1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 2
[ Page 14313 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Jake Janzen, the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture; Bruce Bakker, the chair; Steve Torrence, manager of the B.C. horticulture coalition; Doug Kitson, chair of the B.C. Marketing Board; and Kirk Miller, chair, and Barry Smith, staff member, of the Agricultural Land Commission. In a moment it will be clear why they're here. I would like you all to please make them welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the members' gallery today is His Excellency Rodrigo Diaz, Ambassador of Chile to Canada. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Gabriela Diaz; the Chilean consul general in Vancouver, Mr. Dennis Biggs; and his wife, Mrs. Marcia Biggs. Would the House please make them welcome.
V. Anderson: Today we have with us representatives from the B.C. Central Credit Union. I'd like the House to join in welcoming Michael Tarr, Philip Moore, Henry Jansen, Sylvia Pritchard, Coro Strandburg, Wayne Nygren and Richard Thomas. Would you please make them welcome.
N. Lortie: Today we have another fine group of young people from the constituency of Delta North: 45 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary. They're led by their teacher Mr. John Baines. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Brewin: Today in the gallery we have four representatives from the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation. They're here to meet with all of us at a reception this evening in the Ned DeBeck Lounge, and so I remind you all. I'd like the House to please make welcome Clyde Forrest, representing the Victoria International Development Education Association; Kim Daley, Canadian Crossroads International, Victoria; Moelala Tuitama from Canadian Crossroads International, Western Samoa; and Lewis Zamar, YMCA, from Argentina. Would the House please make them welcome.
T. Perry: Coincidentally we also have in the gallery today one of the founders of Physicians for Social Responsibility, later known as Canadian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and who, although she may not make it to the reception, will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that it's occurring: Dr. Dorothy Goresky. Accompanying Dr. Goresky from Vancouver are Dr. Minnie Aderem of the staff of the Capetown Children's Hospital and, last but not least, my mother, Mrs. Claire Perry. I know all members will join me in making them very welcome.
G. Janssen: Joining us today in the galleries is a constituent from the beautiful Alberni Valley, Joy Hanlin, a dedicated employee of the Ministry of Social Services in Alberni. I ask the House to make her welcome.
FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT
Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This bill replaces the Agriculture Protection Act and makes consequential amendments to the Land Title Act and the Municipal Act. The legislation will replace the Agriculture Protection Act with more effective legislation and ensure that farmers can farm in the agricultural land reserve. It establishes a process to deal with complaints about farm practice in order to achieve a true right to farm for the first time in British Columbia by protecting farmers from nuisance bylaws and prohibitive injunctions when they are farming properly.
As part of this right to farm, this bill will ensure that where a farmer farms properly on the land in the ALR, or where agriculture is licensed, the farmer is deemed not to contravene a local government nuisance or miscellaneous bylaw. Based on existing people and infrastructure the government has, it establishes a board to deal effectively with complaints about farm practice, including the ability to order a farmer to improve or to stop poor farm practices. The board will build on an existing peer review process to investigate and will attempt to resolve disputes before hearings are held.
It will amend the Land Title Act and the Municipal Act to encourage effective planning for farming, and to better define and improve stability of the interface between farming and non-farming areas. It will replace the unworkable section 977 of the Municipal Act with several amendments, including a new division 4.1 of part 29. The minister's regulation power in section 977 is replaced with guidelines for farm regulatory bylaws and a requirement for the minister's approval of bylaws regulating farming. Guideline development will proceed in consultation with the farm sector and with local governments.
The bill will incorporate the land use regulation components of section 977 into the zoning and rural land use bylaw sections of the act. These bylaws are subject to compliance with provincial standards in that regard, subject to the minister's approval. It will add new specific bylaw powers for local governments, also subject to compliance with the provincial standards and the minister's approval, which will regulate farm conduct, require certain farm facilities, etc., and prohibit specific farm operations where needed.
In addition to consulting with the farm sector about this bill....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the House would bear with me, it is a complicated bill, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister's time has expired, but he can move the appropriate motions.
[ Page 14314 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to commend this bill to the members and urge its passage. With this bill, B.C. will lead the country in the protection of its farmers. I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
The Speaker: Hon. members, this morning the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock informed the House of his intention to move an adjournment motion pursuant to standing order 35 to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely the withdrawal of Bonneville Power Administration from the Columbia River Treaty. Since this morning, the Chair has had the opportunity to give the matter some consideration in light of the member's comments and the representations of other members. Certainly the Chair recognizes that the collapse of this agreement is a most serious and important matter which impacts on the province of British Columbia.
[2:15]
In dealing with the issues raised under standing order 35, the Chair must consider a number of guidelines set out in standing order 35, as interpreted by the established practice of this House in previous years. Among other provisions, the standing order states that the Chair must consider whether the matter would "anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House...." Hence a key question that the Chair must determine is whether there is a probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.
In his submission to the House this morning, the member for Surrey-White Rock referred to the financial loss that Bonneville Power's decision would have on this year's budget. The hon. member also stated that the decision "calls into serious question the veracity of the very debate on spending estimates in this chamber." The member relates the question which he raises to the estimates debate. Indeed, I remind members that estimates, which have been referred by order of the House to Committee of Supply, offer members a clear venue to discuss questions such as those raised by the hon. member.
I conclude that the hon. member's application cannot succeed, as I note that a parliamentary opportunity is at hand through the vehicle of the estimates. A number of applications of this particular restriction are found in the Journals of this House, and I refer members to Journals, April 26, 1989, page 53; Journals, June 21, 1991, page 54; Journals, April 26, 1993, page 46; Journals, April 27, 1993, page 48; and Journals, April 21, 1994, page 57.
For these reasons I find that the matter raised does not meet the requirements of standing order 35, and I must rule accordingly.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BENEFITS AND 1995-96 BUDGET
G. Campbell: Yesterday all British Columbians and particularly the residents of the Kootenays were shocked to hear of the breakdown in negotiations over the Columbia downstream benefits. The memorandum of understanding signed by this government makes it clear "that they were to complete drafting of definitive agreements by December 31, 1994." The minister knew that this was not done. The minister also knew that Bonneville was "notorious for its arrangements." The minister also knew that Bonneville was in financial difficulties.
Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell this House why the government decided to book $250 million of revenue into a budget when they didn't have the money in the bank?
Hon. G. Clark: We signed a memorandum of understanding -- a memorandum of agreement -- by the chief negotiators, by the Premier and by the CEO of Bonneville Power Administration. That MOA is not a legally binding contract but it defines the principles upon which that contract would be written. It is our view, legally and every other way, that they have a legal obligation, a good-faith obligation....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order.
Just a moment, hon. minister. Hon. members, I think everyone appreciates the importance of the questions and the answers on this important matter. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the responses when there are interjections to the extent that they've been happening. I'd appreciate it if members would allow for the questions to be put and the answers to be made.
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, they have a good-faith obligation to complete the agreement that we signed. Shame on the Liberals for taking the American position on this. If that Leader of the Opposition were the leader in Newfoundland he'd be on the side of the Spanish. This is a question of standing up for what's right for British Columbia. We have an agreement. We're going to make the Americans live up to that agreement.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I know Mr. Tobin, and this minister is no Mr. Tobin. This minister did not do his homework. This minister jeopardized the province of British Columbia because this minister did not even bother to look at his memorandum of understanding. Hon. Speaker, this minister's and this government's failure will not be covered over by the kind of histrionics that this minister is known for.
The fact of the matter is you spent $250 million before you had it even close to the bank. You tried to cash a cheque when it wasn't even signed. The fact of the matter is, hon. minister, definitive agreements were supposed to be made by December 31. That was not done, hon. minister. This was just another reckless cash grab by this government so you could balance your budget. This government continues to pursue cruel deceptions.
I have a question for this minister: when will this government stop protecting their political hides and start putting the interests of British Columbians first?
[ Page 14315 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Why do the members opposite think the Bonneville Power Administration wants out of this agreement? Because it's a good deal for British Columbia; we negotiated a good deal. If we wanted to play politics, we could sell the downstream benefits now for $1 billion and have the cash this fiscal year. We're not doing that, because we're standing up for British Columbia and for a deal we signed which is in our interest; we're not prepared to sell our birthright or our legacy for cheap political gain. For once, that Leader of the Opposition should rise above petty politics and stand on the side of British Columbia against the Americans.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, this is taking up valuable time in question period, as I'm sure you appreciate.
F. Gingell: Recent events again reinforce what I've been saying for over a month: this year's NDP government budget is a fake. The Finance minister was desperate in her attempts to table a balanced budget. In this charade to create a surplus, she included $250 million of future years' income in 1995-96 -- and before the deal was signed. My question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is: why did your government tell taxpayers that the budget was balanced when it clearly wasn't?
Hon. G. Clark: That member knows that that's incorrect. We have three accounting firms' opinions: the auditor general, the comptroller general and Peat Marwick -- the member knows that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G. Clark: We decided to book the revenue when it was estimated to be received. We have a memorandum of agreement -- the member knows that. The Bonneville Power Administration CEO said this was a win-win for them. They signed on the agreement. They're reneging on the agreement. I ask members opposite to join with the B.C. government to challenge this American company, who've screwed us for years. We're not going to stand up and allow that to happen again.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: I'm surprised that this minister would question my loyalty. We're not dealing with that issue. How dare you! How dare you! We are dealing with the issue of competence.
I'm very pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is here. The Minister of Finance went against the advice of her most senior advisers in using the $250 million to pretend to balance this year's budget. Last October, the comptroller general of British Columbia said none of the $250 million should be included in this year's budget. In March of this year, the auditor general said none of this $250 million should be included in this year's budget. The minister has also had the benefit of my advice; I also told her that none of this should be included. Why did this government include this $250 million in this year's budget before it had a deal?
Hon. E. Cull: This member is being very selective in what he is intending to report. What happened with the $250 million in its accounting treatment this year is that we received three separate opinions. After looking at the three separate opinions, on April 13, 1995, the comptroller general confirmed to me his advice. I'll read from his letter. It says: "Based on my understanding of the agreement, supported by KPMG" -- this is Peat Marwick -- "I feel that it is technically more correct to record the $250 million to be received in 1995 as revenue in the 1995 fiscal year."
Putting aside all of this stuff on accounting and the arguments of people about which way it should go....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: I think that the people....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Will the minister please take her seat. Hon. members, I'm sure there's no question in anyone's mind in this chamber that the issues before us at this moment are serious. But I feel that there is no way that we can have an exchange of questions and answers when members are completely disregarding these standing orders, which all members know very well. I would ask members to keep in mind that we're here to do the public's business, and we're depriving the public of an opportunity to hear questions, or answers, in light of the exuberance that is being shown on both sides of the House. So I'd ask members to please control themselves.
Will the hon. minister please proceed.
Hon. E. Cull: While the accountants were arguing about how to treat this, I had to bring in a budget at the end of March, and I did what any householder in this province would have done, which is to take the cash that comes in and count it as revenue in the budget. That is what the comptroller general, who has to give me the final advice on how to treat accounting matters in the budget, advised me to do.
But I am surprised that this opposition wants to continue the argument of the accountants and not deal with the very real issue before British Columbians today, which is Bonneville Power reneging on a deal for British Columbians.
COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS WITH BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Yesterday the minister once again deliberately led British Columbians to believe that the memorandum of understanding with Bonneville was a binding legal document. Is it still the government's position today that that agreement is legally binding? Is it a legally binding agreement -- yes or no?
