the shift in service delivery within the health care field without the disruption and demoralization that is going on in Alberta and other jurisdictions.
I would hope finally, hon. member, that you would see fit to congratulate the government, who had the foresight to look at the shifting nature of health care services and to see that there was a need for such an accord -- an initiative that could be a model for the sort of labour adjustment that is needed in other areas of the public sector and, indeed, in the private sector as well.
L. Fox: I don't want to belabour the issue, but I can't help but respond to those comments by the minister. First of all, I congratulated the workers and the unions for seizing the opportunity, because the government was at its weakest possible moment because of a decision over Shaughnessy. I was at that rally where over 2,000 hospital workers gathered in the room, and at which, by the way, no members of the government showed up. Neither the Premier nor the Health minister showed up to meet with those irate health workers, but the Liberal critic and I showed up. So I'm very aware of what precipitated the need for the health care accord, and I congratulated the workers for seizing that opportunity. They had the government on its knees and got a very, very good arrangement.
With respect to the HLRA signing on, as I mentioned earlier, they resisted that. In fact, they did not want to sign the agreement, because it was too lucrative, because they knew that they could not handle it within their budgets. It was only after the government twisted their arms and put extreme pressure on that management group that they did sign the contract, even against their wishes. They didn't really want to, but they ended up signing it because of the government's arm-twisting. So let's be factual about that.
I want to ask a couple of questions with respect to waiting lists, because the minister has constantly said that the waiting lists are consistent. I want to know where he gets his numbers from and how they are calculated.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I too think we have probably had a sufficient exchange of opinions on the virtues or vices of the labour accord for the health sector, and I will leave that without further comment.
On the issue of wait-lists, I referred to a document I had. The regional services area of the ministry that's responsible for provincial programs has monitored surgical wait-lists and waiting times in a sample of the 13 largest hospitals in the province on a monthly basis since 1984. Except for a couple of periods when there were labour disruptions, the wait-list has grown very modestly. When corrected for population growth, the wait-list has remained essentially stable. The average waiting time is relatively stable over this period, although there is some variation between hospitals.
I will give you a couple of figures. Approximately 75 percent of patients waiting for elective surgery have their operations performed in eight weeks or less -- and we should recognize that these are wait-lists for elective surgery; urgent or emergency surgery, as you know, goes to the head of the line. That figure rises to 85 percent if you go to 12 weeks or less. There are some instances where patients for a particular procedure will have to wait longer than that, but the great majority of people seeking elective surgery have it performed in a timely fashion.
I want to refer to a couple of specific instances of wait-lists, because I know these are very high-profile issues. Cardiac surgery, for example, is clearly a condition for which even elective surgery is given some urgency for people who require it. Over the last three years, wait-lists for cardiac surgery have fallen from approximately 800 in 1991-92 to approximately 320 in April of this year. In that area of an
[ Page 12319 ]
obviously very high-profile surgery and very high health need, we have made substantial progress in addressing wait-lists and getting them down. Cardiac surgery is a procedure that is performed in relatively few hospitals, and a very high level of care and attention is provided.
A second one I want to address is in the area of cancer services. As you know, there's a continual concern about making sure that people who require radiation therapy receive it in a timely fashion. Twelve to 18 months ago the British Columbia Cancer Agency was experiencing some staff shortages in radiotherapy technologists. We had severe pressure on waiting lists. I'm happy to report that those waiting lists have gone down significantly. Let's see if I can find the exact figures here.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, hon. member, I had another document that gave some precise figures, particularly for those waiting for radiation therapy related to prostate cancer, which I think has received a fair bit of media attention in the last little while. Those of us who have spent some time in Victoria have probably read stories in the local press about concerns over waiting times to receive radio-therapy for prostate cancer. The Victoria clinic waiting list peaked in December of last year at approximately 138. We've put on some additional staff to deal with it, and the waiting list is now approximately 60.
When these issues come up, we seek to address the immediate, small issue -- whether it's prostate cancer radiation or whatever -- but we also look to the long term and how we can take an issue like cardiac surgery and deal with it to make sure those wait-lists are coming down.
L. Fox: So if I heard the minister correctly, he is telling me, I believe, that an indicator used to judge the wait-lists is based on the 13 largest hospitals in British Columbia. The minister will certainly be aware, as I am, that in the Prince George Regional Hospital, for instance, there's a disparity between the lists the hospitals show and the lists the doctors show. In fact, not all doctors list their waiting lists with the hospital. I've been in on discussions between administrations and doctors over that issue, so I'm not sure how accurate we are when assessing wait-lists if we're only looking at the hospital wait-list. I'll leave that and just draw that to the minister's attention.
[5:45]
When we look at the cardiac surgery wait-list, which has dropped from 800 to 320, that prompts the question: did we do close to 500 more surgeries, or are we opting for different practices in terms of cardiac problems? I know that's a very highly discussed area -- whether or not we are doing more surgery, bypasses, and so on, and that there might be other services available. Are we seeing less of a demand, or are we actually doing more surgeries?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've had the same experience as you've had trying to make sure that we're getting accurate figures on what wait-lists and waiting times actually are. One thing I'm sure of is we're counting the same way now as we were ten years ago, so we can compare over time as long as it's the same counter. Clearly, there seemed to be some differences with the way different counts are done, but we are being consistent in the way we count wait-lists for elective surgery.
Just to address the Prince George situation, very briefly -- you and I can probably discuss it in some detail outside this chamber -- I want to commend the Prince George Regional Hospital for some of the work it has done in dealing with waiting lists. When there was high anxiety in the community that the closure of a substantial number of beds would lead to greatly increased wait-lists, hospital records, to the contrary, showed that over the last two years they'd been able to bring wait-lists down and increase the number of surgeries performed. I want to compliment the administration and board of Prince George Regional Hospital, and the physicians who serve the public at that facility, for the initiatives they've taken in adjusting the way surgeries have been performed.
As far as cardiac surgery services are concerned, I do not think the reduction has been due to alternative practices in dealing with cardiac conditions, so much as the establishment of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Cardiac Care to look at the whole issue of when cardiac services are used and at clinical indications for cardiac surgery being developed by putting in place a provincewide cardiac registry. So we weren't getting these pulls and tugs from one hospital to another. There was one waiting list, and people received their surgery in a timely way, regardless of which institution their physician might have admitting privileges to.
L. Fox: Was the minister suggesting that an elimination of cases, rather than more surgery being done, has reduced the waiting list?
Hon. P. Ramsey: More surgery was done, hon. member, and there was better use of the resources in the hospitals that provide this extremely complex surgery.
L. Fox: Around cancer therapy, the minister mentioned the prostate problem specifically and that the waiting list had been 138 and is now 60. I am aware that we were sending some of those people outside the province. Is that the cause of the decrease in the waiting list? Are we still doing that? How many were sent out over the course of last year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, the major change was that the Ministry of Health worked with the British Columbia Cancer Agency and extended the hours of operation in the clinic, beginning January 4. The additional operating hours have enabled us to bring that figure down. Some prostate cancer patients are being referred to Washington State, and that continues. As the member knows, we have a number of very substantial initiatives to expand the amount of cancer therapy that is available in British Columbia. The Surrey cancer clinic will be opening next year. [Applause.] Thank you for that wild applause from my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality and the member for Surrey-Newton. It will be followed by a substantial expansion of the Victoria Cancer Clinic in 1996 and the opening of the Kelowna cancer clinic in 1997, along with some renovations and replacement of equipment at the Vancouver facility. We recognize that the timely treatment of cancer is a major concern of British Columbians. We have a comprehensive program in place to expand those services and to bring down the time required to wait for them.
L. Fox: One area the minister didn't address with regard to wait-lists -- certainly the area that I get the most correspondence on -- is hip replacements, knee replacements and so on. That waiting list is actually one of the driving forces behind creating a two-tiered health care system. I'm sure the minister has individuals in his riding -- certainly I have a number in my riding -- who gave up and paid to have it done in Alberta because the waiting list was
[ Page 12320 ]
so long and they were in so much pain. The other thing that drives that particular waiting list is the hospital budget in terms of -- for lack of a better word, being an automotive person not a medical person -- the parts needed in order to do the necessary procedure. What is the minister doing about those issues? While that waiting list may not be getting longer in names, it appears to me that is certainly getting longer in duration. Does the minister want to comment on that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the fun parts of this job, hon. member, is trying to keep track of the multitude of issues that this ministry deals with. I have found it an educational process, but at times I think that my capacity for absorbing and retaining knowledge has been reached.
The data we gathered was collected from British Columbia hospitals as of April '94, so we sought relatively recent information on wait-lists. One thing I need to say is that wait-lists and waiting times vary quite significantly between hospitals and between surgeons. The hon. member may be aware that even among the surgeons who practise in Prince George, there are substantial differences in waiting times -- I think from over a year to less than a month and a half. The waiting times for hip surgery vary from as low as three weeks to a high of around 49 weeks; most waiting times seem to be less than six months. The same applies for knee replacement surgery. It averages six months or less in the province. There are some 25 centres at which knee and hip replacements are performed.
The limiting factor for those services, as the member has identified, is the allocation of funds by hospitals to purchase the prosthetic devices -- or to use the member's term, "the parts" -- needed in joint replacement surgery. I recognize that this is an issue for some centres. I want to hear very clearly what they have to say about their budgetary needs for "parts," as they work out their '94-95 budgets.
L. Fox: I know what the minister is suggesting. Different doctors certainly have longer lists, for whatever reason. I also know that if we don't address it.... It is creating a situation where those who can afford it are purchasing their treatment either in other provinces or in the U.S., and those who can't, sit at home in pain. I'm sure the minister has met some seniors, as I have, who have a very difficult time getting through their day-to-day lives because of the pain they're in due to their respective problems. Over the course of my term as an elected member, I haven't seen any improvement. In fact, I get more and more letters on this issue, rather than fewer. That is a concern to me and a concern to our senior citizens. I think it's quite fitting that we have a minister who is not only responsible for health, but also responsible for seniors. Yet one of the major wait-list problems is one affecting seniors. They are probably being affected the most in terms of the wait-lists.
I would like to see some direction given if, in fact.... Perhaps this is one time that I will ask for more money when I don't usually do that, or perhaps ask the minister to shift some priorities. I guess I'm soft or whatever, but when I sit with a senior and they are expressing their concern and their pain to me, it hurts. If the hospitals haven't got enough funds in that section of the budget, perhaps we should be looking at what we can do to shift priorities in order to make sure that those needs are met, because I believe that we have an obligation to meet the needs of our senior citizens.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The issue that we've been discussing the last little while brings into this chamber the reality of what we're really talking about: the health of people around the province and their need to ensure access to quality health services. The member has identified a concern that I share. We are taking a couple of actions within the ministry.
First, the matter of joint replacement -- particularly knees and hips -- is one area that many have advised us would benefit greatly from some clear guidelines for those very expensive procedures. The Medical Services Commission is going to be undertaking that task. Part of what needs to be done to manage utilization of hospital services is joint work between medical practitioners and the government, looking at when certain procedures are the most appropriate ones. So we're making sure that those who require the procedures are moving through in a timely fashion. The second issue that I think the member and I share a concern about is the budgets for prosthetic devices at hospitals. In part, those allocations are within the ambit of hospital decision-making on the budgets that are allocated to them. In some areas there are concerns about whether the budgets are adequate for the level of service that is being demanded. I'll just say here today that that is an area that I too am concerned about and will be looking at in the weeks ahead.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Beattie in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $436,943 (continued).
L. Fox: If this is indicative, as the minister noted earlier, of these estimates, this is the fourth Chairman we've had in only a few hours. Either the estimates....
An Hon. Member: We're wearing them out, Len.
L. Fox: We're tough on Chairmen.
Before the break we were talking about wait-lists. One of the observations I made -- and I think the minister concurred -- was that they're all very serious for many reasons. But the ones that are really obvious to me and, I think, to the minister are the ones that affect seniors. I want to point out that it appears to me that a very cost-effective thing to do would be to try to diminish those, because the cost to the medical system, particularly with seniors and
[ Page 12321 ]
those on the Pharmacare program, increases substantially with the length of the wait-list.
[6:45]
So I really hope the minister will see fit to do a couple of things. One of the issues, as we said earlier, is the need to visit the section of their budget that is allocated for the prosthesis part of the operation. But also we have to look very closely at the issue of the doctors who opted out. That issue is primarily affecting seniors, certainly in the Prince George region. It's affecting all health care in the Prince George region to the point where, once again, it identifies a two-tier health care system. Some seniors looking for hip and knee replacements have been asked to pay upwards of $500 as an administrative fee in order to achieve that service. I know it's a bit parochial, but it does affect Nanaimo. I don't know whether it's to the degree that it's affecting Prince George, but it certainly does affect health care in certain regions of the province. So the minister might want to make some comments on those two issues.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Before the break, hon. member, I said very clearly that the prosthetics budget issue is largely within the ambit of individual hospitals. But it's clearly something that the ministry should be reviewing as we look at their budget plans for 1994-95, and we will be doing that.
The member also raised the issue of opted-out physicians. I guess the issue here is not so much a decision of a practitioner to opt out as it is a practitioner's decision to extra-bill for services that are covered by the public purse through the Medical Services Plan. I think I've made no secret of my discomfort with that practice. It is currently being done by a very small number of physicians, as the member is aware. I think that at the height of the labour dispute -- if I can characterize it as that -- between the government and the BCMA, some 80 physicians were opted out, and the majority were extra-billing. That number has now come down to the low 40s. As I've said both in this House and outside of it, I'm seeking through cooperative work with the B.C. Medical Association to eliminate this problem, and I'm committed to doing that.
It has been an issue, as the member says, for residents of the Prince George region and particularly the central interior, who may find that their option for getting a particular kind of elective surgery is finding a substantial amount of extra cash to pay for an extra-billing practitioner or for the added expense of going to another centre and getting the service from an opted-in physician. I find those unacceptable choices. I've said very clearly to the BCMA, the federal Minister of Health and others that I think this is the thin edge of the wedge into two-tiered medicine. It is something that I am not comfortable with, and it is something that must end in this province.
L. Fox: That begs another question, I guess. If the minister is presently in negotiation with the BCMA to try to resolve these issues, how long does he intend to allow those negotiations to continue? In the interim, people around the province are being charged an administrative fee that can be very substantial.
In fact, in the Prince George Regional Hospital, if individuals need emergency services after-hours and one of the opted-out doctors happens to be on shift, as the minister is well aware, individuals are asked to pay the administrative fee even before the service is offered. It isn't quite that strong, but I'm aware of one case where the parent of a child with a broken arm was asked to produce $200 up front in administrative fees to the doctor in order to allow the emergency setting of the child's arm.
I think we're dealing with a very serious issue here. There should be a time frame to guide both the ministry and the BCMA on when this issue will be resolved, or some action by government could take place if it's not resolvable. I think that would be in the best interests of all individuals -- perhaps even including those doctors who opted out.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we share similar perspectives on this. I don't intend to allow much more time to go by before resolution on this issue is in place. I said very clearly earlier this month that this issue had to be resolved before this House adjourned for the summer; I stand by that. Time is growing short. I'd be interested in knowing, though.... Clearly, one option before government would be to resolve this issue through the introduction of legislative measures rather than through negotiated solutions. I continue to be hopeful that we will find negotiated ways of resolving this, but I might just be interested in hearing what the Reform Party's position is on banning this practice by legislation.
L. Fox: I can't give you the Reform Party's perspective, because we as a party haven't discussed that option, but I can give you mine.
Before I do that, we have to look back at what caused this problem: the actions of the provincial government. It was the lack of open and honest negotiations with the doctors over a fee schedule. This problem of opted-out doctors was created by being unable to resolve that, by placing a cap on the doctors and by removing the pension.
After saying that, let me just say that my number one preference would be to have those doctors volunteer to opt back into the system. But if it requires legislation to bring them back into the system, I personally would support that. At the outset I believe that our obligation is to provide open and fair health care to all residents of British Columbia, and we shouldn't allow residents in the Prince George delivery area to be affected differently than those in other regions of the province. So I have no problem putting my position on the record -- recognizing, of course, that it was this government that created that mess. It's unfortunate if we have to see legislation come forward to straighten out a mess that this government created.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his comments on this. We have very similar positions, probably because we have very similar experiences of the effects of this practice by a small number of physicians on the people in our communities. It is a restriction in access to services, and the implication of this practice by these physicians is that the ability to pay is somehow a criterion for accessing services.
Let me say this about the history of this issue that the member has led. Clearly we had a lengthy labour dispute with the BCMA. Some members of the BCMA chose as what they called a means of protest to opt out of the medicare system. Clearly, also, we have reached a new understanding with the BCMA and are working with that organization on a number of cooperative ventures, including the new tripartite Medical Services Commission that I referred to in my opening remarks. We are well on our way to establishing a new level of partnership with the physicians and surgeons of this province as we move forward with developing a health care system for the twenty-first century. For me, part of that health care system is a system in which extra billing does not occur.
[ Page 12322 ]
D. Mitchell: I'd like to follow up on a couple of issues that I raised earlier in the day during the introduction to the review of these estimates.
The minister and I exchanged brief comments earlier today about a dispute in the health care system that is currently causing some serious concern in four regions of the Greater Vancouver Regional District: Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and the North Shore. It relates to community health nursing and to municipal nursing in particular. While I recognize that it doesn't specifically come under the jurisdiction of the province, because these are municipal nurses, ultimately the funding for the programs that they are providing in schools, homes for elderly and frail citizens, and elsewhere is paid for by provincial taxes and provincial taxpayers.
Somehow it seems that municipal nurses have fallen through a crack -- at least, that is the observation I would make. They don't appear to be covered by the health care accord that was signed by this government. I understand that some of them -- those not working in the acute sector -- aren't even regarded as an essential service. Without going into the labour relations component of this issue -- because I realize that that's a delicate issue right now -- I wonder if the minister can tell us: where do municipal nurses fit into our health care system as he sees it today?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The municipal community care nurses serve functions for the Vancouver urban area that are very similar to the services performed by community nurses who work for this ministry in health units around the province. As such, they're an integral part of a system that has a balance of services delivered to people who receive them as patients in hospitals and those who require services in their homes or in clinics. They perform incredibly valuable services in the area of health promotion, dealing with clinics for children and others, the whole range of immunization programs, and the details of the preventive and community-based health system.
Actually, what the member is pointing to is interesting. He calls it a group of employees who have fallen through the cracks. I would point to it as another bit of evidence of what Justice Seaton called "this fragmented health care system." I would agree: it makes little sense to have one set of nurses with one set of employers in one part of the province, and another set of nurses performing essentially the same function with a different set of employers in a different part of the province. One of the clear goals of the regionalization initiative is to make sure that we have not a fragmented system but a system that integrates care, one that looks pretty much the same in terms of the network of services provided whether you live in Burnaby or Burns Lake. The extent of those services may differ, but the range of them should be comparable.
I recognize, hon. member, the difficulty and the hardship that this current labour dispute imposes on people who use the services provided by these nurses in Vancouver and some of the surrounding areas. I'm not sure whether the member was in the House earlier when I responded to the member for Richmond East and informed her that I have had discussions with the Minister of Labour on this issue. He has informed me that while the mediator who was seized of this set of negotiations has currently booked out, they are ready and willing to provide any assistance that the parties require if it will help them resolve this dispute quickly, reach a fair settlement for the nurses involved in this dispute and restore those services to the people of the lower mainland.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I thank him for the consultation with his colleague the Minister of Labour on this labour dispute. It's a difficult one right now, because there are some 800 community health nurses affected in the municipalities that I mentioned. My understanding is that this is the first time in history that there has been a strike of this nature by municipal nurses in these municipalities.
It's an awkward situation, because these nurses have been without a contract for 30 months. The concern that has been expressed to me by some of the nurses is that they might somehow become victims of regionalization. In the context of what the minister has said, I understand what he's saying about the fragmented health care system that we have and that there is a need to pull it together. But there is a concern that with the regionalization that's taking place right now, municipal nurses are going to be left behind yet again -- perhaps even further behind.
The minister indicated in his comments just a moment ago, I believe, that the provincial government is not opposed to parity because in many cases these nurses are effectively doing the same work as provincial nurses. Can the minister offer some assurances not only that this dispute will be solved quickly -- and I think the minister has indicated that he's trying to use his offices to effect that -- but that at the end of the day these municipal nurses will not become victims of regionalization?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. member, I would say that these nurses are the victims of the lack of regionalization. We have this fragmented system, where in one part of the province we have this employer that delivers this set of services and in another part of the province we have a different employer that provides that set of services. Quite frankly, I think the answer to the issue is to have one set of employers for all health workers in the region, rather than a system in which some are employed by municipalities, some by hospitals, some by long-term care facilities and some by non-profit societies. We have this mix and mesh -- or lack of mesh -- all around the province, in community after community.
I value the services of community nurses very highly. One of the things I've tried to do is tour the province and meet with health workers to find out what they actually do in their lives. I had the pleasure not long ago of sitting in on a clinic that was being run by some community nurses in Williams Lake, and I watched their interaction with the people who came to the health centre for immunization of their children and for advice on dealing with their young children. The range of both the services they were providing and the clear ties they had developed with patients in the community was great. I really enjoyed the experience. It made me increasingly aware of the range of services already being provided outside the walls of institutions, in clinics or in home settings.
[7:00]
I would say that the community nurses have little to fear and much to gain from regionalization. They are in an expanding sector of the health care industry, if I may use that term. More community nurses, home support workers and other health care providers will work in clinic and home situations in the future. That's clearly the direction of the funding initiatives of this government, and it's clearly appropriate to develop that integrated system of health care for people, both in the lower mainland and elsewhere in British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments. I too agree that community health nurses are on the front line of
[ Page 12323 ]
our health care system. For many patients and people receiving care, they are the health care system, because they present the face of that system directly to the patients and people who need these vital services.
I referred to the municipal strike we're dealing with right now, which is an issue of some urgency. My understanding is that there are three programs: long-term care, home-care nursing and preventive nursing. In terms of the funding components for those three programs, my understanding is that the province provides 100 percent of the funding for both long-term and home-care nursing, but when it comes to preventive nursing, the municipality pays 30 percent and the province pays 70 percent -- that's roughly the split.
We're now in a position where a strike -- job action -- is taking place, and services are not being provided. Presumably the ministry continues to transfer funding to the municipalities even though the services are not being provided. One would certainly hope that the strike will not be ongoing for a long period of time. I think there needs to be some pressure put on the municipalities to end the strike. I don't know what the situation has been with the GVRD, but there seems to be a reluctance to get back to the table. Is it appropriate for the ministry to continue to forward provincial funding to the municipalities when the services aren't being provided?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe that the figures the member has produced are accurate. What we have here, as the member knows, is a separate employer. We fund any number of individual employers around this province to deliver health care, whether it's a child development centre in Fort St. John or a municipality in the lower mainland that provides some health services -- which are provided directly by ministry personnel in other parts of the province.
He raises an interesting point about labour relations. As the member perhaps knows, there are provisions in some pieces of legislation for withholding funds from an employer in the event of a labour dispute, which would otherwise net that employer savings. That's the case for colleges and universities, and I believe it's the case for some other agencies funded by government. Those provisions are not in place with the contracts we have with the municipalities. We do some recoveries, but that provision is currently not in the legislation which governs funding of these services.
D. Mitchell: The minister has offered his assurances that not only will community health nurses not be victims of regionalization, they will be beneficiaries. We can only hope that that will be the case. I would like to ask a question about regionalization that I alluded to my opening comments this afternoon. I think there's a tie-in here with the question, because we're talking about municipal health services, yet the municipalities of the province, as represented by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, has indicated that they would like to go slow with regionalization. They have expressed a very strong preference for this. The minister will be aware that they prepared a position paper that has been distributed. It is a fairly thoughtful document, and it reflects the concern of a broad base of the communities of British Columbia about the fact that we may be moving too quickly with regionalization -- in the sense that the municipalities and communities which are going to be much more directly drawn into the administration of our health care system are not yet fully prepared, as the minister admitted this afternoon, to take over the significant responsibility for delivering health care in our province.
In particular, the UBCM has asked the province and the minister to postpone the implementation of the Closer to Home strategy and the health care reform package that he's brought forward. It has suggested -- I think very constructively -- an alternative approach, whereby we might proceed in one, two or a small handful of communities on a pilot project basis to see if these reforms can be implemented and to work out the wrinkles in order to see what problems there are in bringing them forward before we try to implement them, on a blanket basis provincewide. Has the minister provided any response yet to the UBCM task force report, and could he indicate what his response is?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes. I take the concerns of the UBCM very seriously. I have met with members of the executive and senior staff at the UBCM to discuss their concerns. My staff is going to be doing ongoing work with municipalities to make sure that they understand the way we are going about regionalization and continuing to ensure that the great range of city councillors and mayors involved in steering committees for the formation of regional health boards and community councils around the province stay involved.
I must tell the hon. member that I have letters from a variety of municipal councillors and mayors who have urged me to ignore the advice of their provincial association on this issue and have said: "For goodness' sake, don't slow down now." I must also tell the member that last fall, shortly after I took on the responsibilities of this portfolio, I attended a number of sessions at the annual convention of the UBCM. In a variety of workshops, I heard concerns of people from municipalities that are involved in the regionalization initiative. The advice of many of them, particularly those who had been involved in steering committees and planning groups, was: "Give us some time lines for getting on with this; give us some time lines for making sure that local control of decisions on health care for our communities and for our regions becomes a reality." When I announced in February that I was setting a time line, saying that by October of this year we ought to have regional health boards incorporated and established under the Health Authorities Act throughout the province and that the phase-in of responsibility for ongoing administration and running of health facilities in the regions would be done when those regional councils and boards were ready for them, and when there was clear comfort that services were not going to fall between the cracks, I think people who had been involved in steering committees generally accepted that.
The other thing I have to say here, though -- and I'll deal explicitly with the member's question about why this rather than pilot projects -- is that this is not something that has been done in haste. Let's just look back a touch here. Justice Seaton handed down his report in the fall of 1991. That's two and a half years ago. We're saying that by the third anniversary of his report we should have regional health boards established under the act, and then we will begin the process of transferring to them the responsibility for budgets and for the formulation of plans for delivering health care to people in their regions. That's clearly an extended period of time. We have said that the end point when these boards and councils are fully operational will come with the first elections of people to community health councils and regional health boards in the fall of 1996 -- three and a half years after this initiative was announced and five years after Justice Seaton produced his report and said that regionalization of authority in health had to be an integral part of developing a health care system for the twenty-first century in this province.
[ Page 12324 ]
The other thing I must say, hon. member, is that I don't think we can wait five more years to pilot projects, evaluate them, assess them, tinker with the model and then do it again. Clearly there are efficiencies to be made by regionalization. That has been the experience of other jurisdictions that have done this, and as I said in my opening remarks, this is not exactly going boldly where no one has gone before. A variety of jurisdictions around this country and in other Western democracies are looking at regionalization for precisely the same reasons that British Columbia is. There is a proliferation of bureaucracies that deliver health care. We need to amalgamate and streamline that. Because there's a proliferation of bureaucracies, there's a fragmentation of health care delivery, and we need to ensure coordination as close as possible to the point of delivery of services.
So, hon. member, I greatly respect the UBCM and the involvement of that organization in giving advice to my ministry on regionalization. They have a seat on my deputy minister's advisory committee on regionalization and are regularly consulted on all aspects of this initiative. I respect them very greatly. Their members are sitting on steering committees around the province. When I met with their executive, I found that some people had the mistaken impression that, as of this October, this minister was simply going to hand all regional boards a bag of cash and say: "Go do health." That is nowhere near the reality, hon. member.
These regional boards must develop their facilities for planning and working with the community health councils in their region. Clearly, they must develop the administrative ability to oversee services in their region. That will take time, and the regional boards and steering committees that are planning for them are working very hard to get those plans in place. There are different levels right now, and the assumption of the responsibilities will vary from region to region.
We are not going too fast. Actually, for people involved in this, we may be going too slow. Nor are we going precipitately; we will only do this cautiously, with clearly articulated plans for devolving authority to regional health boards and to community health councils.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to go at this issue one more time. I listened carefully to the minister's response. The minister seems to be saying that as the UBCM has requested it go slow in regionalization, the government is in fact going slow on regionalization. That's certainly not the perception that exists. There isn't a perception that we're going slow. There's a view and an apprehension -- I don't think I'm using too strong a word -- that perhaps the responsibilities are being transferred to the communities precipitously.
Just now the minister has indicated the time frame. He has indicated that he thinks we're going slow enough -- only if it works. My understanding is that when the UBCM provided their initial reaction to the minister, their concerns were brought on because of the lack of clarity in the process. Many communities really couldn't fully appreciate what specific responsibilities were going to be transferred and what kind of devolution was actually taking place in our health care system. They were also concerned about conflicting messages about the representation and role of community health councils and boards. A lack of direction and guidelines existed, as did a lack of identification of the core health programs of the ministry which were actually being reorganized. These were all concerns, and I think they were valid concerns. Is the minister saying they've now been satisfactorily addressed, or that we're in the process of addressing them? Is he confident that they will be in place? Those concerns are still there.
There's one final point, and I don't want to belabour this. The UBCM suggested that instead of proceeding very quickly, so that in the fall of this year we would move very rapidly to the devolution that we're talking about, we first proceed with a limited number of pilot projects. I'm not sure what the minister thinks about that. He hasn't addressed that specific issue yet. It seems to be a constructive and reasonable suggestion. Why would that not work? Proceed with a limited number of pilot projects; identify certain communities that are well equipped and well prepared today to proceed with this health care reform, and take a look at how that works for a year before proceeding on a blanket basis with the province as a whole. Could the minister tell us why that is not the way to go?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize there are various groups in municipalities, other organizations and, indeed, in many sectors of the health system that have questions about how regionalization and the New Directions initiative will work. What is happening, I think, is that we have literally thousands of people around the province involved in steering committees to make this happen. We have another group of people, who've been watching these committees from the side, saying: "Well, we're not sure what's going on, but we don't need to worry about it." Now that there is a time line, they're saying: "Oh, what is that about?" There is a range of knowledge about how this system is going to work.
[7:15]
I recognize that there are concerns. In some cases there are information gaps that this ministry clearly needs to fill for those who are working hard for the establishment of community health councils and regional health boards. As I said, I have met with the executive of the UBCM. I've addressed some of their concerns. I've also made sure that we have an ongoing process of consultation with their executive and staff to make sure that the remaining concerns are also addressed. I want the UBCM as an organization to be a full participant in regionalization, as many of their members currently are.
I have a couple of other pieces of information for the member. This morning I spent an hour meeting with medical health officers from around the province, including those employed by municipalities on the lower mainland. We talked about how regionalization was going ahead, and we discussed their concerns as local officials responsible for ensuring that health standards for municipalities are met. In some cases they also administer sets of services. At the end of that session, they gave me to understand that the assurances I had given them were precisely the assurances that their councils and mayors required to see regionalization as a positive force for constructive change in health care in their municipalities.
There are many issues that the member raised that I think I'm going to save until we get into a further debate on the strategic services area of the ministry, which is charged with the regionalization initiative.
An Hon. Member: Pilot projects?
Hon. P. Ramsey: But I will deal with the issue of pilot projects. I've rejected that idea for essentially the same reasons that the previous minister rejected it when it was proposed prior to the announcement of the New Directions initiative in February 1993. First, we simply can't afford the time to go on for five years, test it and do it again. This is not a new idea; this is an idea that has been used in a variety of
[ Page 12325 ]
jurisdictions, and we are learning from them. In some cases we are modelling on them, and in some cases we're improving on them.
Second, to do pilot projects -- particularly if we did it one way here, another way there and a third way over there -- creates further fragmentation of a health system that is already too fragmented. We need to look at ways of bringing those fragments together, not creating further fragmentation. So while I respect the UBCM's need to be assured that this government is not going to let quality health services somehow deteriorate through regionalization -- and I've given them those assurances -- I think we need to respond to the people around the province who have been working to develop regional boards and help them to get on with the task: get these boards and councils set up as corporate entities, and begin the process of transferring real authority to them.
V. Anderson: I'd like to follow up on two areas in the present discussion. The first has to do with community nurses. I understood the minister to say that in at least two areas community nurses were totally funded by the ministry although the negotiation is being done by the GVRD. If the GVRD were to negotiate to increase the wages of the nurses, does that mean the ministry would go along with the extra costs and fund 100 percent? It's one thing to say that it's somebody else's responsibility, but it's another thing to say that it's their responsibility but they don't have any money to do it, so of course their hands are tied. I think we need some clarification as to who is finally making this decision: the GVRD or the ministry.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure how to deal with this one. We may fund them 100 percent, but we're not the employer, hon. member. We fund 100 percent lots of services for which we are not the employer, home support workers among them. What we will do is what we have done: ensure that services provided by community nurses that are employed by municipalities are equitably funded compared to services provided directly by the ministry. But be careful here. The municipalities themselves also bear a responsibility for partial funding of these services. These are municipal employees at this point, and I know that some municipalities are looking at comparisons with other municipal workers as they consider the negotiating position being put forward by the union representing these nurses.
V. Anderson: Moving away from that one, the other area the minister has talked about is the rationalization, if you like, of all the services together to do away with the multiplicity of services. He mentioned, at one point earlier in the day, the non-profit societies. I've had the opportunity to attend some of the planning and educational meetings in Vancouver, including one recently downtown where they were explaining it. One of the major concerns I found was from the non-profit societies.
As I understand the process, it seems that the minister is saying that all professional services should be rationalized in one unionized framework. Therefore the non-profit societies are, in effect, being forced out of business, the same as we found with day care today. Even when they announced day care services from the Minister of Women's Equality, the YMCA was having to close down five day care services because they weren't able to afford that kind of operation.
The non-profit societies have depended on a lot of volunteer labour and board structure, which the minister seems to regard as competing bureaucracies that are wasting money. There are two aspects here: on the one hand, these competing volunteer bureaucracies that are wasting money, but that have maintained much of our independent and personal health care; on the other hand, the kind of unionization which makes equalization impossible for these groups. It's not just the financial aspect of it, but that also tends to take over control of the policy-making. The minister might make some comment about that kind of rationalization and the effect on the non-profit societies.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That was a wide-ranging question. I'll try to keep my answer succinct.
First, on the question of volunteer labour -- the fundraising done by board members and others who serve non-profit societies around this province -- the issue, hon. member, is not greatly different for acute care hospitals. They too have hospital auxiliaries; many of them too have foundations that do fundraising. I think the same message should be sent to all, and I've sent it as often as I can: we must find ways of preserving the attachment between community volunteers and fundraisers and the institution or set of health services to which they are attached, whether that's a hospital, a particular condition -- mental health auxiliaries and the like -- or whatever. Let's make sure that we preserve that.
We've offered to develop structures to ensure that does occur. So if somebody's doing fundraising for a hospital that is an independent society now, and that hospital is then amalgamated into a community health council, the foundation could continue to raise funds and designate the objects of expenditure that it wished for those funds. I think that sort of connection has to be there. I'm not going to try to say in any way that it should be ignored or ridden over roughshod.
I don't know, quite frankly, where this member gets his information about requiring unionization. I've met recently with a variety of people who provide services and said that's a matter between them and their employees; it's not something that I'm involved in.
Finally, let's deal with the issue of whether agencies run by non-profit societies should or should not be amalgamated into the operations of a community health council. We've said very clearly, and those who have been involved in the New Directions initiative have said, that we should expect most major health care providers in a community to amalgamate. But we have also clearly said that small agencies that have a variety of sources of funding should be considered on an individual basis. In some cases their boards may wish to amalgamate, or it is clearly to the advantage of health care delivery in that community. In other cases the decision will be to leave it as an autonomous society, which is contracted with by the community health council to provide services for the people of the community.
There are similar issues regarding institutions and services run by denominational organizations. We have met with those people and explained that we have two major goals. First, we respect their need to shape the sort of service provided, within limits, and we think that that is a valuable aspect of the diversity of our health system. Second, we have said very clearly that in order to get maximum efficiency out of tax dollars, we must look at ways of ensuring one common management of health facilities, not a multiplicity. It makes little sense to have two institutions, in some cases sitting side by side, providing similar sets of services -- two laundries, two kitchen staffs, two purchasing departments, two of everything -- rather than getting more bang for the
[ Page 12326 ]
taxpayers' buck and getting dollars into health care rather than into administration and support.
L. Fox: I want to get back to the regionalization issue. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi brought up the issues that were identified by the UBCM. The minister suggested that he had a multitude of letters from municipal councillors encouraging him to get on with it, and not to pay any attention to the UBCM's directive. I would question that, but I'll take the minister's word. How large that number is would be very interesting. There's a real concern at the municipal level, and the member identified some of those issues.
One of the very key issues has to be that as of the end of May there weren't any regional health councils in place. There were some community health councils, but it's my understanding that there weren't any regional health boards -- sorry, I get these mixed up. It is expected that by October 1994 there should be 21, plus or minus. So we have the summer months of June, July and August when most British Columbians go on holidays -- those who can't afford the exotic holiday in the winter. I would presume that those are the kind of people who would be working on putting together these structures. Then we get into September and you have a month in which to put the thing in place, so obviously there are some legitimate concerns about that timing.
There are some other very legitimate concerns. In that meeting with the UBCM the minister made a statement that he didn't want to have to be in the position to allocate the next hospital budgets -- that this regional process was going to be there to do it in time for the next budget. At least that was my interpretation -- that he didn't want to be in the position to do the allocation. That leads me to believe that the time frame is based on a political agenda rather than on a needs agenda. I'm very concerned.
[7:30]
I want to go back to a lesson learned by a previous government about a similar initiative. That was called the Year 2000 program. That literally failed, for various reasons. There was some advice given to that government to try some pilots and see how it worked. A pilot project, which in fact creates a model, can create some very positive directions and some proof that a system will work. Everybody in the province is going to resist change; that's not a new phenomenon. We all seem to resist change, but the fact is that when that change is affecting something as valuable as health care, we are going to be even more concerned about that change. So pilots would have not only done an evaluation process.... They would have done two or three things, but the key thing would have been to identify a workable model in different regions of the province -- some urban, some urban-rural and some rural. As I mentioned in my opening statements -- and I'm very genuine when I say this -- there are some very serious concerns in the rural parts of this province that the Closer to Home initiative will not provide the efficiencies or the program that it is intended to provide. So those issues are of extreme concern to municipalities.
The other part of it is the funding, and that has not been worked out yet -- at least the minister has been unable to give regional hospital districts an understanding of how the existing debt is going to happen, how the new funding that's expected to come out of the regions is going to be collected and what the taxing authority is going to be.
I know that in the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, the minister was somewhat dismayed because those particular directors decided they were going to send some tax dollars back to the taxpayer. He, being of the belief that he is, could not understand why these people were going to send back to the taxpayers tax dollars that were already collected. I can understand that. I mean, we never see that from a government, as a rule -- certainly not from this one. It's the other way around. I know there's a lot of concern as to how that debt is going to be handled. That's not going to be addressed in any way within this time frame.
So there are a lot of reasons and rationales for the UBCM's position, and frankly, I support their position. I think it's a well-thought-out position. If you want to see this New Directions fail the way the Year 2000 program has failed, then keep on your existing path. I believe very strongly that government has not learned -- certainly this government has not learned. You only have to go back a few years to look at that initiative to understand how you can make a program, which may very well have been a good program, fail at the implementation stage because of haste.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I shall attempt to respond to the member's concerns. Look, I have my own views on the merits and demerits of the Year 2000 project and why it ended up so out of touch with the desires of parents for their children and for the schooling that those children receive. I have a variety of views on it, but I'm going to stay away from that.
Let me deal with a couple specifics and then some general things. First, some municipalities and regional districts have indeed expressed concerns about how capital shall continue to be raised. I've said very clearly that existing debt will be retired by those who have incurred it. I said that back in February; I continue to say it to anybody who wants to listen. It's in the written material about this initiative that goes out to everybody; it's there for people to read.