[ Page 14316 ]
Hon. G. Clark: We have a legal opinion, which is that they have an obligation to negotiate, in good faith, the completion of legal documents to bring it into effect. I'll read you the statement: "The parties establish legal and technical teams to draft the definitive agreements necessary to carry out the intent of the statement of principles." It is our legal position that that means that what is not legally binding is the legal text, but the statement of principles.... They have an obligation to pursue it to conclusion, to come to the legally binding agreement. That is the position we'll be taking in court, among other things, to challenge Bonneville Power's attempt to renege on an outstanding deal for British Columbians.
[2:30]
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: I would advise the minister to refer his legal advisers to something called the Department of External Affairs Manual of Administrative Procedures. Under section 12.8, it states: "Memorandums of understanding...do not" -- do not -- "create...legal obligations between states on the international plane, and therefore are not governed by international law. The obligations are moral and political in nature." Given that formal position by the government of Canada, has the government of British Columbia any assurance that it will be joined or supported by the government of Canada in the legal action it proposes to take against Bonneville?
Hon. G. Clark: We fully expect British Columbians, opposition parties, the federal government and our MPs to support British Columbia in its fight with the United States and the Bonneville power authority. In the 1960s, we signed an agreement that sold our birthright for 30 years in a lousy deal for British Columbia. Now that it's time to renegotiate, we've negotiated a good deal for British Columbia, and they're trying to back out from it. And we expect.... We will have legal advice; we will use environmental tactics; we will intervene in every forum to make Bonneville Power live up to this agreement they signed. They had their names signed on the document. They had a press conference. They told British Columbians the money would be there, they told the government the money would be there...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. G. Clark: ...and we expect all Canadians...
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
Hon. G. Clark: ...to back this government when we're challenging an unscrupulous American corporation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
Hon. J. Pement: I have the honour to present the 1993-94 annual report for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
L. Boone: It gives me pleasure today to present a petition in opposition to the privatization of B.C. Rail, for the following reasons: private operators will seek to erode wage conditions and job security on the grounds of competitiveness; privatization will lead to a loss of jobs, resulting in a poor quality of service to B.C. Rail customers and jeopardizing of B.C.'s exports; privatization is likely to result in further cutbacks to passenger service, which will have a negative economic impact on the many communities that rely on such service; rail transportation is critical in developing current and future economic policy, and privatization takes away the government's ability to do this and puts such decisions in the hands of companies that may not be concerned with development in our province. I present this on behalf of the many workers of B.C. Rail.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in Section A, for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in Section B, I call the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday the Energy estimates were due to continue, and they were pulled at the last minute because of the Bonneville issue. We called for an emergency debate today in order to debate the issue, and we were told that this issue was coming before the House in an imminent manner -- I assumed today; it was on the schedule. Perhaps the House Leader can explain why the Energy estimates are not here today, given that this debate should be forthcoming.
The Speaker: That, hon. member, is a matter that is not appropriate for the Chair to address.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
A. Warnke: I want to continue with some thoughts from this morning, and I believe some other members also have a few questions. As I was going through the information package released by the ministry to the public -- we've already discussed a few aspects of that, and I appreciate the minister's response this morning -- part of this package includes some discussions on interim measures. In this context I want to introduce the subject of interim measures. I have a few questions on it, and then we'll see where we go from there.
The reason I want to focus on interim measures is that this is one area that is highly contentious. The information package makes it very clear that interim measures arrange-
[ Page 14317 ]
ments do not transfer the jurisdiction of lands and resources to first nations, include broad moratoria over land and resource development, and predetermine the outcome of treaty negotiations. One could engage in a pretty lengthy discussion about this, but I will approach this subject by way of example.
One example I have before me is the Lheit Lit'en nation, which had an interim measures agreement with the Ministry of Forests. After all was said and done, the response to this was given by Chief Peter Quaw, who said that the memorandum of understanding gives the nation jurisdiction and authority to more than 200,000 hectares of land. We are under an impression that an interim measures agreement is supposed to be just a commitment to notify, consult and, obviously, listen to the aboriginal community. Indeed, interim measures agreements have been seen as a prelude to formal treaty negotiations.
Given the statement by Chief Quaw, by way of an example -- and he's not the only one; as a matter of fact, I've got a number of statements -- there seems to be an impression here that interim measures agreements facilitate something far beyond merely the commitment to notify, consult and listen to the aboriginal community, and that when a statement is given, it gives to the nation jurisdiction and authority over huge amounts of land. This certainly seems to contradict the information that's released by the ministry, but it also creates an impression that doesn't really conform to what I thought was the intent and nature of the interim measures agreement. So what I want to put to the minister is: has the minister clarified this kind of impression? First of all, did the minister respond to Chief Peter Quaw in any form, perhaps clarifying the situation? Has the minister clarified this impression in more general terms?
Hon. J. Cashore: The words attributed to Chief Peter Quaw, if he said those words, are incorrect. The interim measures agreement did not grant any such jurisdiction or authority; it is neither a veto nor a moratorium. It is a modus operandi that ensures that the appropriate consultation will take place. I should also point out that, as the hon. member knows, whenever there are two or more parties to an agreement -- two in this case -- usually the various parties have some kind of political dimension to what they do: they have a constituency, they have their people -- their elders, their band members. It is a fact that when a statement is made that is provocative, it will generally receive news coverage; the other party to such an agreement does not have any say over that. We expect people to participate in good faith in carrying out agreements. I can tell the hon. member categorically that Chief Peter Quaw and the Lheit Lit'en nation are signatories to an interim measures agreement which creates a modus operandi to enable the appropriate consultation to take place around the issues that are cited within that agreement.
A. Warnke: I guess that because the impression happens to exist -- I don't think it is just isolated to the Lheit Lit'en nation, but perhaps exists with others as well -- that sometimes bands have a veto over economic development, or that there is a transfer of jurisdiction, authority and so on.... Has the minister made a general policy very clear to all bands that this is not supposed to happen until the treaties are concluded?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. That is very clear; it is very clear within the context of these agreements. We have made it very clear; we have stated time and again that these are not vetoes or moratoria. I know that Chief Quaw is aware of the statements that we have made when we have been asked to comment on his comments.
A. Warnke: There are also, in one publication, classifications, I suppose, of the different interim measures. One classification is withdrawals of particular lands and resources from disposition, and the second is the development of new comanagement mechanisms. This is being articulated this way by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. I would appreciate it if the minister could give his impression of, or clarify, the different types of interim measures agreements, because I think again that there might be some impressions out there that there is one kind of interim measures agreement and that perhaps.... Again, as the minister and myself have mentioned over and over again, there are many different cases and many different bands which respond to issues in different ways. I wonder if the minister could just provide a brief outline as to the different types of interim measures, and just maybe give us the nature of the interim measures as they are being applied. This has a potential huge impact, of course, as to how the ministry will go about its business in the coming year.
[2:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: The best reference that we have in response to that question is to go right back to the basics of the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force, which states on page 64 that the range of options for interim measures agreements consists of five categories:
"1. Notification to affected parties before action is taken concerning matters which are or may be the subject of negotiations" -- so the first can be the simple act of notification.
"2. Consultation with parties affected by any proposed action" -- that in itself is an interim measure.
"3. Consent of one of the parties before action is taken;
"4. Joint management processes requiring consensus of all the parties;
"5. Restriction or moratorium on the alienation of land or resources."
That is in the context of interim protection measures agreements after treaty negotiations have started at the agreement-in-principle stage; that only applies in that context.
A. Warnke: Also with regard to interim measures, there are situations in which interim agreements are negotiated by individual line ministries, and there is an impression among several British Columbians that there is little or no coordination amongst the various ministers to establish the general goals and objectives of these agreements. I would appreciate it if the minister could maybe clarify whether in fact this impression is valid. Beyond that, what is actually being done to coordinate the various ministries? This is a tremendous concern to British Columbians.
Hon. J. Cashore: There have been 52 interim measures agreements signed, and 25 of them are land and resources interim measures. That is not inclusive of all those different categories that I referred to, where it can be an interim measure, according to the task force report, to simply pick up the
[ Page 14318 ]
phone or write a letter and notify somebody; that in itself can be termed an interim measure. That's not listed in there. With regard to the significant interim measures, those are the numbers. There are interim measures agreements relating to lands and resources that are under negotiation at the present time. The member is right that in most instances it is line ministries that are involved in those negotiations.
I think the other thing I would like to point out with regard to the reference to public awareness is that our ministry has undertaken the role of coordinating this information. This information is made readily available. We do an update on a regular basis so that we can have the most up-to-date information. There are currently 43 interim measures under negotiation.
A. Warnke: Also, there is an impression that interim measures agreements may actually provide a basis to avoid, I suppose, a commitment to the Treaty Commission process. Their argument goes somewhat like this: there are provisions contained in the interim agreements that one can obviously create or generate expectations in the final agreement, and there is a perception that an interim agreement is a prelude to what we can see in the actual treaty. I think that needs to be clarified. In other words, interim agreements create a kind of floor to the treaty negotiations, thereby limiting the opportunities for more flexible and creative problem-solving. There is that and, secondly, the degree of commitment -- once an interim measures agreement is established, it becomes permanent, because there's no incentive to move toward a treaty. I would like the minister to respond to those concerns.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that some interim measures agreements have actually lapsed and have not been replaced. Certainly in those instances one could not draw the conclusion that there's a direct connection between those interim measures and subsequent treaty measures. Also, I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to make that connection with the existing circumstances, because, as I said before, the primary role of interim measures is to enable a reasonable consultation to take place with regard to contentious issues, to avoid disruption. How that gets resolved in the treaty-making process when we actually have first nations giving up aboriginal rights in order to be able to achieve certainty in the context of treaty rights could be a very, very different set of circumstances.
I would just reiterate that there are interministry committees that keep updated regularly amongst each other with regard to what's happening with interim measures; that the treaty negotiators are fully aware of the interim measures within their particular areas; and that, as I said before, there is regular reporting of the interim measures agreements, and the lists are fully available.
With regard to openness and consultation in the actual program-related interim measures, line ministries notify the stakeholders when interim measures negotiations begin; briefings are offered during negotiations; stakeholder input as negotiations proceed is part of the process; draft agreements are available for third-party review prior to finalization; and final agreements are made public.
With regard to treaty-related interim measures, they are in accordance with the UBCM protocol agreement -- the agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities -- and also the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, regional advisory committee and local advisory committee terms of reference. Also, the openness protocol of this government applies in the case of interim measures.
I would just like, at this point on this topic, to again refer to the Sam Green case, in which Mr. Justice Hunter, in rendering his decision in the Supreme Court of B.C., referred to the 1993 Court of Appeal of B.C. decision on Delgamuukw, which held that there are non-exclusive aboriginal rights in the area. Non-exclusive means that the Gitksan, in this case, cannot exclude all others from using the land and resources. But the judge, in making his decision to discharge the injunction by balancing the rights and interests of the Gitksan and Skeena Cellulose.... In so doing, he concluded that limited timber harvesting would not significantly interfere with the rights to use land and resources the Gitksan continue to assert.
So we think that this a very, very significant decision, and it helps to provide some of the parameters that case law can sometimes provide to assist us with this matter. But very significantly, in reaching this conclusion, Mr. Justice Hunter noted that this province has an interim measures policy in place; therefore, had we not had that policy in place, it is very, very likely that that injunction would have continued and that the process would not be underway to get that area of industrial activity back into action. I hasten to add that it is my understanding that the Gitksan have filed notice to appeal; I believe doing that will also result in some definition through the courts, which I am hopeful will be helpful in this process. But I think it is extremely significant that Mr. Justice Hunter, in deciding to lift that injunction which was put in place in 1988, did cite the fact that this government has an interim measures policy. So it was seven years that that injunction had tied up logging activity in that area.