We've also said very clearly that our preference is for cost-sharing on capital to continue, and that final approval of capital should be done by elected officials.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. members. There is some protocol in the House here.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize, hon. member, that there are a number of issues that....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. minister. I'd ask you to address your comments through the Chair, please. Thank you very much.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Chair. I must break myself of the habit of talking one-to-one and in a friendly manner to my colleague the member for Prince George-Omineca.
We said very clearly that there are a variety of other issues that we need to consult on and are continuing to work with UBCM on, including working out the details of how capital debt is incurred. There are a different set of issues in the lower mainland than in other areas of the province, as the member well knows. There are a variety of issues out there.
As far as the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako goes, I have no quarrel with them exercising their authority to do what they wish with tax dollars. I must confess to some dismay that they have chosen to find reasons not to proceed rather than rationales for proceeding on some much-needed capital projects in that district. I'll be continuing to ask my
[ Page 12327 ]
ministry to work with that regional district to find ways to proceed on their badly needed health projects.
Second, what authority will regional health boards have over '95-96 budgets? I said clearly -- and the member has heard part of what I said to the UBCM -- that I hope this will be the last budget wholly allocated by the ministry without advice from others. As we develop the '95-96 budget and look at allocations, I would hope that depending on the level of development of the regional health boards, they will be more or less involved in advising on how allocations to particular institutions and sets of services should be done. I do not expect that many of them will be in a position -- at least not in October -- to be devolved with the full authority for designing or approving regional budgets. That will be their responsibility once they have full authority for health services in their regions.
Finally, let's deal with the general things: time lines and pilot projects. Why not continue to do this? Hon. member, I must say that I don't think those who advocate pilot projects recognize the serious situation that this province faces in health care delivery. The royal commission said it as clearly as it could possibly be said. It said that the current system is not sustainable; we either change it or we lose it. I recognize that change is hard, but I'm determined that we not lose it.
I submit that the alternative to doing this is to do a couple of pilot projects and say: "Maybe we'll get some efficiencies in those areas, and we'll simply slash all other health care by 10 percent, because they can't get efficiencies out of the fragmented, diverse, unintegrated system that currently exists -- and we're not going to give them the chance to do it." I say that that is unacceptable. It results in the reduction of health services that are available to people in communities and regions around this province and in the continuation of a fragmented, inefficient system. That is simply unacceptable to literally thousands of people around this province who are working hard to follow through on the recommendations of the royal commission that they helped to form -- the New Directions initiative announced by my predecessor -- and who are working hard on the steering committees for the formation of councils and boards, which they are personally involved in and committed to.
L. Fox: I want to respond to a couple of issues. The first one I want to respond to is the last comment the minister made: we can't afford to wait. I can't support that. I firmly believe that the people in the province want change in the health care system. Everybody recognizes that if we're going to have a health care system that's going to meet our needs, given the changing demographics of our population and given the population boom that we're presently enjoying in British Columbia, we're going to have to face change. I think I can agree with that, because all British Columbians recognize that. I don't think the minister gets it: the people in British Columbia would gladly pay more taxes in order to maintain the acute care system -- the status quo, at least -- and allow the development of a new program which could have been put into place in a very smooth, transitional way that did indeed identify core programs and needs that could be met on a regional and community basis. Instead, we have no direction out of the ministry. The previous Minister of Health refused to discuss, even in this Legislature, what we should be doing in terms of giving some guidance to a core program delivered through New Directions. Consequently, we have all these new groups wrestling with what the programs are going to be in their respective communities or regions without any direction from this ministry. That's the number one issue.
The number two issue is the fact that if we're going to succeed in this, we have to meet two tests: the quality of care and an efficient and cost-effective way to deliver it. If we are going into this program as unorganized as we are, there's no way of monitoring whether we can meet either of those two principles -- no way at all. We have a system that's in total disarray, and a government that's committed to just plowing on, thinking that somehow -- magically, without any kind of guidance, program or model -- this thing is going to go into the washing machine and come out as a nice, clean delivered service. That is not going to work, and the system is doomed to fail unless we take that sober second look, get our wits about us and put something together where people can go out and volunteer their services, like many want to do.
The minister's absolutely correct -- people want to volunteer their services. But the ones I've talked to say: "Gee, we're getting no direction. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing. I'm not sure what this group is doing." There's absolutely no leadership. Unfortunately, I think the minister is wrong in his assumptions. However, be that as it may, I'm sure it will all come out at the end of the day. I think this government, this NDP, will find out that the opposition is trying to give it good advice that, if used, would have provided a good service for British Columbia.
[7:45]
With respect to the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, let me just say that the reason they're resisting pressure by the provincial government is the fact that we're seeing the government's priority being placed on the regional district rather than the regional district's priorities being sold to the provincial government. That's the reason they're resisting the initiatives that are being put forward by this ministry and this minister. The minister will be well aware that the bulk of that money was initially collected to put an extended-care facility in the community of Vanderhoof. They saw the need to plan before the initiative became reality, and they set up a reserve so they could meet their needs without financing. This minister nixed that particular initiative and instead put in an initiative of his own in Smithers, which already has beds. It may have needs, but they are not the same priority, in my view and in the view of the regional district and the community of Vanderhoof. That's the reason he is having difficulty. He's trying to put his priorities onto a regional district, rather than allow the regional district to come to him with their priorities.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I have never heard that particular explanation from the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako. What I have heard is a repeated assertion that because we can't identify every house that might be in a tax base under a regional health board that would pay the taxes to fund capital construction in one form or another, somehow we should twiddle our thumbs and not do anything. I have urged them to continue to work to find ways of accomplishing the building of new capital projects for the people of the Bulkley-Nechako rather than working to find reasons for not getting on with the job. But be that as it may, let's get to the broader issue.
I find it fascinating that this member would say that we should levy more taxes in order to preserve a system which Justice Seaton described as fragmented. I guess I understand where this member is coming from, because that was the only answer the previous administration had. In the late eighties and early nineties the only thing that the previous administration had for dealing with the change required in the health system was to do nothing and stand idly by and, in the last few years of that administration, to continue to throw large chunks of money at it, somehow in the belief that
[ Page 12328 ]
simply providing more funds would lead to change and make it work. Well, it didn't work. The Royal Commission on Health -- which, to their credit, the previous administration set up -- clearly said that that was not the solution; that there was enough money in the system; and that what we needed to do as a province was to find ways of spending more efficiently. An integral part of his recommendations was to devolve authority for governance of health to the communities as close as possible to where those services are actually delivered. And that is what we are doing with the New Directions initiatives.
I respect the hon. member's sincerity in his concern for the health system. I know that he has been deeply involved in health issues in his own community, and I respect his concerns. When he and I talk about the concerns of people in Prince George, we talk to many of the same people and hear similar things. But in this case, while I respect his sincerity and his concern that we are moving, and that there are apprehensions out there about change, I do not share his view that we can placidly stand by, pour more money into a system which is clearly fragmented and inefficient and hope that somehow change will occur. That was tried. It did not occur. Now we must take the necessary measures to make sure we have a high-quality health system for British Columbians of the twenty-first century.
G. Wilson: There are few times -- certainly since I've been elected into the municipal level of politics -- when we find that at the municipal level there is no partisanship. There are few times that you get people pulling together in the way that they are now to send a message to government that what government is embarking on is not workable in the communities. That doesn't happen very often, because notwithstanding the non-partisan label municipally, we know that there is a great deal of affiliation because of ideological and philosophical kinds of biases that people who enter into politics carry around with them. But we're at that point. The UBCM have made it really clear.
It's very seldom that you'll find people in non-profit service organizations coming together. Most of them are volunteers, and they certainly don't get out into the community to do anything to ingratiate themselves. They volunteer because they believe they have something to offer their communities. There are a variety of community service organizations. Many people who dedicate themselves to long hours of unpaid work in the community -- much of which is in regional hospital districts, in hospital support services or in other services related to health care delivery -- have come together and said: "We've sat in on many of these community meetings and committees, and what the government is proposing is not workable in our community." It's not often that you will have partisan politicians at the provincial level coming together and saying: "Look, notwithstanding what the intent of the government is -- and we aren't trying to hammer you for trying, because we do need some change -- we are offering the words we're hearing from our communities about what you're attempting to do, and it is not going to work in our communities."
There comes a point when you have to start to read some of the material you get -- for example, from the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society in my community. You will not find a more non-partisan, non-political and dedicated group of individuals in service to the community. They are very, very concerned about what is being put in place, because there doesn't seem to be any coordination with other social programs or any open communication with the delivery of other kinds of health-linked social services. It just doesn't seem to be functioning at that level.
There have been many meetings. I get correspondence here from people who have been involved in the community meetings. Many of the meetings in my community took place in the latter few months during the hockey playoffs, and they claim that's why attendance went down. That may or may not be true. I guess it's sort of like this House. I don't know what the excuse is tonight, unless we're into World Cup activity. Anyway, the point is that when they did have well-attended meetings, the general consensus was: why not reform the existing system in a modified way? I would point out that that reform -- to the disappointment, I know, of the member for Prince George-Omineca -- is spelled with a small "r," and it's often in brackets. Why not reform the existing system and put in place something that is workable, using pilot projects? Our community of Sunshine Coast was informed -- either rightly or wrongly -- that this government considered identifying two communities in which they would launch pilot projects. That expectation was there, but it didn't materialize, for whatever reason. The minister might want to tell us why.
It's rare in British Columbia, which so often experiences polarized politics and the politics of personalities, where the tendency is to slam people on a personal level.... That is something I don't find desirable, and I don't think members of this House generally do -- some might, but most don't. It's rare to get people coming together and saying: "In the interests of all British Columbians, let's recognize what's being proposed, with the time lines that are in place." It talks about a June time line for the finalization of boundaries, an October '94 date for the establishment of the interim regional health boards, a March time line for the designation of community health councils and a November deadline for the election of one-third of the community health council members. We're being told that those time lines...
Interjection.
G. Wilson: In 1996; that's correct.
...aren't going to fly. If they're forced on us, the program won't work, as the member for Prince George-Omineca pointed out, because the communities are not ready to engage. They don't understand how the financing is going to work and how the overall distribution of funds is going to affect them. In fact, there isn't even a finalized agreement on the boundaries. That has another couple of weeks to come together.
I believe that if I go back and read Hansard, the minister said that this government was advised to move up the time lines. Who advised this government to move up the time lines? How was that advice provided? Why is it that this government is so bent on following that advice rather than the collective wisdom of the communities, municipalities and all the opposition parties of the province, which are, in a spirit of generosity, saying to the government: "Look, it isn't going to work, so why not back off and take a second look? Let's work together so that we can indeed reform the system in a meaningful way." I think it's a sensible solution that the minister ought to accept.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We've had a good thrash at this issue this evening. I think I'll be equally generous to my friend from Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
I have seen another area that is equally free of partisanship around health issues. Quite frankly, it's on the steering committees that are working towards the establishment of
[ Page 12329 ]
community health councils and regional health boards around this province. When I look at who is on those steering committees and try to find out what party affiliations there might be, I find the same mix I find in this chamber. I find people of all political flavours who think this is a 100 percent wonderful initiative, and I find people of all political flavours who are less convinced of it. But I find communities coming together in a very non-partisan way to try and gain control of health planning and health delivery in their own communities.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member says that they have no choice.
Let's be very clear. This is a process that has evolved from the advice given by the people of this province: first to Justice Seaton and his commission; second, to the previous minister as she consulted widely on acting on the recommendations brought forward by Justice Seaton; and third, advice presented to those who have been involved in regionalization, both people in my own ministry and myself. I have to say that, in many cases, the people giving that advice are those from municipalities and councils who have been involved in working to get more control of health care and health care delivery in their own community.
Finally, let's go back to some of the remarks that I made opening these estimates this afternoon. What are the options? The options for developing a health care system for the twenty-first century are pretty clear if we assume -- and I think it's accurate to assume -- that revenues are not going to rise at anywhere near the rate that we have seen in the past. Public expectations are that we do more with less.
What are our options? Hon. member, we can do what they have done in Alberta and other provinces. We can simply cut and say: "Well, we hope it works out. We don't have any option, so we'll just cut." Or we can do what the previous administration did. Let's just increase the budget 10 percent a year and hope that somehow it will work out. Or we could go to the two-tiered system and say: "We'll take the pressure off this publicly funded, publicly administered system by allowing the development of a private, American-style two-tiered system, where those with the ability to pay get the good quality health services." Or we can do as this government is committed to doing, and that is to seek an efficient, integrated health system responsive to community needs and accountable to local boards and councils. That is the goal. If the member has a different option for achieving that sort of efficiency and integrated system, I'd be interested in hearing it -- but not, unfortunately, tonight.
[8:00]
I understand from the agenda we have that we are going to be moving to some debate on bills, so at this point I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps with the indulgence of the House we could have a brief recess while the Minister of Environment and his staff assemble.
The Speaker: That's acceptable.
The House recessed at 8:01 p.m.
The House resumed at 8:07 p.m.
Hon. D. Miller: I thank the members for their indulgence in this brief hiatus, and call committee on Bill 29.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The House in committee on Bill 29; A. Hagen in the chair.
On section 1.
M. de Jong: There are a couple of definitions I'd like to seek clarification and information on from the minister, beginning with the term "first nation," which is set out in section 1. It's a term that appears throughout the act in some very significant sections. The definition that's offered is perhaps purposely vague. Can the minister indicate whether he's drawn from any particular authority for offering the definition of first nation that appears in the act.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's the definition from the Treaty Commission Act.
M. de Jong: Does the minister foresee the possibility of difficulties arising if arguments are made as to whether or not we're talking about a band level, a more senior level or a larger, more permanent level of aboriginal government, particularly when we apply that term where it appears in the act. In an act where standing is given to first nations to intervene in the process in the manner this act purports to do, it strikes me that a definition that refers to things like traditional territories, which the minister by virtue of his answer acknowledges, is ill-defined.... These are ill-defined concepts. They're before treaty commissions and, indeed, before the courts.
How are proponents to know who they will be dealing with as possible interveners in this process if, at this point, we don't have a firm understanding of what a first nation is?
Hon. M. Sihota: If someone is unsure as to which bands have claimed territoriality to the particular region, I know the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has sufficient data to indicate which bands would have claims to which areas. It is true that in some areas there is more than one band laying a claim; they're overlapping. In terms of an applicant having difficulty, that would be the way in which it could be resolved. In terms of the size, the words "however organized" obviously give a fair bit of flexibility there.
M. de Jong: I have some questions about several other terms. If there are other members with questions about the "first nation" definition, it might make sense from a procedural point of view for those questions to be heard.
The Chair: Please continue, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The term "responsible minister" is defined in section 1; the other member of the executive council that is presumably involved in this process is the Environment minister. Many sections of the act refer to "ministers." One, presumably, is the responsible minister; there is no definition of who the other minister is. Presumably that should appear as well. Should there not be a definition section specifying that the other minister is the Minister of Environment?
[ Page 12330 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: There are two points. First, the hon. member should know that the front of the bill indicates "Minister of Environment." That usually is an indication of the responsible minister. Second, if there are uncertainties as to ministers, obviously if that were to become a legal issue, the cabinet could easily attend to that, it would seem to me, by designating the appropriate minister, as they often do. Third, when ministers are sworn in to a portfolio, normally some legal instrument -- I can't remember if it's an OIC -- is passed that enumerates the statutes that each minister is responsible for.
M. de Jong: I only raise the issue for two reasons. In many other statutes, the responsible minister does appear in the definition section to remove any doubt. Second, there may well be issues. One that will arise time and time again as we go through this debate is the degree of involvement that the legislation purports to grant to the cabinet, so sections that include the term ministers are undoubtedly going to give rise to confusion. If it's the government's intention that only two ministers be involved in the process, I guess my question is: why not say that? Why not remove any doubt?
[8:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: A number of ministers have activities that are covered by the legislation on occasion. In fact, there are several occasions when there may be more than one minister apart from the Minister of Environment. There's a general regulation which spells out which minister is responsible for what types of activities, projects and undertakings, and there is also a general provision in the regulations which defines Minister of Environment as being responsible generally.
G. Wilson: As I begin committee stage of this bill, I have to confess that there's a certain amount of deja vu, because I think we went through a lot of this last year, and a lot of the language is the same. Except in really contentious areas, I don't know that we should necessarily go over the same ground again, because a lot of the explanations have been given.
But with respect to the definitions, again I think we need to look at a connection with some of the changes that have been made. In comparing the two bills, one of the areas where we see that some work has been done is on the question of reviewable project. I'm interested in noting the (a),(b) and (c) subsections in that definition. The definition says: "...a project that is within a category of projects described under section 3" -- that's fine -- "or that is designated by the minister under section 4...." We'll get to that; we have some serious concerns about it. Then it talks about (a), (b) and (c), facilities at the main site, off-site facilities or any activities.
Subsection (c) talks about "any activities related to the project that the executive director may designate." This means, I think -- and the minister should tell us, because it will affect future sections -- that the reviewable project doesn't necessarily have to be the main project. It could be a subsidiary project or a project consequential to the development, as a result of the need to do some kind of consequential work. It also means that there could be activities related to it -- i.e., in site preparation; research work if there's foreshore work, for example; exploratory work; all those kinds of things.
Can the minister assure us, then, that any portion of those projects could be a reviewable project itself? Or is it only when the main project is deemed reviewable that the minister therefore would have powers to designate the other portions of the project?
Hon. M. Sihota: Only the latter.
G. Wilson: To be perfectly clear, then, only when the main project is deemed reviewable will there be a designation on any of the consequential effects of that project. If the minister deems the main project not to be, then there can't be designation, through municipal or local community action, of any portion of that project subsequent to the minister's decision. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Wilson: I know that in the purposes section of any act we get back to the whole second reading debate, which we obviously don't want to do here, except that the language of the purposes of this act is so confusing with respect to the actual intent of much of what is proposed.
It says "promote sustainability." Sustainability of what? It says: "...provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment...." Perhaps the minister can tell us exactly what that's intended to be, because that is not clearly explained or defined later on. Under subsection (d) it talks about "neutrally administered," and one would ask what a neutral administration is. Finally, subsection (d)(ii) deals with "activities that pertain to the environment or to land use and that are referred to the board in accordance with the terms...." Presumably, virtually any activity of any consequence will have impact on the environment. There is no reference to scale or size in this particular section, and I wonder if the minister could tell us why. So really, there are those four questions.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your questions, hon. member. First, if you look at the explanatory note, it will provide you with the answer to the sustainability question. I'll read it into the record, if you don't have it before you:
"This Bill establishes a process through which the potential effects of projects are identified and means of preventing or mitigating adverse impacts are developed and evaluated. The process supports achieving sustainability by ensuring that projects are constructed and operated in a manner that avoids or reduces environmental and other adverse impacts and provides economic and social benefits over the long term."
Those are basically the three prongs of sustainability.
Second, with regard to "neutrally administered," that is the Environmental Assessment Office.
Third, section 51(1)(c) deals with the cabinet referrals.
G. Wilson: There was one other question of integrated assessment. It talks about "environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health effects...." How does one integrate an assessment on a cultural or social effect? I mean, how is that measured?
Hon. M. Sihota: The idea is to consider all of those aspects wherever they are relevant.
R. Neufeld: The last part of subsection (e) reads: "...British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions." It brings to mind my constituency, which neighbours on Alberta, the
[ Page 12331 ]
Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Any one or two of those jurisdictions could oppose something very definitely. Is that there just for a goodwill measure, or will those neighbouring jurisdictions have some power to really determine what's going to happen within our borders with the reviewable projects?
Hon. M. Sihota: This would allow us to assess impacts upon a development, say, in Washington, Montana, Alberta or Yukon, but only so far as our jurisdiction extends -- i.e., within the boundaries of British Columbia. Other than that, the role that we could play with regard to a project in another jurisdiction is either advisory or on a goodwill basis.
M. de Jong: Dealing with subsection (b), one of the terms that doesn't appear there -- and again it's a theme that the minister will hear time and time again from this side of the House as we go through this bill -- is certainty of process. It's probably accurate for it not to be there, because that is one thing this bill does not provide for, when it allows for ongoing ministerial intervention and uncertainty as to time frames, by their arbitrary extension. So for a bill that, in my view, will live or die in large measure by the degree of certainty it affords to those who are going to have to work with it, I think it is sadly deficient in that area. Though I seek, in the purposes section of the act, the inclusion of assuring words to that effect, it's not there. I'd like the minister to comment on the reason it's not there and to deal with the broader issue that I've touched on.
Hon. M. Sihota: I understand what the hon. member is saying, but let's not forget that there are regulations. The regulations that talk about application and scope and those that define time parameters provide one with the certainty of knowledge as to scope, application and timeliness.
M. de Jong: Along the same line of thought, we see in subsection (d) the word "neutrally." In an ideal world, we all seek that. Certainly proponents who will be obligated to proceed pursuant to this legislation when it becomes law would seek assurance that their applications will be dealt with neutrally. I'm wondering about the applicability of that word within a legislative framework that provides so many possible outlets for arbitrariness. When I say arbitrariness, I don't mean it in an insidious way, but just an arbitrary intrusion into what is otherwise purporting to be an independent process.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, I was going to make sure that anyone we appointed under the legislation had a membership in the Liberal Party, and then I'd solve all your problems in terms of neutrality, I'm sure. But in any event....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, PDA instead of Liberal. Does that make you happy?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No? I just don't want to offend anybody over there, I guess, right now.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm amazed; I just woke everybody up. Anyway, let's be serious for a moment, as we should be.
You're right. There are discretionary abilities contained within this legislation -- many of them vested in the minister in terms of exercising discretion.
There is the purposes section, which talks about neutral administration. It seems to me that it's important to have that verbiage contained within the purposes section of the legislation, because it is the measuring stick of the exercise of that discretion.
It seems to me that one could make the argument that the words "neutrally administered" colour and define the nature of the discretion one could exercise. If a minister, in particular, acted improperly in the exercise of that discretion, one could easily point to the purposes section as a measuring rod against the exercise of that discretion, given the fact that it says that it ought to be neutrally administered. As you know, the discretion of anyone acting on legislation can be fettered to some degree, and I guess there is some fettering with the inclusion of those words.
M. de Jong: I haven't had the pleasure or opportunity to introduce an amendment to any legislation in this House. I'm going to do it now, fully expecting that this one will be accepted.
In section 2(b), the words prior to the word "effects" -- "environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health" -- are redundant. The definition section says all that. The word "effects" is sufficient in and of itself. It's duplicitous otherwise.
[8:30]
The Chair: We're just making sure that the minister has a copy of the amendment as proposed. Let's just wait a moment for him to have an opportunity to review it and comment on it, if he wishes.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to reject your amendment out of hand, hon. member, but I have to say that if it's the first one you've ever introduced, I don't know if I should allow it to go.
Let's talk about this for a moment. You're right in your argument that it's duplicitous. It is repeated and defined earlier on; that is true. But by repeating it consciously in this section, it strikes me that it really makes the point that all these variables or attributes have to be considered rather than having to go back to the definition section and read the definition of the word "effect."
Therefore, inasmuch as it is duplicitous, why would you not want to emphasize that in this section? Why would you not want to emphasize it again, in terms of "environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health"? Why would you not want to drive the point home by having it in there a second time? Why would you not want to prevent -- it may not happen in any event -- the opportunity to read down "effects"?
In terms of interpretation, one can make the argument that there had to be a reason why the legislators decided to put the words "environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health" in court. In fact, it seems to me by having that in there, you may actually have the court say: "We think that it strengthened the resolve on the part of the Legislature." Would you not want to see that in a purposes clause in legislation? I'm laying out to you the area where you have to persuade me why we should take it out. I think it's fair enough to say it's duplicitous. Surely these are things that you would want to emphasize in any event, so what's the harm in keeping it there? I'd like to hear you through on
[ Page 12332 ]
that, because if you make a good point, then we'll move an amendment. But I don't see what the harm would be. In fact, I can see a benefit, albeit admittedly nominal, by keeping it in.
M. de Jong: I used the word "duplicitous." I'm not sure it's duplicitous; it's just redundant. The minister makes the point that it serves to emphasize what is purported to be an object of the act. That may be so. It just struck me as bad draftsmanship. That's my response.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay. We'll agree on that, but I'm not going to criticize my staff. Let's leave it there. I'm not going to reject your amendment out of hand. I'll think about it over the course of the evening, and we'll see where we are. We can always come back. I'm not standing down the section. I'll reflect on your arguments, but my preference is to proceed.
G. Wilson: With the greatest respect to the minister, either the minister is going to accept it or he's not, and we're going to pass it or not. We're not going to pass this section and have some reflection on it later. That's ridiculous. A very similar argument was mounted the last time this bill was before the House. At that point, a strong position was put forward for the same reason -- that it was redundant. If the minister wants to accept it, let's accept it and move on; if not, let's not accept it and move on.
Hon. M. Sihota: We'll just reject it, then.
Amendment negatived.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
G. Wilson: This, of course, is one of the areas where some strong concerns have been voiced by various sectors of the community. The reason is that the regulation gives such wide latitude to the government with respect to what constitutes a reviewable project. In particular, section 3(2)(a) talks about the regulation under subsection (1) -- we've been through this, and we haven't yet amended it to the satisfaction of a lot of people. It says: "...may (a) categorize projects according to size, production or storage capacity, location, potential for adverse effects, type of industry...or on any other basis that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate...."
Presumably, we have had enough time over the last year to sort out some general parameters within which these kinds of reviewable projects can be defined. Yet this bill is now back before us, and exactly the same kind of latitude is provided that was provided before. It was resoundingly rejected by this House before because of that latitude.
Clearly there have been improvements to this bill, and we've said so. I wonder why the minister did not feel there could be improvement by at least providing some categorization of these projects in order to remove the wide latitude that the bill provides the minister of the Crown.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I guess governments always like a bit of flexibility. We've gone through the regulatory basis, and we have provided regulations that make reference to both sides. There might be some other way to categorize a project that may make sense. It would seem regrettable to me if, because of inadequate wording, a project which most people on a commonsense basis felt should be captured wasn't captured because of the narrowness of the section.
As I understand the perspective you come from -- and I listened to the debate last year -- you would like to cast a fairly wide net. That was the tenor of the points you were making. It would seem to me that you would support a wording that included "on another basis," particularly in light of the fact that you have the regulations. It should calm your concern that we were perhaps going to be either too narrow or too broad. You've got the regulations. They give you some certainty and knowledge. The words "on any other basis" are, I think, consistent with the view you have taken in the past with regard to this legislation.
G. Wilson: I don't really take issue with what the minister is saying with respect to the broad net. That's true; we would like to have an opportunity to capture those projects that should be reviewed. We don't have a problem with that. The problem is one of consistency and making sure that some projects escape review. Perhaps this minister may not engage in favouring one project over another, but future ministers may have an opportunity to use government latitude where government activities are involved.
In second reading, I mentioned that there are a lot of government projects currently underway where very strong representations are being made that suggest they should be reviewed in terms of their environmental integrity. My concern is that we not have wording that provides enough flexibility for the minister to apply, in an inconsistent way, stringent environmental regulation to some projects and then allow others to simply go by unchecked, especially those that may be linked to the agenda of the government of the day.
Hon. M. Sihota: Governments seldom have agendas.
More seriously, let me just say that this is an inclusive provision, not an exclusionary provision. In my view -- and I'll put this on the record -- if a government were to use this section to exclude projects, I'd be surprised. I don't read this as a provision designed to circumvent the purposes of this legislation and, of course, this section has to be measured in the context of the purposes section. If your scenario were acted upon, and a government were mischievous in an effort to avoid review, it would seem to me that it would expose itself to litigation.
M. de Jong: As I read section 3, it occurs to me -- and I sound like a broken record, even to myself -- that when these documents are passed in this chamber, they acquire a status that is different from anything else government does. They truly become the law of the land in British Columbia, and there is a certainty attached to that. I know that within a process such as this there is a need to preserve an element of flexibility, so that governments can respond to circumstances we probably can't even conceive of arising at this point in time. But when statutory law is created, there is a certainty that allows people, companies, businesses, investment capital, whatever you want to call it, to plan on a long-term basis, knowing full well that the government can change the statute but only with great difficulty. That instills an element of certainty that the people and the companies that are subjected to these laws can rely on. It's different for them when a government can exclude or include a particular activity or project by changing a regulation, which is a whole lot easier to do. I don't mean to lecture, and the minister knows that. It's a philosophical approach to how these issues should be laid before the people they're going to affect.
[ Page 12333 ]
One may read through other legislation in equally complicated areas and see the degree to which an attempt has been made to lay out what this act will leave to be determined by regulations. One sees the extent to which other statutory acts lay out those details and compel government to abide by them the way individuals and companies are compelled to abide by them. They fetter the hands of government to change those guidelines, to some extent, because they appear in the act itself. There's a reason for doing that. The government is assuming unto itself a wholly disproportionate degree of flexibility and discretion, in my view.
I'm sure there's a middle ground here somewhere between enshrining what we see in draft regulations.... I don't quarrel with the minister if he suggests -- and rightly so -- that it's not appropriate to have that degree of detail in an enabling statute, but surely there is a middle road. I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast touched on that to some extent when he sought further clarification and detail relating to the categorization of some of the projects. But surely there is a middle road that the minister would have considered. If he rejected it, as he clearly has, I'd like to hear from him in some detail as to why the government has sought to proceed in this manner.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your comments. Let me deal with them.
Firstly, you're right: these are philosophical issues. Secondly, you're right when you make the point that these are issues which go to governance and are reasons for governance. But I think you're wrong in terms of describing this as not being the middle road; I want to put forward the argument here that it is the middle road. On one side of the spectrum, you could enumerate all of the projects that we have in regulation and put them in statute. You know and I know that that's fraught with difficulty and could cause all sorts of problems in terms of the interpretation of the legislation. That speaks in favour of putting it in the regulations.
[8:45]
The other end of the spectrum is the next section: leave it entirely in the hands of the minister. That leads me to this section. In some way we tried to grapple with the very problem that the hon. member referred to and hence chose to craft this section in the fashion that we did. Last year that still was not seen as being an appropriate middle ground, so we took the additional step of going to the regulatory process -- the consultation -- with the stakeholders, who agree with the method we have arrived at. So inasmuch as I can understand your point, as I did at the outset of my comments, I hope that you can also understand my point that this is indeed the middle ground, and you're looking at it.
R. Neufeld: I just want to get on record here. I understand the government has to have some latitude -- I don't have any problem with that -- and I accept the minister's explanation of that. But without the regulations, there is some fear from people that projects could be shut down -- and, of course, the next section certainly makes that very real.
In the north, the oil and gas industry presently has a referral process. I'm sure the minister is aware of it; I have spoken to him about it before. It is fairly expedient and allows those companies up there to do their work in their time frame. I guess it's just a fear I have when we talk about the quantity and size of projects. When you're drilling a well, it's hard to tell how large it's going to be. I don't quite know how you determine capacity and size, and how that's going to come down in regulation. So it is a bit of a concern to us in the north, but I could be totally wrong. The referral process may carry on the way it is now and this won't affect it at all.
Hon. M. Sihota: The intent, as expressed in the regulations right now, is not to capture oil and gas activity.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
G. Wilson: In many ways I'm really sympathetic to what the minister has just said. In this kind of legislation, it's difficult when you're trying to balance between a legitimate process that is consistently applied to accurately assess the impact projects will have on the environment.... I think communities generally want that; most people living in communities want to have some assurance that when development takes place it's not going to have a lot of lasting adverse effects on the environment.
I think the minister's going to have to acknowledge that while this may be day one in the change of the way we do business in the province, and that it probably will be welcomed by most people, there has been a legacy in this province of projects that have been able to go forward with inconsistent application of policy directed by a whole variety of past governments -- in fact, some have been undertaken since this government took power -- where people have called for environmental review but their words just landed on deaf ears.
The real problem we had with section 3, which the minister spoke to with respect to trying to find a middle ground -- and I have some sympathy for that, because I think we have to try and draft legislation that provides that flexibility -- in our judgment it is compounded by section 4, because it says that the designation on the project by the minister, and I'm assuming.... This is a question I'd like answered: are we talking about the Minister of Environment in this case, or are we talking about the responsible minister? I'm assuming that "minister" in this case refers only to the Minister of Environment, not some designated or responsible minister, as per the definition. I'd like that clarified.
It says that you can designate a project as "proposed but not yet substantially started at the time of designation...." The real difficulty we have with this is, if I can draw on my experience in municipal government, where I saw many applications come in for a whole variety of different projects, from marinas to subdivision developments, to big recreational land parks, to all kinds of things, is that from the time the original proposal is there to the time you actually break ground and start work, all kinds of things change. People who come forward with really good ideas for community development projects have a difficult enough time as it is to convince those who are financing them of the financial viability of a project without having all kinds of unknowns with respect to government red tape put in front of them.
Our concern is that if you are looking at "The minister by order may designate," it becomes entirely discretionary on the minister. Second, it can be designated prior to any substantial work being done on a project. I would argue that it may even be done when somebody is seeking to get preliminary approvals, simply to try to put together a package for financing, and, by virtue of the threat government has, it may close a project down that might be well worthwhile. It may be enough to prohibit what communities may find as worthwhile projects simply by having that threat of the minister there. We need some
[ Page 12334 ]
assurance. I have had many representations on this section from people who are involved in a whole variety of different development proposals, some which I would support, some which I wouldn't. Nevertheless, in trying to act on their behalf in this debate, we need some assurance from the minister that this is not going to be used in a detrimental way that would advance a government-driven agenda with respect to what are and what are not acceptable proposals in a community, rather than have the community at the community level -- and I'll have some amendments to propose later that would ensure a much greater degree of community involvement -- decide what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, and to have the community trigger the kind of environmental review that's needed. That's really where it needs to be.
If the minister could convince me that this is a worthwhile thing to do, I would withdraw my objection.
Hon. M. Sihota: In the exercise of one's office, one has obligations to be evenhanded in the exercise of power, particularly discretionary power. I can give the hon. member the best assurance I can that that would be the approach I think one should take with regard to the exercise of power here. If a minister improperly takes advantage, or chooses not to take advantage of this section and ignores the will of a community -- to use your example -- then there are ways to make sure the minister reflects on that decision. Hon. member, I think you really underestimate the impact this chamber has, for example, on the thinking of people on this side of the House. I say that not only predicated on my experience on this side of the House, which has been shorter than my experience on the other side of the House, but I often saw with my own eyes that what happened on that side of the House impacted on this side of the House when I was on that side of the House. Do you follow that?
The point I'm trying to get at is that political pressure in this chamber has an impact on the thinking of ministers with regard to the exercise or non-exercise of their power.
So do representations by communities. You can't be involved in public office and be immune to community pressure or ignore what people from different communities have to say, and you weigh that in terms of public and private representations that they make to you. You also weigh the representations of MLAs who privately come to see you and make a case.
It seems to me that you have to have some faith in the political process. It's tragic that to a large degree, people don't today. It's terrible when you really think about it. At least in the seven years that I've been doing this job, I've always been impressed by how responsive our system is.
I've also been impressed by how unapathetic the population is. If a person spent a day with any of us in this chamber and saw what we do, looked at the volume of mail that we get and those tons of phone calls that we never seem to be able to return, I think one would realize that we have a very active citizenry in this province, and that really makes democracy flourish.
Inasmuch as your arguments were quasi-philosophical, and perhaps a little more, I think you worry too much. I honestly think there are enough variables in our society that, when exercised appropriately, they force ministers to react. I hope that anyone who has the opportunity in the future to serve in the portfolio I'm in now -- and there will be many, I'm sure -- will take that kind of an approach in the exercise of their discretion.
G. Wilson: The minister suggests that I worry too much. Let me be less philosophical and more specific. Certainly I, and I think other members in this House, have tried for the last two years to get the government to commit to make Bamberton an environmentally reviewable project. This government refuses to do so. The people living in that area have serious concerns about the scale of that development, yet under this act the government would have discretion with respect to how Bamberton proceeds. Rightly or wrongly, whether it's accurate or not, there is a perception widely held among some people -- not all -- that the reason the government is reluctant to react on Bamberton is that the project is heavily financed by union pension money, which we all know this government is the political arm of, if we can believe the....
An Hon. Member: Come on! It's not true.
G. Wilson: I hear a member say it's not true. I've heard both the B.C. Federation of Labour president and the CLC president proudly proclaim it at labour conventions. I don't know why this government always tries to hide from that. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. Why try and duck away from that kind of reality? If that's what it is, that's what it is. Admit it is, and so on.
My point is not to try to bait this minister into political discussion on this question. It's to simply say that on that project we have tried hard, through every measure I know and every lobby I've been able to put in, to get that project designated, yet the government, for whatever reason, has been reluctant to do so.
So it's hard to say that one worries too much, that one should have faith in the system and that the system is responsive. You can't tell people such as those who are out there protesting against the swift movement of Bamberton without environmental review that this is a responsive system. They don't believe it. The minister's right, and it is unfortunate that faith in the political system diminishes when that happens. It does, and that's why we're saying that when you give this kind of discretionary power to the minister, often you will find people who simply reject it out of hand.
[9:00]
I think the legislation should diminish the amount of discretion the minister has and put far greater powers in the hands of a community that feels that some kind of review is warranted. Unfortunately, notwithstanding some of the representations by some of the groups that I know helped in the amending of it -- the environmental law society, for one.... They have tried to get more community involvement, but the government has been reluctant to introduce that. I just can't accept the minister saying that we should have faith, because those who have had faith have been badly burned in the past. I wonder if the minister has a response to that.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, my response could take an hour. I'll take some of that time. First of all, I would argue that there's a simple reason as to why Bamberton hasn't been covered by section 4, and that's because the legislation has never been passed. So don't ask someone to do something they don't have the power to do under this section, which has never been passed.
You make a point about the Bamberton project, and you make a point about the ability of some within the community and within this chamber to try to impact the thinking of government as it relates to that project. You make the point that the evidence points to the fact that the government has
[ Page 12335 ]
been immune to any pressure with regard to that specific project. You say that buries the faith that I spoke about. However, in your commentary you ignore the fact that the provincial government, through the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, has had Mr. MacKay look at some of these issues. I believe that's public knowledge.
An Hon. Member: It is now.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, that was public knowledge before now.
In ignoring that, you also seem to ignore the fact that there have been representations -- be it by yourself, as someone who has spoken on the issue, or be it what the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca may or may not have said; I'm not confirming or denying anything here -- privately from organizations that have been to my office as much they have. They've probably been to yours more frequently, but they certainly have had my ear as well. There has been action as a consequence of their utterances with regard to that issue. There may be more, and there may not be. But it seems to me that the example I just gave you is an indication of the fact that the government is not immune to considering the impact of that project and some of the arguments that have been made. That's why the MacKay commission is there, and that's why the Minister of Municipal Affairs is handling the issue in the fashion she is.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Let's be honest with one another. Local community groups, regional districts, members of this chamber and members of the regional district here in Victoria have all had something to say about it. That pressure impacts upon you. So you're wrong, quite frankly, hon. member, when you say that all their breath has been wasted; it hasn't been.
This is the remaining 55 minutes, if I want to get into it. I could stand here for the next 55 minutes and give you all sorts of examples of when people made statements in this House and wondered if they were having an effect, and indeed they saw them have an effect. I'll give you just a few examples. I sat in precisely the same chair that the member for Matsqui sits in, and I went after the previous government with regard to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I never had a sense deep down inside as to whether or not they were listening. But out of that came a whole series of changes. The government was not immune to pressure. The recommendations of the Owen commission -- again, from work that we did when in opposition -- had an impact on government. Countless groups, organizations, MLAs -- members opposite and members on this side of the House -- have come to every minister and made representations, and government has taken action.