The only other point I would like to make, in view of the opening statement that the Liberal Aboriginal Affairs critic made on opening day -- I think it was point Number 11 -- that it's now the policy of the Liberal Party, and also of the official opposition, that there be a moratorium on interim measures.... I'm very interested in how that would have affected the decision that was made by Justice Hunter in the unfortunate circumstance that had been the modus operandi at the time.
R. Chisholm: I addressed this problem last year, and I addressed it with the former minister too in the year prior to that. This is in reference to the Native Fishing Association and the guarantees that the provincial government were going to come forth with to match federal contributions for a loan to the Native Fishing Association. This didn't come through in the long term, and I'm wondering what faith these organizations can have in the ministry or in this government when agreements negotiated by this government have failed to come across. After all, in the final analysis, the Toronto-Dominion Bank gave them a better deal than the provincial government did. I'm wondering if the minister has any comment on how this transpired -- how we came to this situation we are in now.
The credibility of this ministry and this government is in jeopardy over this particular situation. I won't reiterate everything I said last year or the year before, because the minister knows what he debated with me. When we make agreements with organizations and then we fail to honour them, or we fail to come across with a deal that is acceptable to all parties -- especially when this government has an obligation -- then
[ Page 14319 ]
how can we start treaty negotiations with this type of thing happening? I'd just like to hear the minister's comments on this. After all, this is now settled with the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Mind you, it would be nice if the province matched the federal contribution; then maybe it could do something substantial for the Native Fishing Association. I'd just like to hear the minister's comments now that we've got to this stage with this negotiation.
Hon. J. Cashore: This has to do with the Native Fishing Association proposal for a loan guarantee to enable them to assist aboriginal fishers in purchasing vessels and in having a reasonable place within the fishery. I thank the hon. member for raising the issue; I think it's an important issue. I think that all members of the House would recognize that when it comes to first nations and fishing, and when it comes to issues regarding the financing of such activities, one of the factors that we have to think about -- I'm not saying it should be the only defining factor -- is that the federal government in two areas of its responsibility, fishing and first nations, is again trying to off-load these issues onto the province; very often we end up with a situation where the province is pressured to accept these off-loads. But there is also an opposite pressure to look after the interests of British Columbians and make sure that the federal government fulfils its responsibility. But that's a general comment. That's not dealing with the specific question that the hon. member is making, except to say that in all considerations of such loans or loan guarantees, I think the federal government clearly has the major responsibility.
With regard to this loan guarantee proposal, the hon. member's outline of this is different than my recall of the situation. I would refer it to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is the line ministry that has the primary responsibility for this. I'm sure the hon. member will understand that this is not an issue about which we would have the kind of documentation here in the House that would be available in that other ministry.
It is my recall on this issue that the government was prepared to consider the loan guarantee until it turned out that the Native Fishing Association, affiliated under the Native Brotherhood of B.C., had, as the hon. member pointed out, secured the financing through the bank -- and the hon. member has referred to that bank. I don't see the fact that that bank has decided to back those loan guarantees as something that should cause any embarrassment to the government. I look upon that as a win-win -- the bank coming alongside the aboriginal people and saying: "We believe there's a good business venture here, and therefore we will provide this money for these loans."
The hon. member didn't say.... My recollection is -- and if I'm incorrect I'd be interested in hearing about it -- that it turned out that the bank did not require a loan guarantee. I'm sure the hon. member wouldn't counsel Treasury Board or the government to guarantee a loan when the bank is prepared to guarantee the loan. I will ask staff to endeavour to consult with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make sure that my information is correct, but I believe it to be correct.
[3:00]
R. Chisholm: I'll just quote from Hansard of last year, when I addressed this situation. Obviously there have been memory lapses since then, and since 1993, 1992 and 1991. This particular issue has been going on for four years. I asked this question last year about the Native Brotherhood and the fishers. Four years ago they applied through Penfund Management Ltd. for a $10 million loan, and they were guaranteed $5 million from the federal government on the stipulation that the provincial government guarantee -- and I reiterate, the stipulation that the provincial government guarantee -- 75 percent of the $10 million loan. To date, absolutely nothing has happened. I am wondering why nothing has happened, considering that this was a guarantee. We weren't putting out any money whatsoever, and this organization has less than a 1 percent bankruptcy rate, which is far better than that which the banks are showing. The federal government has put forward the $5 million, yet the Penfund Management Ltd. money has been sitting there for the last four years. This is one way to increase the employment in this area and enhance the Native Brotherhood fishing association. That is an excerpt from last year. I won't go back into 1993's version of the same, or '92 or '91.
My point is: why would anybody have any faith in this government? The minister turns around and says that it's an Agriculture, Fisheries and Food situation. Well, it isn't. It happens to be this ministry. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food denies it has any responsibility whatsoever.
And while we go around this merry-go-round, we end up not doing anything for the Native Fishing Association. After all, it was only a guarantee. The only reason the Toronto-Dominion Bank came forward with it was that the deal the provincial government finally came across with wasn't worth the paper it was written on, so they had to go to other sources or lose the federal funding. That's a rather deplorable statement to make, especially when we're going into treaty negotiations and we start talking about interim agreements.
When we talk about the interim agreements, this agreement with the Native Fishing Association fell through when it never should have, and it's deplorable. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion on whether these interim agreements are precedent-setting -- in other words, they're going to tie the hands of the treaty negotiators when it comes time to negotiate these treaties. I'd like to hear his opinion on that particular statement.
Hon. J. Cashore: I observed that the hon. member was in the House when I answered those questions ten minutes ago. He was here and heard me answer them. I answered them very thoroughly.
With regard to what the hon. member is saying about the Native Fishing Association, he challenges the government on the fact that the government was not willing to put up a loan guarantee for $5 million. He said words to the effect of: "How can this government justify this to the voters?" At least, I think that was the gist of what he was saying.
I think the voters would also want to know why he would advocate putting up a $5 million loan guarantee when the bank doesn't need it, doesn't want it and didn't request it. The voters would find that a bit frivolous, for us to be voluntarily putting up loan guarantees in the amount of $5 million when the parties don't require them. As I say, the hon. member raised this question last year in estimates. I know that most of us, when we take our positions to the voters, are expected to be able to be accountable and that frugality is certainly an important part of being accountable.
[ Page 14320 ]
It seems to me that what we have here is win-win. The bank guaranteed the loan. The money is there to purchase the boats.
The government didn't get into the middle of it. There was a meeting very recently, hosted by Brian Smith -- the Business at the Summit conference. One of the messages from first nations and the business community was: "We want to get on with joint ventures and partnerships and doing business together. And we don't want government to interfere." So I feel that there's nothing to apologize about on this issue.
Hon. member, it's really unfair to say I have somehow avoided dealing with this issue. I've talked in the House on this issue for quite some time now, responding to the hon. member's questions with respect and also having stated that it is the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That's a fact; there's no denying that fact. I think it's really taking up the time of the House to be arguing about that. I'm quite prepared to respond to it; I even volunteered to get more information if that wasn't satisfactory. So I'm not quite sure what the purpose of that reference was.
R. Chisholm: The purpose of it, hon. minister, is to show that.... If you can't negotiate at this small level, how the heck are we going to do it in treaty negotiations that are going to be far more difficult to go through? This went on for four years. They went to the bank at the end.
If you want, hon. minister, I'll quote from Hansard from last year what you said; it is completely different than what you're saying right now. Hon. minister, let's admit it: if a person or a group comes to this government and negotiates a deal, then the government should be honour-bound to stand by that deal. But it didn't happen in this case. Now we're talking four years later, and they have got their loan, but not through this government. And they never did get a guarantee through this government, even though this government sat down at the table and discussed it with them. I find that rather deplorable.
My next question to the minister is with reference to another level of government, and that's the municipal level. They're not at the table, yet they as a level of government probably have the most to lose in these negotiations. The question to the minister is: with this organization that has so much to lose geographically and economically, how do you propose to keep them informed and have their opinions taken into account when it comes to the treaty negotiations? I know they will be sitting in the third table, but will they have any more access than the normal citizen? After all, as I said, they will have the most to lose of anybody in the three levels of government.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member's information is wrong. I don't know where he got it. There's no such thing as a third table that I'm aware of. The fact is that the municipalities are present. If he had being paying attention last September, he would have noted that there was a major announcement made by our government that we had negotiated a protocol agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. This was the end of a two-year process of negotiations; there had been a memorandum of understanding at the meeting of the municipalities one year before that. That agreement was signed by the leader of the party that this hon. member was formerly a member of. That was the initial agreement with UBCM; it resulted in negotiations that went on for a year, which then resulted in the protocol agreement that makes a member of the municipalities -- an appointee of municipalities -- a member of the provincial team and present in the room during the negotiations.
There is no third table, hon. member; that individual is right there in the room. Therefore I do appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight. Clearly, what the hon. member said was misinformation and patently incorrect.
I'd also like to point out that the Union of B.C. Municipalities very shortly will be holding a conference of UBCM people with officials from the provincial government for the purpose of working together and ensuring that together we do the very best job we can to make certain that the municipal interest is represented in the negotiations. Joanne Monaghan, the president of the UBCM, is very, very positive about this initiative. I think it behooves members of the House -- apart from any party affiliation -- to be encouraging and to assist with such events being successful.
L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Boone: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like the House to help me greet and welcome to these chambers today Mr. L. Carr, who is a teacher with Catlin Gable School in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Carr is here with up to 38 grade 5 students and several adults who are accompanying them. They are here, of course, to study comparative government and local history. I think they will have a good view of the local history and of what is going on in this chamber today. I hope they didn't view question period and compare it to what takes place in other jurisdictions, or they would have had quite an earful and eyeful at that time. Would the House please help me greet them.
R. Chisholm: That last question was because there is a misconception out there. As a matter of fact, this question came from headlines in a Chilliwack Times of just two weeks back. I wanted to get it on the record so it can be disseminated and so we can get it out to the population so they realize what is going on, because even the press doesn't understand what is going on.
For my last set of questions, I'd like to draw to the attention of this House the fact that the Liberal opposition actually put forward their own 11 points -- guiding principles on treaty negotiation -- in a speech in this House on Friday, April 28, when no one but perhaps myself and the minister over there were listening. Now that I'm not a member of the Liberal opposition these days, I'm not promoting their 11 points; I'm just trying to understand them. I'm sure the minister has copies of their points.
First question: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on what he sees as the big difference between the government's guiding points on treaty negotiations and what the Liberal opposition has officially proposed -- has finally gotten around to proposing, I should say.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member for his question. To give a very precise answer, the points in the Liberal position on treaty negotiations that we take issue with are points 5 and 11. But in order to take issue with them, I also
[ Page 14321 ]
have to reference point 1. Point 1 of the Liberal position is that the Liberals agree with us and would support resolving treaties in the context of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Basically they have affirmed the position that this government has taken with regard to the resolution of this issue. They have -- in a very appropriate way, I think -- said that this is bigger than politics; it's more important than politics. They want to enter this process and resolve these longstanding issues. I commend them on point 1.
When it comes to their point 5, they define private property. In parroting our comment that private property is not on the table, they then go on to describe private property as Crown lands, where there are leases or licences. While we take a very firm view with regard to such lands, we do not preclude them from being on the table. If they were precluded from being on the table, it would actually be in violation of the basic tenets of the task force report that I cited earlier. Therefore to say that you uphold point 1 and then say that you could not have Crown land on the table would really be inconsistent with the points in the task force report.