I know what your position is on Kemano and the hearings of the B.C. Utilities Commission. The member for Prince George-Mount Robson and others made representations, and government had to consider their actions. We just did a bunch of work today, yesterday and last night. The Premier made an announcement. Many in this province for far too long said it was important and essential that we change the way we manage our forests, and that we had to get away from the legacy of poor forest practices, environmental degradation and a cut that couldn't be sustained. That had an impact on the thinking of government. We saw the effect of that impact in the statement the Premier made yesterday and in some of the actions that were taken today in terms of legislation that was filed. I don't think that six months ago many of those people who had been asking for a forest land reserve actually thought there would be forest land reserve legislation tabled before the House. There is now; it was tabled today.
As I said, I could go on for 55 minutes; I'm not going to. I'm just going to tell you that I find it troubling that as a member of this House in a democratically elected system, you have this absence of faith. People will make mistakes, and maybe they won't do 100 percent of what everybody wants. That's also a fact of political life. But I have yet to come across many people in this profession, which we are fortunate enough to be involved in, who don't stay awake at night wrestling with the issues, dealing with the tensions and endeavouring to arrive at a balanced public policy decision.
Yes, some of those decisions are made on ideological grounds. I've been party to that; I introduced the Labour Code. But there are other times when people make decisions on simple, practical grounds. Far more frequently than the other, I've been involved in making those kinds of determinations. So there is every reason to have faith in the system we have, which we're fortunate to be part of, and I hope we never lose it.
G. Wilson: The one part that I agree with the minister on is that it is indeed a privilege to serve in this House. I disagree with the minister on this notion that somehow faith in the system is going to get you somewhere. I can tell you that as a member of this Legislative Assembly since 1991, I've experienced firsthand what politics is all about. I can tell you that simply travelling on faith isn't going to get you very far. I can also tell you that there clearly are agendas at work and ways in which government manipulates that agenda, and that oppositions will, through their own set of power brokers, attempt to manipulate that agenda.
My concern here is not to get into a philosophical debate on whether we should have faith in government. I'd be curious to know how much faith the minister had in the previous government, having heard many harangues in this House about a previous government. My concern is with respect to the public being able to actively have a project designated as a reviewable project and not leave it to the discretionary whim of the minister.
It is my concern that in all of this legislation, the key component that's missing is the people; the community is missing. It's a question of government knows best. Rarely, in my experience either at the municipal level or at the provincial level, does government know best. It usually follows the people; it doesn't lead them. When you talk about putting in a forest reserve, I congratulate the government for doing so; I support that move. I've been calling for it since 1984, and it's taken a long time. It's only because the public has demanded it that finally we have the government responding. But we can't wait many years on the question of reviewable projects, because often -- as in Bamberton -- if the government doesn't take action swiftly with respect to these environmental reviews, it's too late.
If we can muster up the faith, will the minister commit here tonight that Bamberton will be a reviewable project? That will restore at least some of my faith that this system of giving ministerial discretion on designation works. I and a lot of people in the lower Vancouver Island area would like to know if this minister agrees that this legislation permits him to and if he will agree to make Bamberton a reviewable project.
[ Page 12336 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I will not. I'll be honest with you; I'm not going to stand up in this House and make an announcement tonight -- which you and I know has some implications. But I am going to stand up here and tell you tonight that should this legislation meet with the concurrence of this House and be passed, then I will exercise the discretion vested in me in this legislation -- because I happen to be the Minister of Environment at this point -- in an evenhanded and fair way, mindful of the representations that you and others have made with regard to Bamberton. I'll make an honest assessment of the project to determine whether in my view it ought to be covered by this legislation.
If I don't make a decision that meets with your approval, I know I'll hear about it. That's part of the democratic process. It's also part of the assessment, in my mind. If I do make one that meets with your approval, I'll probably hear from others. That's also part of the democratic process.
When this legislation passes, as I'm sure it will, I will deal with the issue, as I'm sure it will arise. I will not make it on ideological grounds or because someone believes I may be close to certain groups in society. I'll make it on the facts and the merits, and I'll make those determinations. And I'll deal with all of the attendant consequences. I know one thing -- it's pretty easy to stand up in front of those cameras and deal with consequences if you have a firm belief in your mind that you've made the right decision. You'll defend it, and it will show.
So I will deal with that issue when it comes before me. Right now it's not before me. It can't be, because this section in this legislation hasn't passed.
G. Wilson: That's fair enough. I can let the minister know -- given that there's a majority on that side of the House and the likelihood is that at some point this legislation will pass -- that the issue clearly will be before him moments after royal assent is given to this legislation.
Having said that, let me just ask one more question on this section and then I'll yield to other members. The other concern we have is that there may be a constraint with respect to designation of projects on the basis of scale of project -- of course, I'm referring directly and specifically to Kemano 2 in this question. I congratulate this government for putting together the utility hearings. I think that's a useful step. But I'm sure the minister will agree that Kemano 2.... And I know most of the commissioners; I have great respect for them. I hope and believe they will come out with a fair report. But that does not constitute an environmental review.
[9:15]
I'm not trying to pigeonhole the minister on this question, but I'm using it as an example. The difficulty we have here is that the potential litigation cost of forcing that project into an environmental review at this stage, given the fact that there may be downstream effects.... I also recognize that the project has commenced, so this section may not directly apply; but certainly other aspects of that project have not commenced and it would apply. The cost in terms of potential litigation to this government is enormous. I don't expect the minister to comment on that; I recognize he can't do so.
But understand that there may be problems with the discretionary powers of a minister with respect to projects of very large financial scale, where the minister may be constrained from taking action that would otherwise be deemed necessary or essential. That's another reason why it's our belief that there should be clearer guidelines with respect to what constitutes a project, in order to save harmless the minister should the minister decide that an environmental review is required. That way there wouldn't be a perceived problem -- or I believe a real problem -- with respect to reviewing projects of a reasonably small scale, where litigation may be a consequence and the cost to government would not be great, and allowing huge projects to go by because of the potential problems that may be there, such as perceived job loss, investment lost or whatever.
I'd like the minister's comments on that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think you need a save-harmless clause in here. That's your argument, really. You're saying that the quantum of litigation may by and in itself persuade one not to....
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition. I think he said that he would review Kemano; I believe that's what he said. I don't know if he went so far as to say he would cancel the project. Perhaps that in itself is an indication: either he wasn't aware of the potential consequences in terms of litigation, or didn't care.
There are always fiscal implications of any determination you make, and compensation is an issue that arises. But there are ways for government to deal with that. We're dealing with it in a particular way at the Tatshenshini.
I don't want to stray too much, but I notice the federal government has dealt in a particular way with the cancellation of the Pearson Airport agreement. It's interesting. In the context of your last point, I'd encourage you to take a look at how they've handled Pearson Airport at the federal level. My colleague from Matsqui is a lawyer and also tells me what he thinks of the way they handled the Pearson Airport issue. We were talking about the Charter the other day, and I tell you, I think there are Charter issues there.
I don't think we need a save-harmless clause. When you exercise discretion, you know there are implications, and you have to deal with those as a part of the end product of your decision.
Finally, let me just say on Kemano that there's a process underway. I respect your recognizing the limits to which I can comment. I would say two things: one, my crystal ball doesn't tell me where the whole thing is going to end or whether that project somehow comes under this legislation. I don't know. Obviously a lot will happen through the Utilities Commission.
My second comment is that the other day the member for Prince George-Mount Robson stood up in this House and made a comment in relation to Kemano -- I believe during second reading debate of this legislation. That was a very valuable contribution to the debate.
R. Neufeld: I am not going to belabour this much further, but I have a number of concerns. The minister talked about lobbying and having to stand in front of the cameras and live up to the decisions you make, rightly or wrongly. I appreciate that, and it's very true.
On the other side, what I think could happen are, for instance, smaller projects that may not be covered by "reviewable project" but are under the direction of a municipality or regional district. They could very much mean "public interest" or "significant adverse effect," and they don't want to make a decision -- and that will happen. They'll refer it to the minister -- whoever it happens to be -- to make a decision, and that could be abused in a certain way, since all of a sudden the minister is responsible for making the right decision, one way or the other. And it would be in the public interest.
[ Page 12337 ]
You could have a small project faced with the expense and time frame of a reviewable project immediately. I can think of a couple of projects in my community right now that would fit into that category very well, and I just wonder how the minister would handle a situation like that.
If there's a smaller project in a community that is really not a reviewable project but is under the jurisdiction of a regional district or a city council, and they don't want to make the decision with this clause, using "public interest" or "significant adverse effect," they could refer it to the minister. The minister then is in the position of having to make the decision one way or the other. If it's decided to make it a reviewable project, that would probably kill the project because of the time frame and the cost involved. And if it isn't, then the minister's not living up to the intent of the wording, which is "public interest" or "adverse effect."
I just wonder how that works -- or maybe there's something within the Municipal Act that will not allow that to happen.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let's be clear here. We're talking about small projects. We're not talking about Bamberton anymore, and a large project. You're right, that could happen. There's nothing that prevents a regional district or local government from wanting to duck the issue and throw it upstairs -- to use that language. That could clearly happen here. But I'll make it very clear that the intention is for local and regional governments to do their job within their mandate. The intention here is not to intrude upon that mandate. So if anyone thinks that they can avoid a political hot potato by throwing it this way, something that is legitimately in the realm of local and regional government -- we're talking about small projects -- then I think.... I guess I'm talking about what my attitude would be, and that would be to just throw it right back. They're elected to make those calls.
Now if at some point the project is of the scale that you may want to look at this, I guess that's why you've got the discretionary power. But we made it very clear through the stakeholder discussions that the objective was to keep local regional governments whole in terms of their decision-making. In those areas within their responsibility on smaller projects, they should be kept whole. They should have to make that call.
I've been on a local council. I know that sometimes it would be nice to have an out.
An Hon. Member: I've done it.
Hon. M. Sihota: But that's not what this legislation is all about.
M. de Jong: Earlier the minister was asked to give some assurance that there wouldn't be an abuse of the section that we're debating now. I'm not sure that that's a fair question to ask a minister. I'm certain that it's not the test by which a section should stand or fall. One reasonably anticipates the minister answering on his own behalf. He can't answer for the future.
So the issue really is one of dealing with a clause that is a ministerial override, and I think it's incorrect to call it an opting-in or opting-out clause, because it could be either. When we dealt with section 3, the minister correctly drew the link. I wasn't satisfied with the link and the net result of that, but he did correctly draw the link. One also has to look at this section from the perspective of the proponent, who, in endeavouring to plan on a long-term basis, looks to the regulations -- they won't look to section 3 -- and asks: is our activity going to fall within the ambit of this legislation? They'll go through it, presumably, and in many instances come to the decision: "The regulations don't cover us. We can proceed and we may be subject to other statutory approvals that are required, but this act doesn't apply."
They are then confronted with the very real possibility that the minister of the day will override that legislative framework and say -- for whatever reason, be it political or some other consideration: "We're going to subject you to this process. You are going to fall within the ambit of this legislation because I, the minister, decide you should." I'm not so sure that it has anything to do with having faith in the system but with whether or not -- and the minister mentioned the word "governance" -- one wishes to govern on that basis and provide for that ministerial override.
We've come through a time where we've heard the government.... Indeed, the government has taken some steps to distance cabinet from decision-making processes in certain circumstances, as with the Motor Carrier Commission and that whole debate that's raged locally. That is a level of appeal that the cabinet has said it doesn't want to be involved with. It's a politicization; it's a single minister making a decision that is best left to independent, non-political organizations. Yet in a sense, we see the possibility of a political override -- certainly a ministerial override -- preserved and enshrined in the legislation.
I don't want to mislead the minister. I don't think, short of deleting the section, there's anything he could say that would satisfy a person who takes a position that the ministerial override shouldn't exist. For that purpose, I will table an amendment that deletes section 4 and deletes the ministerial override.
The Chair: The Chair has considered your proposed amendment and is ruling it out of order because it's a direct negative. The same goal could be accomplished by defeating this section.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
G. Wilson: I have a really quick question with respect to municipal involvement in certification of projects. I'm thinking particularly of things like building permits and electrical or fire inspections, where that may be done. In some areas, a project approval certificate at the municipal level may require permits to be given prior to filing a project for review if it's in certain designated zones. I'm assuming that once a designation is made, any municipal certificates required to develop a project would be exempted from this particular clause. If the minister could assure me that that's the case, then that's fine.
[9:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: Permits that have been secured prior to construction would be cleared.
G. Wilson: Would that also apply to any permits that may be required in building a case for the project? I'm thinking specifically that a local government may require certain soil testing to be done, or they may require the Ministry of Lands to make an exemption on a foreshore, or that kind of thing. So once the person has filed, and while some kind of renewable project designation is pending, presumably the individual can still get a permit to pursue their case.
[ Page 12338 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Anything that is prior to construction would not be captured by this provision.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
M. de Jong: Dealing with section 7(1), at this juncture I do not expect the minister -- even in response to questions in this debate -- to be providing or including in the legislation a detailed tariff breakdown of what the costs are going to be to proponents who are applying for project approval. It is not unreasonable to seek some guidance from him, though, as to whether the prescribed fee is going to include all of the costs associated with proceeding through the act -- many of which would be unknown at the time the application is filed -- or whether we're talking about a nominal fee to get the application process started.
Hon. M. Sihota: If this helps, we're not looking at full cost recovery. We will, however, be looking at some type of fee to cover some of the costs associated with the project. We are working with the stakeholders right now to deal with the fee issue. I just want you to know that this will not be an arbitrary decision made by government; it will be as a result of input from various groups. Hopefully, we can arrive at something that's acceptable to them.
M. de Jong: I just asked the question because I think the act differentiates between costs relating to things like advertising and public hearings, and what appears here as the fee for filing the application document, apparently. I would think that those would be completely separate items. It wouldn't necessarily be possible at the outset of an application, given that it could go through the project review stage, the project report stage and the administrative stage. My sense is that this is the $25 I'm-submitting-my-application fee, as opposed to all of those other things that could come along later.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I said to the hon. member a few minutes ago, we are having discussions with the stakeholders. We have agreed among ourselves to date that the government will be responsible for the fixed costs and the variable costs will be paid by the proponents.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
R. Neufeld: I have a question to the minister on subsection 8(1), which says: "Within the prescribed period after the receipt of an application for a project approval certificate, the executive director must...." Have I missed something, or is there a set time for that prescribed period? Is that up to discretion, or does it go by the size of the project?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's in the regulations. I think it's seven days.
M. de Jong: This is not a contentious section. The section contemplates nothing further than the executive director or the office acknowledging receipt of the document. It doesn't require any work or study; it doesn't require anything. It's just: "We got your documents." Why wouldn't that be legislated? Why put that in the regulations? The books behind me are full of enactments that specify time frames like this. Why wouldn't it just say seven days? The executive director gets the document and has seven days to respond, acknowledging receipt. Why not do that?
Hon. M. Sihota: It would seem to me that the reason is that this is not a receipt section. It's not a section that says: "Thou shalt receive the application." Rather, it is an acceptance provision, so you must accept the application. Then you have to checklist it against section 7. I think that's why. It goes a tad further than just taking it in.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Wilson: When we get into section 9, we're getting into how these committees are going to be constructed, how the nomination of individuals are made, and so on. One of the concerns we had previously.... It is interesting to look at how this has come back, and how the government sees the construction of these committees.
Hon. M. Sihota: Gordon, just keep on talking.
G. Wilson: Actually, it would be interesting. In his absence, we might just vote this section down and disrupt the bill. I suspect somebody might call a division at some point.
Subsection 9(2) says: "The executive director must invite each of the following to nominate a number of individuals not exceeding the number specified for that nominator by the executive director, to represent the nominator on a project committee established under subsection (1)." Then we look at who gets to sit on these committees, and we see it includes the government of British Columbia; the government of Canada, where appropriate; the municipality or regional district in the vicinity of where the project is located; and "any first nation whose traditional territory includes the site of the project or is in the vicinity of the project." That causes us some concern, because we're not quite sure what that means. Then it says "any of British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project."
The one group on this project committee that is clearly left off is the public. I know that some matters have been raised with respect to the public hearing processes, the public committee stage and those kinds of things later on, and the minister may want to use that as the excuse as to why the public is left off. But after considerable experience in municipal government, I can say that, nine times out of ten, you involve the public at the earliest stage if you want a successful committee. You especially involve those people who deem their interest to be most affected at as early a stage as possible.
The problem that we have with this is that not only.... Even when we get into the section where we deal with the public review committee, the public consultation, the application reviews and so on, which we'll get into later, the problem is that there is not the kind of involvement in the initial stage by the project committee that there needs to be. My guess is that this omission is going to make the project committee less workable, because that one component clearly won't be involved. I speak from some experience on this, and I really do urge the minister to reconsider this position. Because I know that when you have governments, government agents or politicians, as they may be -- and my guess is that most of these project committees are going to be
[ Page 12339 ]
staff, not politicians -- sitting on these committees without the involvement of the public at an early stage, a great deal of concern and often a great deal of suspicion is engendered. And that's hard to overcome.
I think that the way this is structured creates a probability for less success. I wouldn't want to say failure, because I'm trying to stay positive on this. But it is not that workable. I really am curious to know what the minister has to say about that.
Hon. M. Sihota: This is going to sound a little like the Labour Relations Code.
This legislation was before the House last year. As a consequence of the debate which occurred in this House -- little of which we were immune to, by the way -- government made some decisions, one of which was to allow this legislation to proceed through a process of public consultation. I think that more so this year than last, this legislation is a reflection of public consultation. When legislation is being drafted in that kind of venue, there are understandings, trade-offs, negotiations, conclusions and resolutions among various interested parties. There are tensions to be resolved, and sometimes people can't come to a conclusion and government has to make a decision in order to emerge at the end of the day with a balanced package.
One of the things I'm proud of is that this legislation has generally met with approval from Mr. Lampert and from representatives of the environmental community as well. There are provisions that neither group is perfectly satisfied with. I think some would have embraced the argument that section 4 ought not to be in the legislation, for example. Others would have argued that section 9 ought to include the provision the hon. member would like to see included. But what emerged at the end of the day was something that people could live with. I'm not inclined to tinker with the legislation too much and upset the results of that involvement.
As you know, hon. member, there is provision in this legislation with regard to public advisory committees. They can play a role with regard to this section. If it might help, I'd be happy to table for this House the public advisory committee process that we have under the mine development assessment process, because I think it's a good guide as to how the public advisory committees can intersect with the project committee provision.
[9:45]
For the reasons I enumerated initially, I'm not prepared to make changes. Second, I can see involvement of the public through the public advisory committee. I have a model here which I think could be useful in terms of us fleshing out the advisory committee process.
G. Wilson: I think that looking at that model would be useful. I think it would be a good idea for us to see it, because one of our areas of concern is with respect to that proposition in terms of these committees, and it might expedite some of the debate on some of these sections if we had an idea of exactly what was being proposed.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'd be happy to table this document with regard to public advisory committees, and the member could take a look at it. This won't be exactly what we'll be doing, but it's a good framework to begin working from.
The Chair: The minister tables a document.
M. de Jong: At the beginning of his question, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to section 9(2) -- and, I think, specifically to section 9(2)(d), dealing with first nations. The minister has already heard my concerns about the vagaries associated with that term. I won't repeat those comments.
But when we add the fact that we will be including in the process first nations located "in the vicinity" -- an equally ill-defined term -- the question that the minister and the executive director are going to have to confront on an ongoing basis, when this bill becomes operational, is how to deal with the applications made by any number of aboriginal organizations that are going to claim a legislative entitlement to be part of this process.
What tests has the minister in mind to apply when determining entitlement to participate in the process?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think it's important and logical to have a vicinity provision in there. A project can have a downstream impact, if I can use that word in the generic sense, on another municipality or on other native groups. Those first nations peoples, or those in other municipalities or regional districts, may appropriately deserve standing. Rather than exclude them we felt that for reasons of certainty, it's better to have them included at the beginning than to have the system delayed as we get into ongoing technical arguments on standing.
M. de Jong: The minister has answered one of the subsequent questions I had regarding vicinity, which was to have verification that it pertains to something beyond immediate geographic vicinity and that it can, as he pointed out, relate to downstream effects in the case of waterways.
The other thing I want to have verified is whether under this legislation the executive director will make the decisions that the minister has alluded will require making. Presumably someone is going to have to decide when a group claims an interest that falls within the vicinity -- I'm dealing with an aboriginal group in this case, but it could be a municipality or regional district. It may be an arguable point. Does the jurisdiction to make that decision rest entirely with the executive director? Does the section or the act contemplate some appeal mechanism for groups that are told they will be deleted?
Hon. M. Sihota: The executive director would make the determination as to who ought to be invited, and would correspond with them. The recipient of the letter would make the decision, I guess, as to whether or not they wish to participate. If the executive director chose not to issue an invitation to someone who was in the vicinity, it would seem to me that they would have the recourse of an appeal outside of the legislation to see whether or not the discretion of the executive director was exercised appropriately.
M. de Jong: The other question I have relating to section 9(2) concerns not the appropriateness of any of those organizations or agencies to have representation -- because I think at the very least they're all appropriate -- but the question of numbers and of maintaining some degree of consistency in the ratio that exists between them.
Again, the minister will be disappointed to know that the opposition member contemplates a potential for abuse, but I guess that's what we're here for. In a politically charged situation, I suppose it's not inconceivable to suggest that one, two or three of the groups laid out in subsections (2)(a) through (e) might receive what others would call
[ Page 12340 ]
disproportionate representation on the project committee. What assurance can we derive from the section, as it appears now, that that wouldn't occur?
Hon. M. Sihota: If an executive director endeavoured to indirectly frustrate the purpose of the legislation and, as an example, directly invited a number of people he or she knew were opposed to a particular project and tried to stack the deck on the project committee that way, it would seem to me that the only check and balance, really, is judicial review. There is no other check and balance. At some point you have to have faith in the fact that the people you hire to do this work are doing it in a way that respects the purposes and intention of the legislation.
You know better than most, hon. member, that you can't legislate perfect behaviour. You can only hope that people work within the parameters of their legislative jurisdiction, and I think most of us know from our own experiences that the vast majority of people do that. When they cross the line, the checks kick in.
M. de Jong: No one quarrels with the minister's suggestion that it's impossible to legislate perfect behaviour, but these are subtle differences. I guess the question I'd still like a response to is: are we proceeding here, with the section in its present form, on the assumption that in most instances there would be a representative from each agency or two representatives from each agency? Are we talking about equal representation from the agencies enumerated there?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. I'm happy to put that on the record and say that would be the broad policy directive I would give to someone in this kind of position. I'm not too sure how much detail I'd give in a policy directive, because I wouldn't want to be politically influencing the system. I think you would expect some equity in terms of the numbers from each group.
We've had these kinds of models in place for about 13 years with regard to some projects, and we never had a complaint, so I think we have a history to build from.
M. de Jong: Section 9(3) contemplates the addition of members to the project committee, following its initial establishment, composed of representatives from the agencies in subsection (2). It talks about adding people "from any agency or department not already represented." The suggestion I draw from that is that this addition to the committee could only be governmental representatives. Is that the intention? If so, perhaps it should be spelt out in more specific detail; and if that's not the intention, that should also be dealt with.
Hon. M. Sihota: The agency or department would have to be an agency or department within subsections (a) to (e). Let's say that a health issue arose. If the Department of Health wanted on, as an agency of the government of Canada, they would go on. It's related back to items (a) to (e).
M. de Jong: If that's the intention, then something has to be changed here, because subsection (2) says that there must be representation from one of those five organizations, and subsection (3) refers to having someone else who's not represented. If that's the intention, then something has to change.
The Chair: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?
G. Wilson: To speak to the matter, hon. Chair, while the minister is contemplating the comments from the member for Matsqui on the same point.
The Chair: Please proceed.
G. Wilson: Perhaps I can offer this by way of clarification, and if I have it wrong, then I would certainly yield to the point the member for Matsqui is making. My understanding is that it's quite conceivable that you would have the government of Canada represented, through what might be considered a primary agency, on a review. Traditionally, I would argue -- and I guess it's only because I come from a coastal riding -- that usually the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is an agency that has a great deal of influence and say over matters. However, when the Sechelt Inlet study was put together and we brought together interagencies on an environmental review, not unlike what's being proposed here, there were issues where other federal departments -- i.e., the Department of Transport, the Coast Guard and other agencies -- were requested to come in on site-specific issues that related to their areas of jurisdiction.
[10:00]
I read this to suggest that there would be a requisite representation from each of those agencies -- you have to have them -- but in the event that you needed representation from ministries or federal departments that had authority, they may be included as an addition and not seen to be the representative from one of the five. That was my reading of it, and if that's incorrect, then I would certainly yield to the point that the member for Matsqui is making.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. members, for those interjections. I must confess that when I first read it, I read it the same way as the member for Matsqui read it, which was to see it as the ability to invite a body other than those that are listed in (2)(a) to (e). I have to agree; I didn't read it that way, either.
So I think that for clarity there needs to be a reference back to subsections (2)(a) to (e), and I would propose a House amendment that would deal with that. After the words "from any agency or department" it would read "of a body listed in subsection (2)(a) to (e)," then the words "not already represented." That would limit it to a component of (2)(a) to (e), which is what I think we're trying to get at.
I don't know if the Clerks have that. I'll just try it again. After the word "department," put in the following words: "of a body listed in subsection (2)(a) to (e)."
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: I don't think we could support that amendment, because this absolutely rules out an agency of the community that may be created through, for example, the new regional health councils or that might represent a whole series of other legitimate authorities within the community, which aren't listed but may be brought in because they have an interest or an expertise that may be required to expedite the work of the committee.
It would seem to me that we've given wide latitude with respect to the five representatives that are there -- and we have some further questions on (d) -- but I'm not sure that we would accept that you would put in a limiting factor with respect to inviting other agencies that may not necessarily be of the bodies listed but may be directly related to them -- particularly community representatives that are not of any municipality or regional district, but might be from a local
[ Page 12341 ]
health council or from a number of other agencies that may have expertise in this area.
M. de Jong: I'm not going to speak in favour or oppose; I want to make sure I understand the amendment. What's clear from the section as it stands is that any additions to the project committee would have to come at the request of one of the bodies set out in (2)(a) to (e). That's how I read it. What I want to make sure I'm clear on is that with the amendment that is suggested, if the municipality of Matsqui went to the project committee or the executive director and said, "We want this community agency to be sitting at the table," this section would allow for that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I guess this is the trouble with trying to draft in this House. Are you talking about a community agency that is unrelated to the municipality or one that is a creature of the municipality? If it is a creature of the municipality, then yes, it could be; but if it's unrelated, then it wouldn't be.
J. Tyabji: That's with the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: With the amendment. And that was the intention of the section when it was drafted. It would have to be an entity that flows from one of those groups. A local health council would be captured, because...
J. Tyabji: But not a non-profit society.
Hon. M. Sihota: But not a non-profit society. ...it's a creature of the province or a creature of the municipality.
M. de Jong: That's what gave rise to my initial question, actually, about whether we were speaking exclusively of governmental bodies here or something beyond that. I must say I'm left with the impression that if one of these five entities were of the view that it would be helpful to the project committee to have someone else at the table -- whether they be governmental, non-governmental or directly related -- legislation should not preclude that from happening. I think the minister correctly points out that the whole section at this point would preclude a non-governmental body from participating.
It's probably incorrect to call it a non-governmental body, because in the case of a first nation it's arguable whether that term even applies. But how do we draw the association between the first nation government and the group that they would like to have sitting at the table? So I think that's the difficulty with the wording. If it is the minister's position that no one should be at the table but entities listed in (a) to (e), or those groups directly affiliated and tied to those groups, then I have a problem with the section as well.
J. Tyabji: And the amendment?
M. de Jong: And the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, let's go back a bit here. I think I misread what the member for Matsqui was saying earlier on. I thought he was in agreement that it ought to be limited to governmental agencies.
M. de Jong: No, no.
Hon. M. Sihota: No. Okay, that's fine. But I perhaps went one step further. When I went that one step further, I asked staff as to the intention of the section. The intention, as a result of discussions which had occurred, was to limit it to components of those items (a) to (e) and not to allow it to be extended to community groups that are outside of government.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made the argument, when we talked about this section earlier, that there had to be public involvement at this level and wondered why we had not allowed for public involvement at this level. I gave him the answer, and I think I was fairly candid with the answer. Then I gave him a copy of the public advisory committee process that is used for mine development. If the hon. members opposite are making the argument that.... Now I hear both of you making the argument that it ought to be extended to have the public involved at this level. The policy decision that government has taken as a result of consultations and discussions with the stakeholders is not to have that broad-based public representation on the project committee. That is the policy decision of government.
Now that's a fair debate, but that's the policy decision, and I'm making it very clear. And the reasons for that are the reasons that I enumerated earlier on before the member for Okanagan East arrived here. So that policy decision stands, for all of the reasons that I enumerated. Quite frankly, this amendment makes that really clear.
We went through a process of stakeholder consultation; we did that after this legislation was not passed last year. There was strong and vigorous representation among some groups in society to have public representation on the committees, and there was strong and vigorous representation from other groups not to do that. At the end of the day we accepted the argument that on this committee we would not have direct public input, as representatives of the committee, and that we would go through the system of public advisory committees.
I know that some still take umbrage with this, and obviously some in this House do. But that is the policy decision. And the amendment that is put forward, which I will now stay with, makes that abundantly clear. So it eliminates any doubt. When I read it the first time, I agreed with the member for Matsqui: I thought that it could include, if all other parties agreed, representation broader than those governmental organizations. It's why I felt that an amendment would be appropriate, just to make it clear. I guess I'm not going to withdraw the amendment, because I think it very explicitly and very clearly states the policy intention of the government.
M. de Jong: Leaving me to draw the conclusion that I've slit my own wrists in the course of this debate.
I just want to be certain that we're clear that if, for example, a municipality of first nations or one of the five component groups was of the view and said to the executive director: "Look, we have a...." Maybe I should just back up. There's no suggestion here that public groups would have standing to join this on their own volition. I think everyone understands that. The question is whether any one of these component groups should have the opportunity to invite a community group, a non-affiliated or non-governmental group, to participate at this stage. What I hear the minister saying is that it is government policy that none of these five component groups should have the ability to invite a non-governmental or non-affiliated group to participate.
[ Page 12342 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: That is the policy decision. The reason for that policy decision -- I can anticipate the next chapter in the debate -- is that this is seen as a highly technical committee. From here on in, there are other opportunities for public input. Now, out of respect for the argument some have made that there should be public input even at this level, we've agreed to have public advisory committees, and I've circulated the basis upon which we've done that in the past. But you're right; that is the position of government. And it is very clear now, with the amendment that's before the House and for reasons to do with the technical nature of this work and the recognition that there would be further input from the public as we move along the process.
[10:15]
J. Tyabji: I'm actually rising to convince the minister to perhaps rethink his amendment, which was almost proposed by the Liberals. Well, it actually was posed by the Liberals, but now the opposition members obviously oppose it. The reason, notwithstanding that the stakeholders have said they don't want the public on the committee and that we understand that there are two separate committee processes going on here.... For example, when we look at one of the project categories, a pharmaceutical project could be one of the reviewable projects. I'm sure the minister realizes that there are professional association stakeholders who would not be defined by the groups here, and who may well want a seat at the table. Or there could be a non-profit society that would like to have input on the project committee. These people would not be members of the general public, but would have expertise to offer at the project committee review stage. In that respect, if the minister withdrew his amendment, the intent of the section would stay, in that the people nominating the experts to the project committee would still have to be from a level of government. For example, you couldn't have the local chair of the pharmaceutical association nominated unless a level of government said they wanted that person's expertise at the table. In effect, the amendment precludes that from happening, so even if someone from the provincial government wanted to nominate someone from outside to sit on the table, they wouldn't be able to do that as a functioning part of the committee. Notwithstanding the fact that there could be submissions to the committee, there couldn't be a committee member.
If the amendment is removed so that the section reads the way it originally read, then it would allow for some flexibility, so that the interpretation might be that someone else.... It could be an agency not of the aboriginal or first nations, or of the neighbouring jurisdictions. I would suggest that perhaps the minister could withdraw the amendment, and then we could go back to the original one. The public advisory committees, which we get to later, are completely different from this one, and some of the expertise needed on this one would be from other than a government agency.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has walked in halfway through the debate. The hon. member should understand that this is a technical project committee, there is a lot of public knowledge about the proposed project by now, it is on the registry, and there is a tremendous amount of public input about to happen because of the spectrum of activities that can occur during the processes that are about to follow. Therefore one would not want to have this one stacked with lobbyists.
M. de Jong: I won't dwell any further on subsection (3), having heard the minister's response and the intent of the section. I'm not sure what, if anything, hinges on the amendment; it clarifies it. Apparently, the intention was clear from the outset. That was the first object of my questioning the minister. I'm not entirely satisfied, but I don't think there's any point in beating the proverbial dead horse.
The minister talked about the technical nature of the committee. I'm dealing now with subsection (6), in which the procedure and the conduct at meetings is set out. The minister is correct....
G. Wilson: Point of order. I don't mean to disrupt the flow of the member for Matsqui, but I think we should dispose of this amendment one way or the other.
J. Tyabji: I have one last question on the amendment. The minister ended by saying that the intent of the amendment is to clarify that in this committee, there is no room for lobbyists, because it will be stakeholders. When he is talking about technical expertise, I'm just wondering how he differentiates between an industry stakeholder and a lobbyist.
Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't mean industry stakeholders; I was talking about government. Public interest at this level is articulated by government representatives on the committee who are doing the technical work that's necessary for the next set of processes and public input.
Amendment approved.
On section 9 as amended.
M. de Jong: Given the nature of the discussions this committee is going to have, I presume it will be confronted with the task of entertaining submissions from proponents. I'm just wondering to what extent, if any, the minister and ministerial officials considered legislatively imposing some requirement for an element of procedural fairness or natural justice, and all that that entails. When we deal with administrative bodies, there is legislation that imposes those magical words on groups. We are dealing here with projects that are significant in terms of their cost and potential for employing many British Columbians. There is a lengthy process of review. Proponents and participants are going to spend a lot of time and a lot of money, and I think we may wish to consider.... The minister may have a response for not having imposed that legislative burden on the committee. I would be interested to hear whether or not that factor was considered.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that these kinds of processes haven't been a problem so far, so it's not there. We both know that if anybody were to abuse their power in that regard, there would be an option for judicial review. This is a technical process that should be relatively short overall; it's not one where I would envision much opportunity to abuse administrative responsibilities.
M. de Jong: Certainly within the broader framework of the legislation, it's the first tier of the process -- it's the junior review process, if you want to call it that. Notwithstanding that, the executive director and the ministers involved at the end of this process do have the jurisdiction to turn the applicant down. Applicants will want to know that they are
[ Page 12343 ]
being dealt with procedurally in an equitable and fair manner. That will relate to matters of hearing evidence: what the nature of the evidence can be; what opportunity will be available to be present to hear evidence; whether it all must be evidence that the proponent has access to. I won't go on, but at the end of the day I think everyone is going to be better served if proponents and applicants, particularly those that are turned down, can have some confidence in the knowledge that they were dealt with in a fair manner. That is my comment to the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, the briefings will be made public and would be on the record. I guess that's some protection. You're right that the duty of cross-examination, the right to hear at a hearing and perhaps the right to standing may not be enumerated here, but there may be a way in which.... The section says "Subject to the regulations," and I might be able to.... I take the member's comment, and I will talk to staff about whether or not greater clarity could be provided in the regulations in that regard.
J. Tyabji: Under subsection (2) we read: "The executive director must invite each of the following...(d) any first nation whose traditional territory includes the site of the project or is in the vicinity of the project...." Who would be deciding whether or not the traditional territory is on the site or near the site, and how would that be brought to the executive director's attention so that that person would have to include the first nations?
Hon. M. Sihota: I answered that question earlier. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would be the best source for that information.
I just want to go back to the previous point the member for Matsqui was making. I want to confirm that we do have the ability to make those regulations and will be making regulations concerning the procedure.
G. Wilson: Further to the question from the member for Okanagan East, I know what the minister said with respect to Aboriginal Affairs. But the real thrust of the question that we're attempting to get to is traditional territory as defined. For some time we've been trying to get clarified from this government what the government's legal advice is with respect to title. Given the negotiation by first nations in the Treaty Commission process, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- who argues that it's an arm's-length process from government -- is not going to be in a position to determine traditional territory unless this government has taken a position with respect to the legal status of title.
This is going to be an extremely important issue, because throughout this legislation we notice that first nations involvement is encouraged and in fact in most instances is a prerequisite to a successful review. Yet we don't know the government position with respect to the legal advice on title. We also recognize that the very same regulations being applied to projects that are advanced with respect to first nations people in fact may well not apply on land that is considered reserve land and therefore under federal jurisdiction.
So if the minister could clarify those three points.... First, what is the legal position with respect to title on the so-called lands that would be considered territory by way of claim? Second, does that make a distinction between projects where sites are on reserve land which is under federal jurisdiction, or is that exempted from this? And third, if land is currently under claim in the first nations process, does it automatically qualify under the territory that would be considered here?
Hon. M. Sihota: First, I don't have legal opinions here from the ministries involved, and even if I did I'm not sure I could share them. Second, for ten years we've been using this approach without any difficulty whatsoever, so it's a method that's worked. Third, we consulted with the Ministry of Attorney General, which reviewed both existing government policy practices and information. They advised us that these provisions are not only consistent with their advice but acceptable in terms of an approach that has been tried. And fourth, we would have no application on any federal lands.
Section 9 as amended approved.
On section 10.
G. Wilson: I think we pretty much canvassed the purpose of the project committee under section 9. I have one quick question here, where it talks about the provision of the minister and the responsible minister. We discussed that under the definitions, so we don't need to revisit that necessarily. Section 10 says: "...expertise, advice, analysis and recommendations, and (b) to analyze and advise the executive director, the minister and the responsible minister as to, (i) the comments received in response to an invitation for comments under this Act, (ii) the advice and recommendations of the public advisory committee.... (iii) the potential effects, and (iv) the prevention or mitigation of adverse effects." We are led to believe that this is a technical review, and therefore the public advisory committee -- presumably in terms of the public involvement process -- is going to happen subsequent to this advice. Yet we might argue, given the kind of advice that's being provided here, that the technical material that may be.... In fact, there's wide latitude here, and we would argue that the language of the advice being provided here, in terms of analysis and recommendations, is clearly beyond what is strictly technical advice.
[10:30]
If the minister is involved at this stage, our concern is that it might in fact preclude public comment, one way or the other, or mitigate against the effect that public comment might have in the final decision. I wonder if the minister might react to that and give us some thoughts on it so that we can get to the meatier side of the bill, which is the public involvement side.
Hon. M. Sihota: We should remember that the purpose of the committee is not confined to input at this level, but all the way throughout. And all the way throughout, the minister may want technical advice or technical clarification, and may want to know the technical facts involved and the impact of those effects. I think that's fairly logical. When you're trying to make judicious determinations on behalf of the government, you do want to turn to your staff from time to time and say, "Is that really true?" or, "Could you check that out?" So you would want to be able to have that library of information at your disposal. That's why it's worded in the fashion that it is.
M. de Jong: My question is somewhat related, though it focuses on the linear relationship between the various people involved here. I'm a bit concerned or perplexed. It's contemplated here that the project committee would be reporting directly to the minister and the minister
[ Page 12344 ]
responsible, when by all accounts the process would more naturally be a relationship between the executive director and the project committee, but the information would flow through the executive director and ultimately to the ministers. With an opposition already leery of overt ministerial interference, the suggestion I'd make to the minister is that at this point, the information flow really should be via the executive director.