[3:15]
The second point in contention is where the Liberal opposition says that it would support a moratorium on interim measures. Again, that is inconsistent with the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force -- very inconsistent. It really denies the.... I don't know if I should say sincerity, but it certainly denies the appropriateness of point 1. Therein lies a very serious problem, in that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that we'll buy into this process and all that that entails, and then suddenly and unilaterally change it. That's not how effective negotiations can take place. There are two very clear.... It's not so much that they're disagreements with me and my position, but they're in direct conflict with the Treaty Commission process.
I would just add to that that I have cited on a few occasions the Sam Green case, where a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia lifted an injunction that was there since the time of the Socred government because they didn't have an interim measures process in place. In his judgment, he said that one of the reasons for doing this was that this government does have an interim measures process in place. I would think that that means that we're starting to get some legal framework around the appropriateness of what we're doing.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to quote to you from the Sun of April 9, 1994. It's from the Peat Marwick review of the fiscal state of the government, and it's talking about land claims. This is in the quote:
"The report does say that the ministry is supposed to negotiate all comprehensive land claims in British Columbia by the year 2000. While the largest cost associated with resolving land claims will be with the actual settlements -- land and cash -- the report says the cost of negotiations will be significant as well, and warned that the government may not be budgeting enough for funds for the talks."
My next question is for the minister and is a specific question for the government in this House. This is to try and understand what the minister meant when he introduced the estimates and said that an agreement must be fair and affordable; nothing less will be acceptable to the people of British Columbia. My question is for the minister. All that British Columbians are waiting for this government to state is: what is "affordable"?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have said many times -- and I have dealt with this question -- that treaties will be affordable. That has to mean that they fit in with the fiscal plan of the government. The fiscal plan of the government involves the elimination of the deficit, which we have achieved, and paying down the debt.
As I said in the House a few days ago, when treaties are resolved, there will be recognition of the fact that the major share of the cash component rests with the federal government. While there will be a certain amount coming out of a treaty that would be paid up front, most of it would be paid over a period of time in order to be able to allow for the careful management of that outlay and also to build that into the capacity of the first nation to come on stream with its economic development. We would seek to do that in a very strategic way, to enable the best possible economic improvement for the first nation as it seeks to achieve economic interdependence through what the first nation would give up in the negotiating of modern treaties. But the fact is that the costs will be offset by the economic benefits of certainty and self-sufficiency of aboriginal communities. If that is not in the offing at the end of the day, then treaties will not be signed, because they have to be a net benefit for both first nations and non-first nations.
So just to reiterate, agreements must be affordable for all British Columbians. If a treaty is not affordable and does not project greater benefits to the community than costs, then the province simply won't sign it. The federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained. The cost of treaties will not be borne by British Columbians alone; the costs will be borne by all Canadians. Now, I do recognize the point that says: "Well, we're all taxpayers, but I think it would be nice for a change to see some of those dollars coming back into the province." It might be nice for people in businesses and in different areas to know that money is not money that is sent out of the country and invested on the New York Stock Exchange, and that the money would be spent within those communities. It would be an economic stimulus, while at the same time enabling people to be moving towards greater economic self-sufficiency.
As I've said before, tax exemptions for aboriginal people will be phased out. We won't sign agreements that don't build in that incremental process of phasing out tax exemptions. Also, we will not sign any agreements that would allow any kind of tax haven to be created as a result of a treaty settlement. As I have said before, part of the cost of settling treaties is fair compensation -- where there is unavoidable disruption, that's another factor.
R. Chisholm: I still haven't heard any amount that the taxpayer in British Columbia might pay in this negotiation. I guess that's what I'm trying to get a handle on, and I think the people of British Columbia are too. I realize that there is a federal component to this, as well as provincial. Certainly the minister's negotiating team must have some sense of what this number must be. It's nice to say that citizens are being included in the process, but as taxpayers they worry that their definition of what is affordable is different from your government's definition. So my question for the minister is: what definition of "affordable" has he given to his negotiating team? They must have a better answer than what the minister has told this House so far.
[ Page 14322 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: As I have said, we go much further than that. We give instructions with regard to mandates on every aspect to our negotiating team, but we don't leave it at that. We insist that there be consultations with the public prior to treaty discussions beginning. We insist that the public be kept informed during treaty discussions. When we're in the agreement-in-principle stage, we insist that the public be consulted on a regular basis through the provincewide Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and the regional advisory committee, and that at the end of day, after an agreement in principle has been initialled, it would then go out for public review and public comment. The government would hear very clearly from the people with regard to their sense of the affordability of that document. Therefore at every step of the way, these issues are going to be very clearly spelled out, and the public will have ample opportunity to comment on such things as the cost and to look at the benefits in the context of the treaties that do emerge.
R. Chisholm: I've heard estimations as high as $8 billion. I'd just like to hear from the minister if there is an estimate of what it will cost British Columbians at the end of the day. Is there any sort of estimate? Has any sort of direction been given to the negotiating team as to how far they can or cannot go? The people of British Columbia would like to hear the answer to that. It would make them a little bit more comfortable with what is happening to them in this province.
Hon. J. Cashore: Very clear direction is given to the negotiators -- as I said a moment ago -- every step of the way. If the hon. member is asking for actual, precise amounts, he's asking a question that is completely unreasonable. What we have to do is deal with the costs and the benefits. There has to be a net benefit. At the end of the day, it has to be a result that really does not cost the taxpayers.
Even when you look at the cost-sharing formula that has been negotiated since these wildly inflated estimates that the member loves to repeat.... Since that time, we've seen the federal government get cold feet on the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement. That's because they see themselves having to pay what they do not feel they want to pay with regard to forgone revenues.
All of those issues are very complex. We are in the process of doing a continued cost-benefit analysis. I would remind the hon. member that we are at the very beginning of the process. We are just starting the negotiations with the Sechelt; that's the first negotiation to get underway at the AIP stage, outside of the Nisga'a negotiations.
R. Chisholm: Finally, on this question of affordability, which is the nub of the central question that concerns taxpayers -- what is affordable? -- if we don't address this question during these estimates, then are we really having any meaningful debate at all?
My question for the minister is: has he had any representation -- any whatsoever -- now that he knows that in the Liberal opposition's new 11-point program of guiding principles for treaty negotiations, point 4 is that treaties must be affordable...? My question is: what do the Liberals mean by affordable? Shouldn't the government be trying to find out from the Leader of the Official Opposition what his caucus means by affordable? It is important for the minister to find out directly from the Leader of the Official Opposition. Seeing as the minister can't answer the question.... His caucus members have no authority to speak on his behalf. What does the leader think British Columbians can afford? After all, the minister hasn't answered that question yet. Let's find out now. What does Liberal policy really mean when they say that treaties must be affordable?
As I read their 11-point program, I don't see much difference between what they propose and what the government is doing in its approach to treaty negotiations with first nations. My question for the minister: if he can't answer the question, has he any word at all for the Liberal opposition in terms of what they think is affordable?
Hon. J. Cashore: I find it extremely awkward to be caught in the middle of this terrible vendetta between this scorned member and the Liberal opposition. I feel that somehow I'm being manipulated into having to choose between parties that have gone through an unfortunate parting of the ways. If I were in my former life, I might offer pastoral counselling -- for a cut rate, if that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. If it wouldn't be a conflict, I would be glad to do that, hon. member.
I would have to say to this hon. member that if we went back to our discussion of about 15 minutes ago, when the hon. member was admonishing the government for failing to guarantee a $5 million loan that the bank said wasn't necessary.... Given that kind of fiscal responsibility, I think the general public, whether they are coming out of a Liberal or an NDP background, would say they certainly wouldn't want to support that kind of approach, which suggests that there be a loan guarantee when the bank doesn't want a loan guarantee.
So I think with regard to the question of affordability, I have answered the question. It has to be affordable within the context of the fiscal plan of the government. It cannot be an amount in any given year that would subvert the government's intention to significantly pay down debt. It has to fit into that sort of plan. Treaties must be affordable in the context in which.... This is not about putting toothpaste back into a tube; it's not about adding up all the value of resources that have been taken out of an area since contact time; and it's not about adding up all the moneys that have gone to pay for social services for first nations. It's not about that. It is about coming up with a reasonable treaty that is going to ensure that we can say goodbye to the kinds of relationships where the only economic opportunity for first nations has too often been in the area of storing toxic waste or selling cigarettes or being seen as a place for gambling. We need to do better than that, and that's what modern treaties are about.
[3:30]
R. Chisholm: Well, this spurned ex-Liberal, if you will, will stand up here again and debate the point about the fishermen's association to start with. And you had your numbers wrong, hon. minister. It was 75 percent of $10 million, which was the Penfund deal.
We don't know what the fiscal plan of this government is, and neither does the province of British Columbia. Especially after yesterday and the Bonneville fiasco, just what is the fiscal plan of government? The people of this province are asking: "How far are you going with this? What is it going to cost?" We haven't heard anything here this afternoon, and it's high time we did. And if you can't answer, well, maybe the leader
[ Page 14323 ]
of the Liberal opposition should answer the question for you, because it doesn't seem that this government wants to answer that question either. But the people of British Columbia want to know what the answer is.
In the constituency of Chilliwack, my constituents want settlement. Those residents who are first nations people want settlement of historic claims, and non-aboriginals definitely want settlement as well. But neither side really wants settlement that is not affordable by senior governments. Why spend months and even years in negotiations on pie-in-the-sky dreams that neither Ottawa nor Victoria can afford? British Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, need direction on what their senior governments have in mind on affordability.
Ottawa is no longer a goblet to be drained, and certainly there is no appetite by provincial taxpayers to see years wasted discussing settlements that in the end are not affordable. I want my citizens, my voters in Chilliwack, to know that I don't want my first nations constituents led down the path expecting something that's not on. And I certainly don't want the senior governments thinking that they have a secret definition of what is affordable which is different from what my taxpaying citizens in the constituency of Chilliwack think is affordable.
We need better answers than we have had thus far from the minister and the leader of the Liberals and the leaders of B.C. Reform, the Alliance and Social Credit. Let's all say what we think is affordable. Let's have the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Premier, even, come into this House during these estimates. The Liberal leader needs to say whether or not he even supports the 11-point program put forward by his critic. No answers from anyone on the question of affordability -- this is not acceptable to the taxpayers and the taxpayers of Chilliwack; it is not sufficient.
I hope I will not be alone in pressing on this issue. I look forward to what other private members have to say on this issue. Let's hear from the government -- the government back bench. Maybe they can help get the Liberal leader to come clean, to come to this House and defend the 11-point program put forward by his critic. I frankly don't see much difference between this program and the government's when it comes to guiding principles for treaty negotiations. But let's see if during these debates we can even get the Liberal leader into the House; let's see if we can get him to commit to a definition of affordability; and let's see if we can get this minister to come out with the same definition. Let's have a real debate in this assembly; let's get the Liberal leader here in this debating chamber before the election; let's get some real policy out of the Liberals and out of this government; let's have some action and assistance from the government back bench. Let's get the organ grinder in here, and let's get some real debate on these estimates. After all, we haven't heard much so far.
I thank the minister for his comments -- what few I did get. He has helped us all focus on this issue with his own lack of clarity on this subject. I appreciate that he would like to avoid the issue of affordability somewhat, but it's what the public wants to know about. Taxpayers want to know now what their senior governors think is affordable and what those who think they have the stuff to govern -- the Liberal leader in British Columbia and others -- think about this most important issue: affordability in land claims negotiations.