Hon. M. Sihota: My first question to staff, as you were asking yours, was: isn't this the inverse of what was being argued last year? Last year people were saying that the executive director had too many powers and some kind of ministerial check was needed. It's not a perfect world. We've tried to diffuse some of what were seen to be powers of the executive director by having this broader base and then by recognizing the project committee as assisting ministers and others throughout.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
R. Neufeld: We just had a lengthy discussion on section 9, where the committee is going to be very technical, and now we're into public advisory committees. That's a committee "to advise and make recommendations to the project committee on matters of public concern" and that "represents an organization that is interested in, the outcome of the review of the application." If we go to subsection (3)(c), what the minister talked about in section 9, where it would be totally technical.... This section does away with that. It says: "...for the project for which the committee is established, invite representatives of an entity referred to in section 9(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) to attend its meetings and participate in its advice and recommendations."
As I read that section, this public advisory committee can be a complete part of the project committee right from day one. It seems to me that that section shouldn't be there if you want the project committee to be the technical committee and the public advisory committee to report to it. As I read it, the public advisory committee will participate in its advice and recommendations. So there are two different things there, and I need some clarification on them.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm happy to give you that clarification, because I think you'll appreciate why this provision is there.
This allows that technical committee to meet with the public advisory committee and explain, in simple English, what all that technical information means. So the public advisory committee says: "Look, we hear all those bureaucrats laying this stuff out, but we don't know what it means." This allows those two groups to meet so the public can receive the translation and understand exactly what the bureaucrats are saying.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the model the minister has sent over with respect to the mine development assessment process. I understand that we shouldn't hold him to this specific process, but as a guide it does provide some understanding of how the government would approach the public advisory committees.
The problem is that this language is so discretionary. It says that the executive director "may" establish, "may" appoint individuals to the committee, or a public advisory committee "may," and so on. The last one is not so much of a concern, but I wonder why, because of the lack of discretion provided in the first instance, under the project committee, the PACs were not made mandatory, so that there must be some form of public committee established for involvement. Could the minister answer that first?
Secondly, why would you not allow the committee to entertain introducing people they deem might have some interest? When we were putting together the interministerial Sechelt Inlet land use study, there were people who had been involved in local advisory groups through the regional districts -- and it talks about local government being involved here -- who had enormous expertise but were totally unskilled. These were people who didn't have a lot of academic or technical training. They had lived in the community for 40, 50, 60 or 70 years and had an enormous amount of information that was invaluable in coming up with sensible decisions.
First, I wonder why it's discretionary. Second, why can't the committee pull in these community resource people who are tremendously useful in making sensible decisions?
Hon. M. Sihota: No one's denying their usefulness. I agree that local communities are useful. It is the policy of government that they must be established. However, to explain the "may" in the legislation, there are situations when it doesn't make sense to establish them, because there are no local communities in that vicinity. I'll give you an example: Windy Craggy. Think of the geographical location; there really isn't a community per se in that area. Let me take it one step further. I would agree with you that with that example, there will undoubtedly be a huge potential for the public wanting to comment on that project in any event. But that happens in the provincial process -- the registry, the notifications and the involvement at that level, in that fashion. We're talking here about local public advisory committees, and there isn't a population base there per se. That's why the word "may" is there, because "must" may have been too demanding; therefore we chose "may." But the rest of your points stand, in terms of the importance of these groups. I'm not diminishing that whatsoever.
Sections 11 and 12 approved.
On section 13.
G. Wilson: I accept that the proponent who wants to make a material change -- and we spent a lot of time on this the last time we went into it.... I accept the wording that's there, but the discretion to allow amendments causes some concern, because it deals with the prescribed period after the receipt of a request to allow an amendment of an application. Section 13(1) says: "...the executive director, on the recommendation of the project committee, must" -- and again, there is lack of discretion here -- "(a) make an order allowing the amendment, and deliver written notice...." But then it goes on to say: "...(b) make an order refusing to allow the amendment, and deliver written notice of the order to the proponent, if the criteria in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) are not satisfied."
Subsections 13(1)(a)(i) and (1)(a)(ii) talk about things like adequately describing the intended changes or the manner of implementing the project, or both, and about adequate opportunity. There is a fairly wide latitude of subjectiveness in this kind of process.
One of the concerns we have heard from people involved in various industries who feel that they will be subjected to this kind of review is that the proponent may request an amendment that may, simply on the basis of that request, in
[ Page 12345 ]
fact be disallowed because of a purely subjective and somewhat discretionary analysis of what may or may not apply under subsections (i) and (ii). I'm assuming, of course, that there is a final court of appeal, as there always is. Can the minister talk specifically about that process? It would seem to me that we could end up getting bogged down in an awful lot of red tape if there isn't some very clear provision for what has to be included.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a couple of points. First, this is allowed for minor amendments, not major amendments. In major amendments, you have to start right at the beginning, so keep that in mind. Second, there is some subjectivity, as there is at any time with discretion, but remember that the check and the balance lies in the fact that one cannot improperly exercise their discretion, and that there are legal consequences for doing that.
G. Wilson: It's because they are minor amendments that there is some concern. One of the things we're hearing from people is that the last thing we need is to have the executive director empowered to constantly require that a review be done, or an amendment or another amendment. I could take the minister through a number of different examples. I don't think we necessarily want to at this time of night, but suffice it to say that there is a potential for a lot of money to be lost if a project has a limited window where investments can be made and where return on that investment can be gained.
It's important that any process be reasonably streamlined and fairly specific, so that an applicant know that there are very specific kinds of issues they have to deal with. Yet under subsection 13(2), it says that under an order under subsection (1)(a), which we have just talked about, where there may be an order allowing the amendment and written notice.... Subsection (2)(a) says that it may "vary the review process as considered necessary by the executive director, on the recommendation of the project committee...."
[10:45]
I know of one incident in my own riding where this has been going on for four and a half years, where various ministries of government have consistently come forward and said do this, when that's met do that, and when that's met do something else, to the point where the individual who is trying to put in place a project is literally going to go out of business in his attempt. So I have some concern about the wide latitude of the director on that process, and I wonder if there isn't some way that we could close the loop much more quickly. If people are going to be denied, deny them; if they're going to be approved, then approve them -- rather than having a process where, through the amending of applications, there can be kind of a carrot out there that maybe if you do the following you might be okay, when really what we're saying is that it's not okay.
Hon. M. Sihota: You've got it wrong. This is an opportunity that offers an amendment at the request of the proponent -- not at the direction of government, but at the request of the proponent. Second, think what would happen if this provision were not there and the proponent had to make a minor amendment. They'd have to go right back to step one. In my view, that would be grossly unfair. Third, remember that that is on the recommendation of the project committee.
G. Wilson: Let me have a last shot at this, then maybe the member for Matsqui might want to take a crack at the section. I understand that it's at the request of the applicant, and I understand that it's necessary that there be a provision whereby minor amendments can be made. But the kicker is that it is on the recommendation of the project committee. So we run the risk of having an individual -- by virtue of whatever the application is for whatever the project may be -- failing to seek to amend because the project committee in its initial round is looking at the potential of failure and putting out an unrealistic expectation. So you can encourage ongoing amendment through a project committee which can become bureaucratic, in a sense. It should have a much more finite time period and a loop that simply says: "If you can't make it, you can't make it." Don't set up these unrealistic expectations, which may create ongoing amendments, to try to make a project approvable that isn't.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure that you can develop a system that would prevent someone from not wanting to tell the truth to a proponent. People will say: "Keep on amending and amending, and maybe you might get to the rainbow." Sometimes that's how people delay a project, and I'm not sure if we could develop a system that would prevent that.
M. de Jong: The first thing I'll say, on the positive side, is that subsection (3) does provide for written reasoning, notwithstanding the fact that we're dealing with what we presume to be amendments of the more minor variety. That's appropriate, and it gets back to this whole element of procedural fairness we discussed earlier.
Going to the top of the bill, I think the discussion that the minister has been having with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast relates in a peripheral way to ensuring that these applications do not become bogged down and that they proceed as expeditiously as possible, given all the other constraints that are going to be on the application process involving the project committee and public advisory committees. The question I asked earlier with respect to a couple of other sections pertains to the prescribed period. My question to the minister -- and I'm sounding like a broken record -- is: why not specify in the legislation how long? I've looked at what I believe is being presented as a draft set of regulations, and I don't find any reference to section 13(1). It doesn't strike me that this is a particularly onerous task: receiving what is described as a minor amendment and making a decision.
I know what's going to happen here. We're going to have a bureaucracy -- and I don't mean that in a pejorative way -- that is going to get involved in a number of project applications and become bogged down. This is precisely the sort of area where delays will start to occur. Unless there is some very strong wording that requires people -- in this case the executive director -- to respond to and meet a legislated deadline, this is where those difficulties are going to arise and the application process is going to become bogged down.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your points. We will put a prescribed time in the regulations -- probably 30 days -- so as to guard against that concern.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 14, in the proposed subsection (4) by deleting "(2)" and substituting "(3)" wherever it appears.]
On the amendment.
[ Page 12346 ]
G. Wilson: I think we can support the amendment. I wonder if the minister might tell us what led him to introduce it. I think it's a good one, but I wonder if the minister might tell us exactly what he sees as the significant change from what was proposed.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you look at the draft of the bill, it has 14(3) and then 14(3) again, so it just renumbers them properly. That's the purpose of the amendment.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Wrong section? Okay.
Amendment approved.
On section 14 as amended.
G. Wilson: I apologize, I was actually reading the wrong amendment. It's not that we couldn't support the other one -- we would.
The question of public information is really important. Section 14(2) states: "The proponent must advertise the availability of the application or project report, as the case may be, in the prescribed manner." It talks about that advertisement. Under subsection (3) it says: "...(a) specify further measures necessary to ensure adequate distribution of information about the reviewable project, including but not limited to each or any combination of the following measures: (i) the advertisement of the application for a project approval certificate or of the project report, as the case may be; (ii) public consultation; (iii) consultation with one or more first nations...."
One of the difficulties we have regarding projects that are being advanced is that there is often a need for the project applicant to maintain a certain amount of confidentiality, or even possibly secrecy, on a proposed investment or development. On the other side, the difficulty we have is that where there is community involvement here, it's critically important, first of all, that the community be fully informed, not only partially informed, in order that there is not all kinds of misinformation that will create unnecessary objection. Secondly, it should be widely enough distributed so that not only those people who live within in a community but also people who live outside the community who may be affected will be informed.
I wonder if the minister might just talk about how the information and consultation process meets that challenge. One of the difficulties we find here is that it really does provide reasonable latitude for the applicant to essentially meet government requirements that wouldn't necessarily inform the public.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand it, the hon. member's concern relates to confidentiality and protection. Once you have registered under this legislation, in many ways you have waived a lot of your confidentiality -- save and except that which can be converted under FOI -- for the simply reason that this legislation requires the disclosure of the nature of the proposed project.
G. Wilson: I accept that and I understand that. The difficulty, then, is with respect to.... I can pick this up in a separate section. I will do that elsewhere.
M. de Jong: When we get into these sections, we start to involve ourselves -- necessarily, I think -- in areas that are going to result in costs to a proponent. It's appropriate to ask whether or not the.... For example, we're dealing with advertising, and I suspect that when a proponent sits down and decides whether or not they're going to proceed with a project or make an application, they're going to want to know what the whole process is likely to cost at the end of the day. They won't be able to determine that with absolute certainty, but they will want a ballpark figure.
There is some vagueness surrounding things like aboriginal title, project vicinity and who's going to be affected. I'm wondering if the minister has given any consideration to providing in the regulations some indication to proponents of the extent of their obligation in the area of public advertising or disseminating information to the public along the lines of the obligations that fall on local developers in municipalities. Will there be something there for proponents to look at, particularly in the early stages of this legislation, so they can understand what the financial burden is going to be to simply proceed through the application process?
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a number of points. First of all, we're still working with industry on regulations with regard to the prescribed-manner aspect of it. That's why you're not seeing a regulation in that regard right now.
Second, we expect that the costs of doing this in terms of the kinds of materials that the hon. member referred to will be equal to the costs that exist now. Remember, processes are in place now, and the manner and nature of it would be similar to what's occurring now. We're doing that now, and people are accepting those costs. That's the kind of framework that we're working in.
M. de Jong: I have another question in that area, and I hope this won't be interpreted as a proposal by the opposition to limit the dissemination of information to the public. What is unique about this legislation is the creation of a registry. I suppose the argument could be made that the need and the requirement to advertise on an ongoing basis, or as extensively as now takes place, could be limited somewhat by virtue of the fact that it will be possible simply to direct interested parties to the registry. The information will be in a central location for them to obtain.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, and that will be done.
Section 14 as amended approved.
On section 15.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move the amendment to section 15 standing in my name. The purpose of the amendment is housekeeping: to correct a typographical error resulting in an incorrect cross-reference in this section.
[SECTION 15, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "14(2)(c)," and substituting "14(3)(c),".]
Amendment approved.
Section 15 as amended approved.
On section 16.
G. Wilson: Under section 16(2): "...the executive director must specify a period within the prescribed limits during which any comments must be received at the office of the executive director in order to be taken into account (a) in the decision under section 19 to either (i) refer the application to
[ Page 12347 ]
the minister and responsible minister for a decision under section 20, or (ii) order that the project report be prepared under Division 7...." Is it intended in the review process for public comment, then, that the executive director has discretion on this question, or is there some guideline whereby the executive director must take one or two of those directions?
[11:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: It's what the project committee recommends.
G. Wilson: So I understand there is no discretion on that question. If they recommend one action or the other, the director has to do it. It isn't a discretionary power of the executive director, is that right?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
M. de Jong: As I read through that section, what jumps out immediately is the fact that the five bodies enumerated there are those that would have representation on the project committee. I'm wondering why, in the earlier part of the section, the project committee itself wouldn't be stipulated to ensure that that material is circulated to the component parts of the project committee. They, at the very least, should be guaranteed receipt of the information. My comment stems from the appearance in the section of the phrase "to the extent that it's practical and appropriate to do so." I think the project committee is entitled to a guarantee that it receives that information.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, but the project committee is formed by some subset of those listed in section 9(2)(a) to (e); hence the project committee effectively receives the information.
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
M. de Jong: I'm not sure I understood the minister's answer when he said the project committee is composed of a subset of those in 9(2)(a) to (e). Is the purpose, then, to circulate beyond the project committee directly to the government of British Columbia, directly to the municipalities...? Is it not expected it would suffice to provide the material to the representatives of those organizations on the project committee?
Hon. M. Sihota: The purpose is to provide the information directly to the committees, as you initially indicated.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
On section 19.
M. de Jong: At this late hour, I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum. I have to read my note.
Section 19 discusses the role played by the executive director and his power under the act and provides the executive director with the power to proceed to the minister for a decision on the recommendation of the project committee or to require further review. It discusses the consultation between the executive director and the project committee, but I don't think it states whether the executive director is obliged to follow the recommendations of the project committee or is obliged to present the recommendations of the project committee to the minister, or whether there is an override that exists at that level.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's a "must" provision. If you look at the last line in 19(1), it says: "...on the recommendation of the project committee, must...."
Section 19 approved.
On section 20.
G. Wilson: We don't necessarily take issue with the first part of section 20, but I think that the intent and the recommendations that come forward here with respect to the minister's power to approve or reject are fairly clear.
But with respect to the requirement for further review, I think there is a need to add something in here that I don't think in any way detracts from what the minister is attempting to achieve.
I make no apology for having fairly carefully looked at and read the recommendations that have been forwarded with respect to the Environmental Assessment Act from the West Coast Environmental Law Association. I think that here they make a really solid case to put in place an amendment that would add a subsection (2) to section 20. Their arguments certainly have convinced me that this would be the way to go.
I would move it formally as an amendment, by adding 20(2), which would read: "Despite subsection (1), the minister must order that a project report be prepared in accordance with Division 7 and that the project undergo further review under Division 8 if the reviewable project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects or if there is significant public concern about the reviewable project."
What that does is simply provide a provision for greater public participation or protection in the event of a further review being required. I think the preparation of a report is something that would provide a significant amount of comfort if a report were required in accordance with division 7 of this act, and that would provide for a further review under division 8. I think this is friendly and that it simply adds to this section rather than diminishes the intent.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think it's necessary. Go back to 19(2)(b): "...considers, and in the referral reports to the ministers, that the application identifies and adequately describes the potential effects of the project, including all significant adverse potential effects...." Given the wording and the test in section 19(2), I don't think we require in section 20 the provision you refer to.
G. Wilson: I accept that the minister has a point there. But that doesn't talk about the project report being prepared in accordance with division 7, as the amendment would prescribe. Furthermore, section 20 doesn't tie in that review under division 8 if the review of a process is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effect.
Three issues here need to be looked at: first, the role of the minister in terms of that process and what the minister has to do; second, the question of projects that are deemed to have a serious or significant environmental effect; and third, the measure of public concern that can drive that process. I'm not sure that is captured in 19(2)(b), so I stand by my
[ Page 12348 ]
amendment. If there aren't any other submissions, maybe we can move to a division on it.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're on the edge of getting right back into the rather interesting discussion we had earlier about faith in the system and the pressures that ministers are not immune to.
The other thing is to remember that public concern should be allayed by a much greater transparency, by the new process with all the relevant documents being placed in the registry very quickly and by improved guarantees of public information -- notification and involvement already have been and will be provided for us as we go through the legislation -- as well as by the need to have in-depth reasons for decisions of documents in the provisions. These provisions will ensure political accountability of the process and ensure that decisions will be made which reflect the public interest, I believe. A combination of the transparency, the nature of public involvement, the registry and the provisions in section 19(2) deals with all the issues you raise, hon. member.
Amendment negatived.
M. de Jong: The part of the section that causes me concern appears in section 20(b)(i), and it's the same broken-record story about the broad discretionary power. Having embarked upon and gone through the process, one is compelled to ask to see wording that would entitle the minister to attach any conditions he or she considers necessary. The minister already alluded to the fact that we are to have faith in the system and that these will be reasonable conditions.
But the discretionary authority is granted in the section to attach reasons that may not necessarily relate to environmental concerns. In second reading, the minister emphasized at length that this is an environmental bill, that his priority is an environmental agenda and that the purpose of the legislation is to further an environmental agenda.
[11:15]
Yet I'm forced to conclude that if a minister were challenged by a failed proponent or a proponent who saw his or her project approved with significant conditions attached, and the minister indicated, "I have attached these conditions for reasons not related specifically to environmental concerns but other concerns I have relating to this project," be they social, socioeconomic or political.... One can hardly contemplate a minister openly saying: "I have political concerns, and I'm therefore attaching these conditions." It's not likely to be quite that blatant. I don't think that minister could be attacked or taken before a court, if it came to that. I think the minister would in all likelihood be able to hide behind the wording of that section, which in effect gives a government and the minister carte blanche to attach whatever conditions are deemed to be appropriate and for whatever reasons. Having gone through the whole process, I just have philosophical difficulty with legislation that bestows that kind of power on the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a number of comments. Firstly, you have to remember that there is paragraph (c): "...the ministers must give written reasons...." So there's some knowledge there that guards against decisions being made on a non-environmental basis.
Secondly, with regard to decisions being made on a non-environmental basis, if it breaks the spirit and the intention and the purpose of the legislation, a minister will be subject to review.
Thirdly, remember from a practical point of view that in all likelihood it's the recommendations of the project committee, as articulated by the executive director, that will find their way into item (b)(i).
So there are three points: (1) the minister must give written reasons; (2) those written reasons must fall within the spirit of the legislation, so I don't think going on a non-environmental basis would wash; and (3) remember that the conditions will probably be that which has worked through the executive director by the project committee.
M. de Jong: I'll just briefly put on the record the concern I expressed earlier when we dealt with the issue of defining ministers. What appears here, in subsection (a) -- I think this is the first time we see it in the act -- is the question of the minister considering the application. I can relate that back to our earlier discussion about the need to define just who is going to be involved in that discussion and decision. The logical conclusion would be that it refers to the two individuals referred to in the line above, but my own inclination is not to leave that to the free rein of some acute counsel who may want to take issue with who was involved in the decision-making process.
Sections 20 and 21 approved.
On section 22.