Hon. J. Cashore: Actually, I agree with a lot of the hopes and vision that the hon. member has with regard to his constituents. I don't think any MLA would in any way want to denigrate the hon. member's support for the aspirations of his constituents, whether they be first nations or members of the Sto:Lo nation. I would just point out that with regard to the Sto:Lo, they are just at the very beginning stages of the treaty negotiation process, having filed a statement of intent; they have not filed their opening positions. Under the context of the openness protocols that we're developing, I will be seeking to have, in general, the opening positions made available at the time they are available.
The only other thing I'd like to say is that I'm very hopeful that in the very near future, we will have the Nisga'a agreement that will define what we mean in that context. Again, let's remember that affordability covers a range of perhaps 20 topics that are part of the various mandate issues. They all exist in connection with each other.
C. Serwa: Just before we leave this area, I have a statement and a question for the minister on this. It's certainly a very interesting topic and one that the public wants to know a great deal more about. I have difficulty understanding the relationship between the government's position on the magnitude of the historical injustice on the one hand, and talking affordability on the other hand. To me, those two positions are really unrelated. It's like saying that in our penitentiary system, a person has committed a crime -- let's say it's armed robbery -- and the judge then refers to the book and asks how many prison cells are available and how long they are available for before determining a sentence. Really the sentence should have no relationship to the actual crime. When the minister is talking about historical injustices and then, at the same time, talking affordability, they're really not related. Either there are points of view with respect to historic injustices, and the compensation is the net result in an objective fashion, or there aren't. You really can't compromise your position, which you're doing right now in talking of affordability.
As we all know, ultimately the public at large has to be satisfied with the integrity of the process; the whole process has to be credible. The minister knows that full well, and he was talking about having public input at various stages all along the line. But the process is not complete with that, because it's all subjective. The minister, the ministry, and the negotiators.... The negotiators can be subjective in their assessment of the public input, and the public will never know what the public input is, because there's no factual way of accounting for it.
What we need is a sense of discipline in this government; what we need is a sense of discipline in the negotiators. That sense of discipline can only be acquired if the matter comes through to referendum for all of those individuals in the affected area. Native people have that opportunity, and that is part of the process. Non-native people in the affected area should have the equivalent opportunity, as part of the process, to ratify the process. That is the only way we're going to get an objective, fair and final treaty agreement that satisfies both the native concerns and the non-native concerns.
I agree with the minister that it's very difficult to quantify the dollar amount of what the ultimate cost will be to the province or to the government of Canada. Perhaps that's an important question. But perhaps it can be governed more
[ Page 14324 ]
wisely by the final process of public acceptance. If the public will accept.... The minister has gone and talked about the influence of the public on the whole process, but he's not willing to allow the public to have input, to get the final answer. The objective, final answer of the public can only be achieved through referendum.
I myself happen to believe in the personal sense of honesty, integrity, fairness and decency of all people. I believe that's an inherent sense. I believe that it exists in the native people and in the non-native people. It is my belief that if this process is to have the credibility it really requires, this type of opportunity should be made available. A referendum should be enabled for the people in the affected area. That is the only real opportunity we have of ensuring that objectivity and fairness come out foremost in the whole process.
Unless it is there, no amount of dialogue will convince the public that the process has been fair or final or objective. They will see that self-interest groups, specific interests or partisan interests have been stroked, but the public at large -- the non-native public -- is the only group exempted from this whole process in giving their final approval or disapproval to the process.
The fact is that if the approval is not given, then it means further work is required. We've just had the accord, for example -- the national vote -- turned down because the public didn't approve of where the governments were going. That's not a bad thing; that's democracy in action. The only way we can go along with something, even if it is controversial, is by the recognition that that inherent sense of decency and fair play is allowed to be a participant in this whole process. I hope the minister responds to that, because I think very highly of my fellow man. They should have that opportunity.
This would negate a lot of the controversial dialogue that goes on in here, because we can go armed and working together to resolve this. Yes, indeed, everyone wants this matter resolved, so that we can get on with life and so that the futures of the native and non-native people are focused and the foundation opportunities are all in place.
Until we have this concept of a referendum, the government is going to be suspect. The negotiators have absolutely no sense of discipline placed on them whatsoever, because the government hasn't been able, and is not able, to impose any discipline. Perhaps the minister would respond to that.
Hon. J. Cashore: When I hear a statement that the negotiators have no discipline imposed on them whatsoever, I have to wonder where that's coming from. I know that the former Minister of Native Affairs from the previous government is present in the House, and he's had relationships with negotiators. I have, and I think that negotiators function under the restrictions, requirements and discipline of the government. I think that is done well. They represent the people of the province well in a very, very difficult situation. After all, it is a complex situation.
First of all, with regard to the issue where the hon. member referred to me as using words to the effect of "the magnitude of historical injustice," I don't think that is a direct quote from these estimates. I may be wrong; it may have been a phrase I used. But I don't recall using it and don't believe I used the phrase.
I just said about ten minutes ago, in response to another question, what this is not about. It is not about adding up all the values of the resources that have been taken out of an area, such as the Peat Marwick study that was done up in the Nass. It's not about adding that up and saying: "Somehow we have to pay for that." That's not what it's about; nor is it about adding up all the moneys that have been spent through DIAND on various programs. It's not about that, either. In both instances, it would be a very costly exercise to ascertain that, and there's really nothing beneficial that would come out of it. So it's not about that, very clearly.
It is about achieving modern treaties that create a new relationship; and in order to achieve that, as I've said many times in this debate, parties have to be prepared to give something up in order to get something better. That goes for the first nations as well as everybody else.
[3:45]
This word "certainty" is, I think, bandied about a lot, and perhaps it's used too much, for want of better words to help describe what we seek to achieve here. One of the things I have said very clearly, over and over again, is that first nations would be giving up their aboriginal rights before B.C. would ever sign a treaty.
Treaties are about getting rid of the Indian Act. They are about getting rid of an old paternalistic system that did not work. They are about creating a new relationship. Treaty rights would be negotiated to replace what are currently aboriginal rights. That would be done in the context of a modern negotiation with everybody's eyes wide open.
Another thing: what would first nations be giving up? We would not sign a treaty unless there was within that treaty a process for getting rid of section 87, the tax exemption on Indian lands. This is about change; it's about a new relationship; it's about people who, hopefully, as a result of this process, will achieve the kind of self-esteem and self-respect that comes out of economic interdependence and the ability to deal incrementally with the appalling employment rates in their regions, the appalling rate of infant mortality and the appalling rate of teen suicide.
It's not going to be done through a paternalistic relationship. We've learned that bitter lesson. The old system hasn't worked. We have to find a new way of doing this, and we believe that there has to be a respectful relationship among the three parties at the table in order to achieve honourable agreements.
To get on now to the hon. member's points about the openness, again, I just want to assure hon. members that since estimates first started, we have spent several hours on the issue of openness. I just want you to know that. We really have; we've had very thorough and exhaustive debate, I think, on the issue of openness. I have stated again and again, and I've read into the record, our key positions with regard to openness. Openness is the starting point in negotiations, and closed negotiations would be the exception. I've pointed out that there was an article in the paper the other day that said that B.C. has only six openness agreements, and that there are 43 nations at the table. The fact is that there won't be any negotiations unless there's an openness agreement. We won't agree to negotiate without an openness agreement, and I'm very proud to report that we now have seven openness agreements in place. Another one was added just within the last few days.
[ Page 14325 ]
The details of treaties will be made public prior to being signed by the province, they will go out to the public and we will hear from the public. All agreements in principle will be taken to the public for review; all final agreements, to the Legislature for ratification. Local government participation in the treaty process is guaranteed, and all British Columbians will have an opportunity to be heard. We are committed to ensuring meaningful input from local communities and third parties. Yes, we are learning as this process, which is really in a very infant stage, gets up and running.
Some have been saying that the government is out there negotiating treaties in secret, behind closed doors. This isn't true, because the negotiations haven't started. I know it's a very complex situation, and sometimes when I say that, the answer comes back: "Yes, but what about the interim measures?" We've taken very stringent steps to deal with that openness issue insofar as the interim measures are involved. So we've heard from the public. We've done what the public said needs to be done with regard to openness around interim measures. Also, the other reference that is made is: "Well, what about the Nisga'a negotiations?" The hon. Leader of the Third Party was in the House the other day when we had quite a go-round on that, so I'm not going to get back into that now -- just to refer you back to the comments that both of us made at that time.
The point is, hon. member, that we say with regard to a referendum that it's too little too late. It's too late in the day. You disagree on that. We agree to disagree. We say the process of public involvement has to begin at a much earlier stage than has happened in the past, and it has to be diligently applied at every stage of the way. If it isn't, the government is going to be judged on that. That's a simple political fact. The people expect that to happen; they have a right for it to happen. And we have a responsibility to see that it does happen.
But remember this: sometimes you'll have an individual in an advisory committee, such as a caller to an open-line program that I was on the other day, who will say: "I went to the regional advisory committee, and they didn't follow my advice. So I left, and I didn't go back." I think that's unfortunate. The fact is that this is a time for people to hang in, because if people walk away from the table and away from the opportunities they have for input, then they remove that opportunity for all time. I don't think this is about quitters.
At the same time, I do have to recognize that because we're trying at this historic time to make change -- change that will achieve certainty, change that will deal with the fact that we've got these roads in trespass that need to be resolved and all those kinds of changes -- that is going to mean, in order to have appropriate public consultation, that a lot of good people out there are going to find it's an onerous task for them. We do recognize that. We have therefore come up with two experimental projects, one in Prince George and one in Smithers, to assist the local municipalities in setting up storefront operations to help them disseminate information from their perspective with regard to the treaty-making process.
With regard to the question of a referendum, I will be very brief because I've made these arguments before. It's simply to say that I believe that referenda have a history in this country of dividing communities, not binding them together. That can be demonstrated.
I also think referenda create an enormous administrative and cost factor. When we are dealing with the fact that all the citizens of British Columbia and of Canada are taxpayers, and when you get right into specific areas and talk about where you would draw the line and how you would define it, it becomes a problem. I know the hon. Leader of the Third Party doesn't agree with that, but I believe it is a problem.
We had, again on the same open-line program the other day, the negotiator for the Hartley Bay band stating that in the area where he lives there are no non-aboriginal people. So how would you define it? I'll try an answer for that myself. I'd say, if I had to do a referendum, that I'd have to try to define it as a functional economic area, so that people living in a particular area where the treaty was being negotiated would recognize that what was happening there was going to impact people out in Prince Rupert, Port Edward and other communities.
But the fact of the matter remains that we do have an agreement to disagree here over where you would draw the line. Indeed, some Canadian taxpayers living in other provinces would want to vote on this. So I don't think there's any point in us getting into a long-drawn-out harangue on this. I think we should take our opportunities to put our positions before the public. I just want to say very openly that some of us agree to disagree on this point.
I noticed the other day that the federal Reform Party has stated that they don't agree on referenda except in certain circumstances. I had never read that before with regard to their position. I believe I heard Mike Scott say once that he was opposed to referenda. I think their position has been modified somewhat.
It's an interesting debate. But I really think that if we get focused on the referenda issue, we will miss the boat. The boat is public involvement every step of the way and doing it in a way that is very respectful of those people the hon. member refers to, who are good people out there who have a right to be heard, and when they are expressing their legitimate concerns, they do have a right to have their questions answered.
J. Weisgerber: I came in to speak on a somewhat different topic, but the minister has now piqued my interest in returning to the issue of referendums, and so I will too.
Let me say this. I believe that there should be a process for ratification of agreements in principle -- those reached by the band by way of referendum of band members or tribal council members resident in and members of the group in the traditional claim territory. That's pretty straightforward -- a pretty clear geographical area,and pretty clear who would vote on the referendum to ratify the position negotiated by the band or tribal council negotiators.
Our position is that there should be a similar referendum held in exactly the same geographical region which would allow people who are not members of the band or tribal council -- non-aboriginal people -- to ratify the position taken by the province's negotiators. There is absolutely no reason, first of all, to believe that if aboriginal people are going to have an opportunity to vote and ratify the deal their negotiators have reached, other British Columbians living in the same geographical area should not have an opportunity to do precisely the same thing -- not to ratify the position by the federal government; the federal government is free to develop its own ratification process. There should be a process for
[ Page 14326 ]
British Columbians to ratify the agreement in principle on treaties in the areas where they are most directly affected -- the areas in which they are resident.
The minister says that's far too late in the process. I disagree entirely. I believe that the reason the Charlottetown accord failed on referendum across Canada was that the parties to the negotiation came to an agreement behind closed doors in a pressure cooker situation in Ontario, and then brought it back to Canadians and said: "What do you think of this?" In enormous numbers, they turned thumbs down on it -- they didn't like it. Some of the biggest numbers rejecting the Charlottetown accord were in the northeast part of British Columbia, where I happen to reside. But British Columbians, Canadians, rejected the deal because they didn't understand how it had been developed, didn't understand any of the compromises that had been made, and understood -- perhaps all too well -- that they didn't like some parts of it.
I believe that a good referendum ratification process would do a number of things. It would force those people -- all three parties to the negotiations -- to make more realistic.... It would cause the negotiators to bring in more realistic opening positions, because you would have to open the process up at the very beginning and allow those people in the traditional territory to follow the process through to ratification. I can't for a moment accept.... I'd like the minister to explain to me why it is that he supports ratification by way of referendum for band members and, indeed, agrees not only that a majority of voting band members should be required to ratify the deal but that a majority of band members or tribal council members eligible to vote must in fact ratify the deal. I expect the minister understands the criteria -- the threshold that's been set for the aboriginal community. A majority of members eligible to vote must vote in favour; anyone who doesn't vote is counted as voting against. Why, then, wouldn't the minister agree to a simple referendum for ratification of the province's position -- nothing to do with the federal government -- that simply says yes or no to a series of questions around the treaty.
I'll go this much further. I don't think that a local referendum by non-aboriginals living in the traditional territory should deal with the cash components of the agreement. Those are cash payments that are going to be made by British Columbians and Canadians generally, and the referendum should be more focused on local issues. Would the minister then tell us why he believes there should be a ratification by referendum for band or tribal council members, and that the same right shouldn't be extended to non-aboriginals with regard to the ratification of their provincial government's position?
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: I did agree with the hon. member when he was referring to secrecy and lack of knowledge with regard to Charlottetown. I think those were two real problems in terms of the way in which that issue was handled. I think he made a good point that we have to really recognize the importance of dealing completely with secrecy and that we do that in the ways I've outlined -- through the openness procedures I've outlined and through getting information out. That really needs to be done; there's no question about that and I don't apologize for saying that. I think we have to do the very best job that is humanly possible in getting information out there. Therefore it's somewhat inaccurate to say that when a referendum comes along, people would not have had input up to that stage.
As a matter of fact, the openness protocols that have been negotiated are allowing for cable television to come into the negotiations -- onto the main table -- except for those instances when the three chief negotiators agree that there needs to be confidentiality similar to the confidentiality in section 7.2 of the Leader of the Third Party's framework agreement. The point is that openness is the order of the day. The public can have access; the public can be there. They can have input. They can participate in the regional committees; they can participate in the regional processes -- in the forums. There are a wide variety of processes that we have put in place that did not exist in the day of the hon. Leader of the Third Party. The processes that we have put in place did not exist at that time. Maybe they would have come to exist, but they did not exist at that time except in a very skeletal way.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
I also would point out that the hon. member used the phrase "behind closed doors." That simply is not correct. When you look at the openness agreements.... I would ask him to review those agreements. In the case of the Sechelt he said very positive words about that openness agreement -- that it was really headed in the right direction. I also took his positive words as indicating that he recognized that it was superior to the document that he had signed. I also would point out that at the time that the hon. member was the Minister of Native Affairs there was not one word, not one mention, of referenda coming from him or from anyone in his ministry that I'm aware. To be suddenly converted to this process at this time, I think, begs a few questions.
With regard to his question about the first nations and the process for first nations ratification, I think he knows that is there for very practical reasons. For one thing, it is a very clearly defined group of people within a geographical area. Another is that it's a requirement of the courts in relation to the issue of certainty, and it is to ensure that we can avoid any kind of a court challenge following the result of the treaty being concluded. So there very clearly are requirements that this ratification process involve a referendum of the first nation, which is indeed necessary.
With regard to the point that the hon. member was making about it not being difficult to define a geographical area in which there would be a referendum, I'd just like to point out that I.... He might want to explain a little further what he was referring to. But if I again go back to the example I gave a while ago, the negotiator for the Hartley Bay band said there are no non-aboriginal people living in the area of the claim. Now I don't necessarily.... I'd have to look at that. Maybe there are one or two non-aboriginal people -- I don't know.
My understanding is that in the area of the claim of the Nisga'a, there are approximately 250 non-aboriginal people living. That doesn't include Terrace. I would argue that people in Terrace would argue that it's part of a functional economic area, and that they would feel that a referendum wasn't doing them much good if they weren't included in it, if there was a decision to go the route of referenda. I think that if the hon. member had responsibility for this, he might then say: "Well, let's include Terrace." But then somebody would say: "What
[ Page 14327 ]
about Kitimat? Lots of people in Kitimat have economic relationships with people and businesses up on the Nass. Let's include Kitimat."
Pretty soon we'd have Smithers, then Prince George and Prince Rupert, and then we'd have people down in Vancouver saying that they wanted to be included in the referendum. And pretty soon we'd have an issue where there is not a clearly defined formula available to define that -- except if he is saying that it would be adequate to have the 250 non-aboriginal people in the Nisga'a claim area vote. Then I don't think it delivers on some of the points that he says it should deliver on with regard to including the perspective of those who are potentially affected by a treaty.
So I again say that we agree to disagree on this. It's an important debate, and I think it's a good debate for these estimates. But we believe, and I say again, that it's too little too late. We have to be doing a much better job than was done at the beginning of the Nisga'a negotiations. We have to be doing a much better job at the very beginning and at every stage along the way in this process.
J. Weisgerber: There are so many questions the minister raises. Indeed, his description of the sort of expanding group of people who would be involved in a ratification vote makes me want to go over and be a negotiator on the other side of the table -- if, indeed, the minister could be moved to expand in that way. I think my description of the area was pretty definite.
I'm curious, though, for the minister to tell me if he has decided now that only Nisga'a and others living in their traditional territories are going to be empowered to vote by way of referenda. Are band members, tribal council members, living off reserve not going to be able to participate in a ratification vote? I rather doubt that.
It seems to me, with regard to the arguments around the numbers -- the population -- of aboriginal versus non-aboriginal in the geographic claim area, that that argument would swing both ways. There are areas like the Nass where, beyond the people living in Stewart, who are very directly affected and who are resident in the geographic area, there might be a relatively small non-aboriginal group called on to ratify the province's position.
If we're talking about Musqueam, Songhees or any of the groups living in close proximity to large metropolitan areas, the reverse will be the case: the number of band members ratifying in relationship to the number of non-aboriginal people living in the traditional territory will be reversed. I don't think that that makes the ratification process by either group any less important, any less relevant, any less genuine. So I think the minister raises straw men -- in fact, defeats his own argument -- simply by the reality of the population distribution around British Columbia.
The minister likes to talk about secrecy and likes to say that if only he had his way with the Nisga'a agreements, there would be greater openness. The minister then says that in their new openness protocols, they've included a section that sounds like it is very similar to section 7.2 in the Nisga'a framework. He spent the last two or three years travelling around British Columbia using that as a shield for not providing information on the Nisga'a. He acknowledges that in those areas where the three parties don't want public involvement, don't want the cameras in and don't want openness, there will be in camera negotiations. The minister is using exactly the same rationale to apply to his new openness agreements that he has lamented all over this province with regard to the Nisga'a.
Let me say also that there has not been the openness that the minister likes to talk about applied in the negotiation of those interim agreements. People have been kept out. There have been 50 interim agreements negotiated, and there hasn't been openness. There hasn't been a framework agreement signed by anyone that would have prevented the minister and his government from providing the kind of openness that he likes to pretend he will bring to future negotiations.
The minister's arguments on this whole issue of openness versus confidentiality just don't stand up to the test of the facts. The facts are that with the Sechelt and others, the government is bringing in a clause that sounds like it's exactly parallel to the one the minister laments with regard to the Nisga'a. On interim agreements -- where there is no federal government involvement; there's only the province and the band -- there hasn't been openness.
Where was the openness when the Clayoquot agreement was reached? Where was the openness when the agreement in Penticton was reached? I challenge the minister to tell us that there was openness with the Penticton agreement. People were denied an opportunity to sit in on those negotiations. There were consultations, but there was certainly no openness. I could go through interim agreement after interim agreement and tell you that the people affected by those interim agreements do not believe and do not accept an argument of openness. Indeed, there was a total lack of access for the people who were most directly affected.
Perhaps the minister could try and tell us how he intends to apply openness and still adopt a section 7.2 in some other version in those openness protocols. How can the minister rationalize his commitment to openness with his actions and his government's actions with regard to interim agreements?
Hon. J. Cashore: What this hon. member doesn't understand is the comparison between the process that he wrote and signed and the process that we have insisted on. There's a very clear departure in the two processes. Openness is a starting point with the negotiations that we will be a party to and for which we have had a role in designing the framework agreements and the openness protocols; whereas openness is the exception in the Nisga'a protocol. The hon. member knows that. He's standing up in this House, and he's trying to make it sound as though it's the same thing, and it's not. I refer the hon. member to his own words, when he praised the openness protocol at the time that it was released pursuant to the Sechelt negotiations.
All we have to do is compare the two documents: the Nisga'a document and the openness protocol, six of which I have here. There's a difference, hon. member, between day and night. There's nothing in the Nisga'a document, which I've read several times, that says anything about the availability of television in the room, that those people who aren't able to go there and attend -- because it's open -- can watch it on television. That's not in the Nisga'a document.
As a matter of fact, I can tell the hon. member that it's still a challenge to try and get documents out before the light of day, even when that is very much the province's desire, because of the document that the hon. member is so proud of
[ Page 14328 ]
that he wrote and signed. They are very, very different, hon. member; there's no question about that. He knows that I have tabled this information before. I'm prepared to make these protocols available to him. But even the way the document is made up, it deals with a purpose, which is to guide the parties on openness. That's not the opening statement in the protocol that the hon. member wrote and signed -- not at all. And then it gets into principles, the principle with the Sechelt: "Openness of the treaty negotiation process will lead towards a better public understanding and awareness of the interest considered by Sechelt, Canada and British Columbia in negotiation of a treaty." No principle like that is stated within the Nisga'a document. "Openness will provide opportunities for local communities and the general public to be informed as the negotiation of the treaty proceeds; openness is intended to increase public confidence in the process" -- and so forth. The hon. member himself knows this is a good document, because he praised it very, very freely and openly, and I do appreciate that.