M. de Jong: Dealing with the question of aboriginal rights as enunciated in section 22(g), I think the question needs to be asked again: how can we be placing the expectation that a proponent will be commenting on the potential effects on aboriginal rights when, in a nutshell, that is a completely undefined concept, both in terms of geographic applications and, in the broader sense, in terms of what powers and jurisdictions are embodied by this nebulous concept of aboriginal rights? We're telling the proponent of a major project to prepare documentation, to prepare report specifications and to deal with an issue that we have no clear understanding of. What guidelines and assistance will there be to a proponent who's going to have to confront, meet and deal with that requirement?
Hon. M. Sihota: Provision (g) is there because of the second Delgamuukw case. The Attorney General has advised us that we are obliged, as a result of that decision, to provide for consideration of the impact on aboriginal rights. We have now started to do that. Of course, we incorporated that into the legislation. In the application we have just dealt with the garnet mine, for example, we had them look at that. We funded it, and I guess there are some developing precedents in that regard, but really this is an obligation that flows directly from a historic decision by the courts.
M. de Jong: I understand the obligation the government is faced with. It's equally appropriate to understand that those magical words are going to impose a terrific obligation on those who are required to deal with the legislation that will emerge from this debate.
The minister has answered the first part of the question and given some justification for it appearing here in the first place. But what can the minister offer to indicate to project applicants and proponents what will be expected of them in terms of dealing with the concept that has now been imposed on this entire process? To be fair to the minister, this is the wild card that's been thrown into the deck and is, I suspect, going to cause all manner of complications. I don't want to
[ Page 12349 ]
leave the impression that the government is responding to a legal obligation that has been imposed on it by passing the buck down the ladder to those not able to respond -- meaning, in this case, proponents and applicants.
Hon. M. Sihota: The obligation has been placed on government. The government must take the proponent to the native communities that are affected. So that is what the obligation is, if you wanted to know. They must discuss the concerns of the native peoples. There may be -- and, in fact, probably will be -- studies that have to be concluded in order to ensure that those obligations, which are now upon government, are respected. It's to avoid exposure for the government, but more seriously for the proponent. If the proponent were to go through the project without that obligation being met, they will have a greater degree of uncertainty than is the case by requiring this. I'm not dismissing your point about this being another demand on the proponent, but remember two things. The first I have just said. Second, to some degree that was occurring in any event, prior to those decisions. In a contemporary world, this is a set of obligations that now have to be addressed. Those are the realities.
G. Wilson: I don't think we want to get into a long legal discussion at 11:25. The minister referred to the Delgamuukw case and how that binds the hands of government.
Hon. M. Sihota: Delgamuukw 2, the appeal case.
G. Wilson: On the appeal case, the minister is saying. I don't know that it necessarily binds the hands of government in this instance, and only on the question of rights they might have with respect to traditional access to resources. I don't know that we want to get into that long debate, but I don't take at face value that that's so, and I think that there could be a reasonable argument against that.
The member for Matsqui has a valid point, and I think the minister must recognize it. If you're putting into legislation requirements for an applicant in a project report, where the language is as ambiguous as this, some much tighter guideline is going to have be provided for what is going to happen -- either through regulation or through some provision of material to potential applicants.
For example, subsection 22(c) talks about "existing environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health characteristics and conditions that may be affected by the project." Then under subsection 22(h) it talks about "health issues." That in itself appears redundant, unless "health characteristics" are inherently different than "health issues." It seems to me that that's redundant, and we could simply amend it by taking "health issues" out. It talks about the "potential for accidents with adverse affects" -- as opposed to accidents without adverse effects, perhaps? That language looks a bit peculiar. Then it says "data necessary or useful to enable the assessment of the probable cumulative effects of the project." Cumulative effects on what?
The language in this section is so bad that surely the minister has to recognize that this doesn't provide any guideline whatever to anybody who is making application. It is just very badly worded. On the question of subsection (g), I take issue with the response the minister has provided, because I'm not sure that I would agree.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me deal with the arguments the hon. member makes. First of all, with regard to the native issue, we are talking about the need to review the potential impacts on the exercise of aboriginal rights. I pointed out that that was with regard to the second Delgamuukw case. The hon. member made the argument that that really dealt with traditional hunting and food, and I'm going to accept that for the purposes of this discussion. I don't know what the Attorney General has said beyond that, so that's why I'm saying that. Even if it's to that and that only, then one must go through that process with regard to food and hunting rights, and the impact of a project on hunting rights is legitimate, in terms of something that we should be looking at.
The second point you made was with regard to "health characteristics." That allows us to take a look at baseline existing.... Remember, the operative word in subsection (c) is "existing" health characteristics. You need that baseline information to be able to measure the impacts in the future. And, hon. member, you have often asked whether that baseline data is provided in other situations; well, it is required here.
Then you talked about health impacts, which was the third point you made. We're talking about future long-term impacts as the result of a project. I think that clarifies the apparent redundancy that you were worried about.
Fourth, you raised the issue of "data necessary or useful to enable the assessment of the probable cumulative effects of the project," and inquired what that meant. We will be releasing guidelines with regard to that provision. Finally, you should understand that all of this is a result of discussions with the stakeholders. These are variables that they found acceptable as a result of the input and advice that we were given in the discussions. I think that attends to all five of the concerns that you raised.
G. Wilson: Fair enough. We could get into a long, protracted argument as to whether it's good or bad legislation. I'm supportive of this legislation....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The minister says he doesn't want to see me lose another debate. I'm not even going to engage in that, because it's too late in the evening and we've got work to complete.
Subsection (l) talks about: "means of incorporating energy efficiency and energy conservation measures into the design and operation of the project." That's really interesting to incorporate into these project reports. Is the success of a project going to be accelerated if in fact energy efficiency is incorporated into it? Is that the intention here? Is this a guideline that's saying that if energy efficiency or energy conservation measures are not well explained in that project, it would detract from it? I'm hoping the answer to that is yes. I think it would be a positive way to proceed in the province.
[11:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it's great public policy to require it. It should be in there, and it is in there. All the stakeholders agreed that it should be in there. Maybe we're finally beginning to make some progress around energy efficiency in this province. At this hour, I'm not going to get into a long speech about Power Smart and the waste of commercial energy through commercial and industrial activities, and steps that we can take.
Obviously by putting this in, we're getting people to be power smart upfront instead of having to offer some subsidies and then the recoveries that we do offer under that program.
[ Page 12350 ]
G. Wilson: I would agree.
My last comment on this section is that if the ministry, and government generally, would reinstate some incentives with respect to energy efficiency and remove tax on energy-efficient products, we might enhance it even more.
Having said that, I want to raise one last issue here. Subsection (e) talks about "alternatives to the methods of construction, operation, modification, dismantling or abandonment proposed in the application." My concern is that if you're talking about alternatives to the methods of construction, operation, modification and dismantling, does that mean that if a large construction project is involved in the development of some industrial base in a community, there has to be more than one line toward construction in place? Does it also mean that the applicant will have to demonstrate, where the project fails, how there could be some kind of reclamation in place?
I'm thinking specifically about some projects that have developed in coastal British Columbia. I notice under the regulations that fish farms, for one, are not well covered. I would take issue with the minister at some other time and place about that. It seems to me that the whole question of abandonment, alternative construction methods and environmental impact on those methods are critical in this component. I wonder what the minister intends by it, because if he's intending what I hope he is, then we might have some agreement on this.
Hon. M. Sihota: At the front end of a project, there may be alternative ways to construct the project or to deal with the life cycle of the project. If the project committee identifies those, then they have to be dealt with under the matters to be included in the report under section 22. Again, I think that's great. If we're trying to encourage alternative and more environmentally sound and sustainable methodologies as part of our overall approach to environmental industries, I think that kind of provision should be there. And if we can encourage it, all the better. We should obviously try to do it in an economically wise way.
G. Wilson: An economically wise way is the key component. The one fear we have heard from people who have reviewed this bill -- and, of course, in the inevitable lobby that you get as a result -- is that there may be unrealistic constraints placed by an executive director who is looking at a project with respect to the provisions under section 22(e), which might negate the possibility of some conventional construction methods that might be the only economical way for a project to proceed. They're concerned that this is in fact trying to implement a new set of policy guidelines through the back door. If the minister can just assure us that that isn't the case, then I'm finished with this section.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's a positive provision. We're not trying to discourage something.
M. de Jong: My sense is that we move to the second tier of the review process with the project report. When I go through the enunciated issues that must be dealt with, the question I have is: how different is that specification sheet for the project report going to look from an application document as contemplated by section 7? Presumably section 7 would require all of those items as well.
Hon. M. Sihota: The section 7 document is a blue-sky, broad document. This is a more specific and detailed document, so it will look different. It will focus debate, as it should. Remember, that debate will be tailor-made to that project, so each and every provision here is not mandatory; it allows us to highlight the ones which ought to be the focus of discussion.
M. de Jong: I think I have the answer to the question. Does the minister contemplate, then, that in drafting the specification sheet for the project report, there would be directives given to the proponent to highlight specific areas on that specification sheet so that they would receive additional attention? I think that's what I heard him saying.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
Section 22 approved.
On section 23.
M. de Jong: We've already dealt with the aboriginal issue, but I'll tell the minister point-blank what my concern is with section 23. When we start involving concepts of traditional territory, my concern is that this entire process could be held up, and that this legislation....
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says it will be. This process will be held up and utilized by first nations, bands and tribal councils who seize upon this provision in imposing themselves on the process and say: "This matter cannot be resolved pending the resolution of our land claims settlement." That is the argument that will be made; make no bones about it. You cannot decide this issue until the land claims issue has been settled and there is a firm understanding of what the traditional territory is. And if that's the case, we're kicking a hornets' nest, because these applications will be in suspended animation forever.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's going to be the case whether this provision is in here or not -- theoretically, if not practically. The hon. member says that this provision will allow people to say: "You ought not to proceed with the project because it's going to interfere with the resolution of our treaty or it's going to impact on our native rights claims." People can make that argument whether or not this provision is here, and they can litigate around that argument. Without getting into a long-winded speech about that, we're trying to deal with that through the Treaty Commission in order to bring about some degree of certainty. So that's something that can arise in any event.
In any event, over and above that, we are under some obligations as a result of the litigation that has occurred to date. As a province, we now have obligations to native peoples to make sure that these kinds of things are dealt with in this type of legislation. I'm not going to offend the decisions that have been made in court to date; nor am I going to get into a protracted debate about native rights, except to say that with or without this provision, those arguments can be made in any event.
M. de Jong: The minister is correct when he says that that is the practicality of the matter, and there's no disputing that. What the legislation can do, however, is create a trap for itself that will not hold up proceeding with the project but that would allow for arguments to be made so that the
[ Page 12351 ]
review process itself can't proceed. I don't think that's the minister's intention, but I think that the section, as it appears, would allow for the argument to be made that the environment assessment itself cannot proceed. I'm sure that's not the minister's intention.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's not happening to us now. All we're doing is taking the current approach and adopting it, as we have to, into legislation. Inasmuch as the hon. member raises that issue, I also have to tell you that the stakeholders did not raise it in a substantive way with regard to this section. They recognize that this is a matter which has to be dealt with. Far better that it's dealt with in this context, as part of an overall review, than going through a review thinking you've got certainty and then being faced with applications in court.
G. Wilson: I don't want to carry on this discussion too much longer, but I do think it needs to be on the record. I've said many times in this House, and I'll say it again, that the whole issue hinges around what legal advice the Ministry of Attorney General is providing to this government with respect to the legality of title. The court ruling the minister refers to made it absolutely specific with respect to the question of title, in that it does not exist. Therefore, when you talk about traditional territory, if you're talking about title outside of treaties and if you're talking about this government making a political decision on the question of the provision of title, then that's a profound issue in this province. Stakeholders who didn't raise it should have raised it, because it's going to be a very thorny issue if this government has taken the position that title exists, which is a political decision in negotiation. I want that on the record here, because I think that's a critical issue.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
M. de Jong: It occurs to me that there is an inconsistency between sections 24 and 20. My reading of the bill suggests that pursuant to section 20, the ministers are granted the discretionary authority for ordering the preparation of a project report. Section 24, if I'm reading it correctly, states that a project report must be completed in accordance with the recommendations of the project committee. It suggests to me that circumstances could arise through this process where the project committee itself didn't require a project report to be completed but where the minister or ministers required the report.
So where does that leave us? We are leaving the original decision to compel the production of a project report to the minister and then importing the project committee into the process. They may not have required a report to be prepared in the first place.
Hon. M. Sihota: Section 20 indicates that a report must be prepared at the minister's request according to the provisions of division 7. We are now into division 7, which requires this report to be done. There are only two entities that can require a project committee to do its report: the minister or the project committee. Either way, they must prepare it under section 24, which then gives them the responsibility to prepare it. The provision with regard to the minister just refers through to this section.
M. de Jong: I don't know if the minister misunderstood my question; I probably didn't phrase it clearly enough. I know I didn't understand his response.
[11:45]
The minister is the entity that calls for the creation of a project report. He can do that regardless of whether the project committee requires it. It is conceivable under the process that the project committee is satisfied and makes a recommendation either to reject or proceed with the proponent's application, but the minister then overrides that decision and says: "No, I want a project report prepared." Then section 24 reintroduces the project committee into that process in a scenario where they may not want to be. They may not require the production of a project report.
Hon. M. Sihota: Under section 19, the project committee can prepare a report; that takes it straight to section 24 with regard to preparing the report. Alternatively, under section 20, a minister can prepare the report, which then takes it directly to section 24 with regard to the preparation of the report. I don't know if that helps, but that's how you arrive at section 24. It simply says that you have to do what the other sections said you had to do.
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
G. Wilson: I have a bit of a procedural question here, and perhaps it's because I'm not as familiar with how legislation works as some might be. I'd like to know how it's possible that in Bill 29 we have a consequential amendment -- section 94 on page 48 -- that amends a section of the bill that it is included in, which is section 25(m). How can you have a consequential amendment at the end of an act that amends the existing act that we're debating? I don't understand that. If somebody can explain that, then I'll....
Hon. M. Sihota: There's a provision in the Water Act that has been unproclaimed. Once this legislation is proclaimed, we can proclaim it. The reason why we want to proclaim that provision in the Water Act is to ensure that there's one-stop shopping with respect to all the provisions that are enumerated in this division.
G. Wilson: Okay. In other words, this essentially suggests that upon completion of this act, proclamation occurs in the Water Act. Therefore the amendment subsequently amends the Water Act, if I have that correct. The section of the Water Act we're dealing with has to do with water diversion. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: Section 7.1 creates a requirement for permits for works in and around a stream. What we're doing here is saying that if as a result of a project that's covered under the assessment legislation, there are works to be done in and around a stream, this will allow section 7 of the Water Act to be operative. Because there has to be concurrency, we're trying to get....
Instead of having five different processes for different projects, we're trying to bring them all into one -- one-stop shopping. This would then allow us to include section 7 of the Water Act in any considerations with regard to an application, so we can look at them all at one time, instead of having four or five of them dealt with at different times.
G. Wilson: I've read the section of the Water Act the minister refers to. Does that mean that any activity in or
[ Page 12352 ]
around a stream will now be subject to this process by virtue of that amendment? I'm assuming that that's what it means. And that's regardless of the scale?
In other words, this presumably would have some significant effect -- I've been trying to get some tangible example -- on forest activity if it requires the crossing of streams or construction of bridges over streams? No? I'm seeing shaking of heads on that question.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, not to forests, but it will apply to a reviewable project. If you need a permit with regard to the Water Act, under section 7, for a reviewable project, then this section will allow us to do that.
Let me read from my briefing note, if that's easier. Proposed amendments to the Water Act were brought forward in 1992 pursuant to the Water Amendment Act. Among the proposed amendments was section 7.1, which established a new permitting requirement -- which I've already explained -- for works in and around streams. In order to effect the policy of integrating project approval with all major permits and licences and to ensure that environmental assessment will be able to correctly cross-reference section 7.1 once it is proclaimed, it is necessary to include a reference to the new section 7.1 of the Water Act in section 25 of the Environmental Assessment Act. That's for purposes of cross-reference. Section 7.1 cannot be referenced under the Environmental Assessment Act until after the appropriate section of the Water Amendment Act has been proclaimed in force. That's why we're saying ultimately we would have to proclaim section 7, which we're not doing at this point.
In order to address this issue of timing, section 94 of the Environmental Assessment Act was added. Upon proclamation, this section will consequently amend the Environmental Assessment Act to effect a change in the Water Act. Section 94 of the Environmental Assessment Act will be proclaimed after the Water Act amendment is proclaimed. The model used in section 94, essentially a section in a bill which purports to amend the bill itself, is a very common mechanism to ensure consistency of legislation and to address the sometimes complicated issues surrounding timing of various legislative initiatives.
I can't be clearer than that.
G. Wilson: That's so clear, I don't know why I asked the question. Okay, it's good. I understand if the minister is saying it is; I'll have to take a look at that section. I'm assuming, then, that the non-proclamation of that section doesn't mean that the section in the amended act is changed. If the staff could send that over to me, just to confirm it, that would be great.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's right. Upon adjournment, I'll give you a copy of that provision.
Sections 25 and 26 approved.
The Chair: On section 27, the minister from -- the member from Matsqui. It's late.
M. de Jong: Thank you for the promotion, hon. Chair.
This section 27 is a positive feature of the act, and that deserves to be said. The only observation I add is that I wasn't here for the first go-round a year ago, so I read as much of Hansard as I could with interest and will only comment that so much of the derision heaped on the opposition benches from the government side during that debate.... For this reason alone, the withdrawal of that bill and the grief the minister's predecessor felt from the opposition this bill received were warranted, I suppose. We see the manifestation of the further consultation that took place; it arises and exists here in section 27.
The section appears in division 8, dealing with the review of a project report. I just want the minister to confirm for me that all proponents and applicants can avail themselves of the concurrent process of which it speaks, not just applicants whose application has proceeded to the project report stage.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, you have to go to the project report stage.
M. de Jong: That does cause me some concern, particularly when if one examines the.... I might say that surprises me somewhat. I don't know why all applicants wouldn't be able to avail themselves of those provisions. When you look at the draft regulations pertaining to time frames, we're talking about a significant or potentially significant period of time passing before we get to the second stage of the process that requires a project report to be completed. I won't belabour the point. Maybe the minister can answer. Why wouldn't all applicants be able to avail themselves of the provisions of section 27?
Hon. M. Sihota: The concern was that with a very nominal or very thin application, you would be able to fast-track the process and work your way through without some of the scrutiny that was required. Industry agreed with that concern. Hence, as a result of the consultations that we had, they agreed to the kind of format that now requires a major project report to be part of the requisite work before projects can go on. This was part of those discussions, and the agreement between the groups was that that was the best way to reconcile it.
M. de Jong: With the greatest respect to the minister, I think the dynamics of what took place were that the proponents were confronted with an original bill that didn't include any provision, and this is certainly a lot better than nothing.
Quite frankly, I disagree with any suggestion that a multitrack application process not be available to all proponents. Perhaps it's because I don't understand the minister's argument; I'm certainly not sure I agree with it. The same level of scrutiny that would be available with those other specified enactments that are listed here would still take place, so I don't think it's a question of something sliding through. The same scrutiny is going to take place; it's just going to occur at the same time.
[12:00]
As I say, I think the stakeholders that would have been most interested in seeing this provision included in the legislation were perhaps content to see something there. But to suggest that this was their first choice, I think, is stretching it some.
Hon. M. Sihota: It wasn't a matter of a first or second choice; there was a policy discussion at a table. This is the way the parties agreed, and this is the way it came out. It was acceptable to them, and they're comfortable with that resolution. I'm not going to try to impose an alternative solution on them. And that applies in a whole variety of areas.
We're obviously getting into a bit of debate here. Given the hour and the fact there are staff who have been going since 10 o'clock this morning, on behalf of all hon. members, I just want to thank them for their hard work. There are a lot
[ Page 12353 ]
of people we don't see -- those who work in Hansard and other places who have to be with us at 10 o'clock -- and as much as we enjoy the drama of these debates, I'm not too sure that they're up to making sure it's all recorded. So on behalf of all members, I first of all would like to thank them for being with us until this late hour tonight. With that said, I suggest we stay on for another two hours. No, just kidding.
With that said, I move the committee rise, report substantial progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:03 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]