[4:15]
With regard to a comment the hon. member was making when he was talking about the area that might be considered in his concept of where you would have a referendum, again, I don't think he has responded to the issue of where you would draw the line. With the city of Terrace being outside the Nisga'a traditional territory, I would think that to be consistent with some of the interesting points that he has made, and he'd be in a bit of a bind if he excluded Terrace. Now he may stand up and say: "No, I would include Terrace." That's my point. It's sort of "Well, include this and include that," and pretty soon we're including Corner Brook, Newfoundland, hon. members. I think we have to think about that.
But I'm really not sure of the advantage of us belabouring the point on referenda. I think we agree to disagree. And I believe the official opposition takes a position where they don't support referenda. We've all had an opportunity to make our points on that.
With regard to the question he asked about the first nations, yes, the hon. member is correct: first nations would be able to vote no matter where they lived, as long as they were part of the agreed-upon enrolment list. So if they're on the list, they get to vote; he's right about that.
J. Weisgerber: Just so you're absolutely clear, our proposal is that non-aboriginal people must be resident in the geographic area covered by the claim, by the boundaries accepted by the Treaty Commission -- overlaps resolved, I hope, at least before the government moves forward to negotiations. And, indeed, British Columbians will have one opportunity to vote on a referendum in the area affecting the area in which they reside and are entitled to vote -- very straightforward. I'm not waffling the words. I'm going to hear the arguments about tariffs, but those are the arguments that the minister chooses to create. I accept the fact that the aboriginal vote will be provincewide, perhaps across the country. But for the purposes of referendums on ratification of land claims, I believe each British Columbian should have an opportunity to vote once on the claim affecting the area in which that person is resident and entitled to vote -- simple, straightforward and pretty easy to understand. If the minister wants to cut off the debate and say that we agree to disagree, fair enough.
Let me come back to the issue that I have been trying to press the minister on and which he has been quite skilfully talking around, and that is the whole question of openness and the protocol that he professes, as applied to interim agreements. It hasn't been applied, the minister knows it hasn't been applied, and I think that the minster speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says he wants greater openness. He wants an openness protocol, but he has negotiated 40 or 50 interim agreements in which he has denied access to negotiations around interim agreements to those people most directly affected by the agreement.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question, we'll be glad to provide the hon. member with the lists of consultations that have taken place in relation to the interim measure he is referring to. He's aware that those have already been applied for under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy laws, but we will very willingly make that information available to him.
I don't want to belabour this point about referendums, but if I understood the hon. member correctly in terms of how he would define the referendum area, it sounds to me that he's defining it even more narrowly than I had understood in what he just said. If that is the case, that would mean that a very small number of British Columbians would be making decisions that would impact other British Columbians. For instance, Terrace is not within the land claim area of the Nisga'a negotiations, yet there are a lot of people in Terrace who have a very real interest in what happens there.
Another example is that there are a lot of people.... I think we're all aware of the intense concern among fishers and the fishing industry. There are a lot of people in Richmond who fish in the northern waters in the summer, and I'm not sure that they would be very happy with the definition of what this hon. member is putting out there. But it's good that he is putting a definition out there, because when you see that in the cold light of day, it is far more limited in delivering the goods than the general public that he's trying to reach would realize. On an open-line program the other day I was talking to an individual who very clearly expected, on the basis of what this hon. member has been saying, that he would be able to vote on each and every treaty in British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, we have had a discussion. I have defined it. If the minister believes that the majority of British Columbians would be opposed to the proposal I put forward, I challenge him to put it to referendum and allow all British Columbians to decide. Indeed, I think the minister would find that he....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: I guess you get a bit numb in this House, but the minister says: "We've got an openness protocol on interim agreements." I know that, because I have an application into the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to get a copy of it. If indeed these are open consultations and if this is public information, why can't I go down and pick up a copy of it? It's not available. I've got to apply through freedom-of-information. The minister hasn't allowed people.... So the minister says: "I will provide for you under freedom-of-information...."
An Hon. Member: He speaks with a forked tongue.
[ Page 14329 ]
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, my colleague sums it up rather accurately.
This debate is one that I'm sure will rage on much longer than these estimates. In finishing up, I want to take my place and make room for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and acknowledge that with respect to the Sechelt agreement and the signing of the framework agreement, the minister for some reason was not there. No members of the government were present for the signing of the Sechelt agreement. Indeed, only the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and myself were there as elected people interested enough to go and observe the proceedings and indeed celebrate with the Sechelt people, who have been waiting longer than they should for an opportunity to start their negotiations.
With that I'll take my place, and come back because I have a host of issues that I'm anxious to address.
H. Giesbrecht: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Giesbrecht: The member for Prince George-Omineca has informed me that visiting in the gallery today we have the chairman of the Terrace School Board, Mr. John Pousette, who is observing the proceedings. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member suggests that the only way he can get the information he is referring to is through an FOI request. I'm advised that the hon. member hasn't requested the information from the ministry. If he had requested it we would have provided it to him; we'll provide it to him now. I assume that the FOI request hasn't been processed yet; we will be most happy to give the hon. member that information. I'm not sure why he would say that we refused to give him the information. It's our information that we haven't been asked.
With regard to another point he made relating to Sechelt.... He suggested that there was an affront in the lack of my presence at the initialling of the framework agreement with the Sechelt. That was not the case at all, hon. member. I have the greatest respect for the Sechelt. I have been present with them in a number of settings, and I'm very interested in their proceedings. The formal ceremonial signing -- which has not taken place yet -- will take place. I will be present, as will Minister Irwin of the federal government. We are in the process of establishing an appropriate date. We will make sure that the hon. member is aware of that date and that the hon. member who is the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is aware of that date also. There will be a ceremonial time when the appropriate respect will be paid by the federal and provincial ministers at the signing of the framework agreement. It's only been initialled to date. We will be present at that time.
J. Weisgerber: As a point of clarification, we could both go back and read the Hansard Blues. But with respect to my statements regarding the lack of information around interim agreements, the minister in his response suggested that through freedom of information those would be available. My point was exactly that the minister can't suggest that there is openness and then refer me to freedom of information as a means of having access to those documents.
A. Warnke: I just want to follow up on the comments made by the member for Peace River South; this is also in the context of the Sechelt case. Perhaps at a later opportunity we'll talk about the Sechelt model. With regard to the ratification of the treaty with the Sechelt, to begin with there has been self-government in the Sechelt region under the federal and provincial act since 1987. There was a comment made by a provincial representative in meeting the people of Sechelt that each and every aboriginal has the right to vote for or against acceptance of the terms of the treaty -- the ratification of the treaty with Sechelt. Following from this debate, I think what is worthwhile to explore is the right of the aboriginal people there to vote for or against the acceptance of the terms of the treaty. Is it on the basis of unanimity or on the basis of some sort of majority? I ask this because if only a majority vote is required, the prospect remains for dissenters -- those who vote against or whatever -- to raise the issue again. I say this because the Sechelt case is different from most bands in the rest of British Columbia that we've discussed so far in these debates, because other bands have not established a self-government body yet. No self-government body exists; it has yet to be approved. Yet in the case of the Sechelt there is a representative body; therefore I'm wondering why the provincial representative claimed that every aboriginal has the right to vote for or against the acceptance of the terms of the treaty, when in fact there is a representative body for the Sechelt. Why is every aboriginal Sechelt individual given this? Then, and connected to this, of course, why not extend the vote to every resident of Sechelt -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike?
[4:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: The first part of the hon. member's question, if I understand it, had to do with the ratification process that the Sechelt nation would follow at the conclusion of that particular treaty. The Sechelt position on that, as I understand it, is that each party shall ratify the settlement in its own lawfully constituted way -- then characterizing themselves, the Sechelt process, being pursuant to section 17(2) of the Sechelt band constitution. I don't have those details. Ratification is the title of an issue that's subject to negotiation in the treaty-making process, so we do not have an agreed-upon answer to that question until it is determined at the table. It's my understanding that with regard to the ratification process of the Sechelt themselves -- the Sechelt Indian band -- the definition of that process will be achieved as one of the negotiation topics at the table.
With regard to the question, "Why not have the vote among everybody in Sechelt?" I think it's an interesting suggestion. To be quite honest, I have to think about it a bit; it's raising some interesting thoughts, given the unique nature of Sechelt. I don't want you to hear my answer as some kind of dogmatic refusal to consider that question.
But again, I still think that when we're talking about referenda, the fact does apply that they are settlements that have the involvement of taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada, and therefore, for that reason, it raises legitimate questions that people who live outside of that area would have with regard to what their role might be in ratification once that process is opened up.
[ Page 14330 ]
Apart from the taxpayer issue, there is also the issue that.... For want of a better term, I keep referring to functional economic areas. I'm thinking about people who don't live there but who are involved in various ways in the commerce of the area. Their considerations are also a factor.
A. Warnke: Just to follow up a little on it, I'm very aware that in the terms that are going to be laid out, each party -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- has their own legally or lawfully constituted way of doing things, I'm sure. Under section 17(2) of the Sechelt band constitution, they have -- for want of a better word -- a referendum process.
I would like to have the minister respond to something along this line, which is really a follow-up to this earlier question. It has been put.... I have here one letter, for example, from Sechelt. Tax-paying citizens of Sechelt, who are not only aboriginals but non-aboriginals as well.... The interpretation of tax-paying citizens of Sechelt who are non-aboriginal is that the federal and provincial governments decide on their behalf, and no referendum is required. From that perspective, there is a perception that there are two classes of citizens: (1) those who can vote on a treaty as stipulated under section 17(2) of the Sechelt band constitution; and (2) those who have no say because they supposedly have federal and provincial government representatives deciding on their behalf.
They don't have any say, but they have to live with its implications, including footing most of the bill, which in the Sechelt case comes to an estimation of over $77 million. There has been some comment by the federal cabinet on the memorandum of December 1984. An estimated $60,000 package value per capita is based on the Inuvialuit final agreements; and once the adjustment is made to December 31, 1994, $60,000 is increased to $85,500. Multiply that by the number of Sechelt band members, which is about 910, and that's where you come up with the magic figure of over $77 million. That's an aside, but there is that bill to be footed. Those who have no say claim that they have to foot the bill.
What I'm just following up on is this: what does the minister say to non-aboriginal tax-paying citizens who believe that each and every individual has a right to vote on some form of binding vote -- call it a referendum or something else -- accepting or rejecting any treaty with the Sechelt band and Sechelt aboriginals?
G. Wilson: I'm very tempted to go directly into discussion on some questions I have with respect to the Sechelt issue, since it's on the table; however, I would reserve the right to come back to that.
I do want to go to the minister with questions on two very specific issues that are not related to Sechelt. The first is the Seven Peaks interim agreement, and the second one is with respect to the procedures of the federal government with respect to the Adams Lake situation, where I know there are activities underway as we speak.
On the first issue of the Seven Peaks interim agreement, my concern is for clarification with respect to the process by which the technical committee that's been struck is working. We have already established within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks an opportunity for environmental assessment and a proper environmental referral process that would accommodate the concerns of first nations people, the regional district and private interests in that area. It would seem that what has been negotiated with the government is a technical committee that is running a parallel process on referrals and has provided for the first nations -- in this case, the Penticton band but also other bands that are in that area -- an opportunity for a parallel process with respect to environmental review. If the minister might tell us why we have gone that route and whether or not my assessment, first of all, is correct, maybe we could then move into some other matters of substance on this question.
Hon. J. Cashore: We did not agree to an environmental review; the project did not meet the threshold of requirement for an environmental review. What we did agree on was a process that would enable us to deal with our responsibilities coming out of the Delgamuukw case.
G. Wilson: I'm assuming that the minister is referring to rights to resource, or aboriginal rights, as defined in the Delgamuukw ruling.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we're referring to the potential impact of development activity on Crown land where it may impact on an aboriginal right, where we have a requirement that we must consult to ascertain whether or not there's an aboriginal right.
G. Wilson: I don't take issue with that. I recognize that there is a need for consultation. My question is with respect to the process that's been set up. The reason I raise this issue -- so that we don't kind of dance around it, because I'd like to come directly to the heart of the concern -- is that the parallel process, the technical committee that's been struck, has no local government representation. It has representation from the ministry; it has representation from first nations; it has representation from other ministries; but it doesn't have representation from local government. I question why that's so, because within the regional district of an area, there is already an approval process for developments that may be using Crown land, with an approved referral process through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and other associated agencies, including first nations. I guess what I'm asking is: why do we need this technical committee, when we've already got a referral process established through local government? And if we are going to have this technical committee, why would we not include local government on it?
Hon. J. Cashore: The technical committee is a means for consultation to take place between the province and the band to review the issues that are contentious, and the province, in the process of dealing with that, consults very widely. We have lists of those with whom we consult, including the municipality. So those consultations do take place.
With regard to the understandable point that the member raises -- that there are already consultation procedures in place as part of another process, and why not just use that -- it's my understanding that even with that in place, we still need the means to sit down with the three bands and discuss with them the issues that they feel need to be addressed, in the context of the Delgamuukw requirements.
[ Page 14331 ]
G. Wilson: I'm very familiar with the Delgamuukw case, and I think that the minister is somewhat overstating the case in this instance. It would appear to me -- perhaps I've got this wrong -- that as a result of the blockade that was quite contentious with respect to the Apex resort, as a part of the negotiation to have the Penticton band remove the blockade and to allow for access up to the Apex, Green Mountain and Nickel Plate areas, the government has agreed to set up this technical committee which provides for ongoing consultation with respect to environmental matters. I understand that part of it is with respect to access to water. Water is one of the key components, I think, in this negotiation -- unless I'm wrong, and I don't believe I am.
The difficulty I note is that Mr. Stuart Phillips of the Penticton band has indicated that this band along with others is now watching this issue very closely with respect to how successful this process may be. They're anticipating that out of this technical committee will come some form of process for agreement on how we should proceed on these matters. This band is not actually involved in the Treaty Commission process, as the minister is well aware. We're in danger of creating here another whole parallel process for interim agreements between the band and the government, which will ultimately be a position that will be put on the table in some future negotiation.
This is a very dangerous proposition for the government to enter into, because we have an established process, the Treaty Commission process. Notwithstanding what we may individually or collectively think about it, whether it's good bad or indifferent, and notwithstanding what the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs or the Penticton band may think about it, it is the established process. The Sechelts, who believed they had a very valid case to move ahead without it, were forced into it. In fact, all bands, with the exception of Nisga'a, have been forced into that process.
[4:45]
What I see happening here, through this establishment of this technical committee, is another process being put in place, which is being given legitimacy by the provincial government with respect to negotiation. The only reason that's come about is the refusal of the Penticton band in particular -- I believe the other two bands are a little less strident on this question -- to deal with it in any other fashion. The minister could comment on that, because we're really marching down a rather dangerous path here.
Hon. J. Cashore: The technical process that I referred to operates entirely within provincial law, with time frames. It is a process that enables us at a table to be talking about issues of great concern to the Penticton band and the other bands involved in this process. In the context of some of the comments the hon. member made, I'd point out that, to my knowledge, the Penticton band is not now pursuing a treaty, and I am not aware of their intent to do so.
We are seeking to work through this process to resolve what everybody recognizes is a contentious issue, relating to the fact that there are some unresolved historical issues that are difficult to deal with and that we are seeking to deal with. We do have a role, as I said, to have a process for identifying aboriginal interests. But I don't think we should take from the Seven Peaks agreement that it's a template for any other part of the province. It's the process we developed to deal with a site-specific issue some time ago, and that's how that process came to be.
G. Wilson: I refer the minister to a letter -- and not to be unfair, because he may not have it with him; in fact, he probably doesn't. It's dated April 25, 1995, from the elected representative for the Keremeos or rural Hedley region of the regional district, Mr. Roger Mayer, in which he writes to the minister. He outlines his concern, as a duly elected member of the regional district, that they are unable to secure a seat on this technical committee. His concerns are well voiced here. I don't know if the minister has a copy of that letter. If not, I'd be happy to send this over for your perusal, as long as I can get it back. Maybe I'll do that.
I think what Mr. Mayer indicates here are really three concerns. The first concern is that there is no direct representation from the regional district, and I think that is important, because there are grazing rights and interests of people in that area that are going to be greatly affected with respect to this region.
Secondly, as an elected member of the regional district, that individual should have some authority on any technical committee that's going to be making land use recommendations which may in fact run contrary to, run parallel to or even support, in some instances, what the regional district is putting in place with respect to the overall regional plan. How can they properly plan if it's a parallel process that's at work that they don't have direct input on?
Thirdly -- and this is very important -- I think the issue is that he draws attention to the fact that they are very concerned there is a possibility, as a result of this technical committee, that some interim agreement will be signed which may jeopardize future negotiations when and if the Penticton band ever decide they're going to get on board with the Treaty Commission process and advance their comprehensive claim.
I think these are very legitimate concerns, and I think a lot of it could be solved if the minister would agree that any technical committee should have representation from the regional district -- should have an elected regional member participating and sitting on that committee.
If the minister would undertake to look into this matter and see the wisdom of that request, I think maybe we could solve what otherwise is going to become a rather festering sore in that area. There are some pretty strong feelings as a result of past activity, which we don't really want to revisit. I think that Mr. Mayer offers a reasonable compromise in his suggestions.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, the technical committee is dealing entirely with matters of provincial jurisdiction. We are consulting as we go along. I believe there is an assumption in the first paragraph of the letter that is incorrect, where the letters states: "I am very concerned that if the province develops a long term agreement with the native bands in this area, they are clearly beginning to develop an agreement which will ultimately form part of any future treaty." That is not what this process is about. It is not about that. With that underlying assumption, I can see how the logic goes in a certain way. Therefore I believe this is a process to ensure that provincial issues -- where there are areas of
[ Page 14332 ]
provincial responsibility -- are able to be looked at in a reasonable format so that we may seek to avoid any unnecessary problems arising out of those issues. The process that our government officials are following and seeking to do is to consult widely. But if there is a basic assumption that this is a forerunner or a bridge into a treaty, that is simply not correct. That is not a correct assumption.
G. Wilson: The difficulty that the people in the area have is that they're unable to get land use decisions made while this technical committee is functioning, and the members of the regional district are powerless. The minister talks about consultation. What they want is to be able to sit on the committee. I don't dispute that Crown land or matters of grazing access to Crown land or forestry interests or even recreational interests on Crown land fall within the provincial purview. I don't take issue with that at all. But what I do take issue with is the fact that when there is a regional representative elected who looks after the interests of the broader region, they're not included at that table. I think there are many examples in the province where there have been committees struck and local government has been an invited participant. I don't think there's a reason why they shouldn't sit on it. In fact, I think there are many good reasons why they should sit on it.
One might argue that if Mr. Mayer had been given a seat on the board -- if indeed his assumptions are incorrect -- his assumptions wouldn't be incorrect, because he would have been involved in the process from the beginning. What I'm asking is: will the minister agree that there should be a seat on that technical committee for an elected member of the regional district?
Hon. J. Cashore: I do respect the concerns the hon. member is raising. Under the definition of the terms of the agreement, that is not a possibility. We believe that we can ensure that the concerns are addressed through the process of consultation. It is very important that members of this committee representing the provincial government consult directly with this mayor and with other officials in the area. So there is no question that that is required. I think the hon. member is raising an important concern, but I don't think it's a concern that indicates that by having a seat on this committee it would resolve the issue that he is referring to. At any rate, that would not fit into the terms and conditions of the agreement.
G. Wilson: I don't mean to put the minister on the spot, because I know that this is a difficult and contentious issue. But it sounds to me like the reason local government can't be on there is that there was no agreement with the Penticton band to have them there. Is that where the blockage is coming from? If so, then I'll better understand the reason why not, although I may not accept that as a valid reason. Is it because the Penticton band does not want regional representation -- they don't deem they should be dealing with local government? Is that what's at issue here?
Hon. J. Cashore: Negotiations to replace the existing agreement will be starting fairly soon. In those negotiations the openness protocol will apply. I expect that we'll be in a good position to bring those principles into that in order to ensure that the kind of concern that the hon. member is referring to will be dealt with in that way.
G. Wilson: I have one last question on this. I appreciate that response. I think that response will be quite welcome in that area, because there is a legitimate attempt to get open communication happening so that we can get away from the kind of confrontation we have been facing.
The last question is: with respect to the agreement that was negotiated for the removal of the blockade, is there a written agreement with the government as to what was agreed to? Is that available for the public to look at? If so, would it be possible to get a copy of that agreement?
Hon. J. Cashore: The agreement provides for unimpeded access at all times. And yes, it is available. It is the agreement that was signed by the three ministers who travelled to Keremeos.
G. Wilson: I look forward to receiving that. If there are any questions as a result.... Perhaps I can pick it up later in these estimates.
Let me move on very quickly to a couple of other matters with respect to the Adams Lake situation. It would appear that the ministry has had its hands somewhat tied in this situation. In fairness to ministry staff, who I think have worked very hard to try and come up with a resolution to this question with respect to that blockade, the ball has been rather badly wedged in the court of the federal government on this question.
My understanding of the issue.... I've had an opportunity, thanks to the minister, to actually have a briefing from members of his staff and be provided very detailed maps, and I appreciate that, to be able to look at the situation in some detail. But it would appear that the federal government is largely responsible for the creation of the conflict, due, first of all, to their inability to register an agreement, it would seem, and secondly, having seen that, to their seeming unwillingness now to come forward and enter into meaningful negotiations with respect to provisions to alleviate that blockade through some kind of correction of what, I think, has generally been agreed is a bad land deal with respect to the Adams Lake band.
I wonder if the minister might tell us what provisions the ministry is putting in place now to try and break these blockades, when the federal government seems, through their own inaction, to create these difficulties. One of the things I think British Columbians want to know is that there is some means to expedite these kinds of negotiations. That has been a longstanding blockade. There have been some violent incidents there, which are most regrettable. We don't want to see them again. I wonder if the minister has some thoughts about how his ministry might be able to put in place agreements that can expedite these kinds of situations so the federal government is brought to account for its seeming lack of ability to solve these problems.
[5:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: I first of all want to thank the hon. member for the role that he has played with regard to this issue ever since it became an issue. I think it has been a very helpful role. He has talked to people in the area; he has counselled that it be a situation based more on light than heat. I do appreciate that, and I also appreciate the opportunity for our staff to brief him and for his suggestions.
[ Page 14333 ]
The fact is that I think the federal government, in a number of issues where roads are in dispute, has.... It's very important that steps be taken to ensure that we have provincial jurisdiction over those roads transferred to us, so that these situations won't occur. There's no question about it: the federal government failed to sign an order-in-council several years ago that would have dealt with this. And I understand that the current band administration has passed a bylaw rescinding the terms that would have led to the previous passing of that OIC.
I want the hon. member to know that I travelled to Ottawa over two weeks ago now, met with Minister Irwin, put the same point the hon. member is making to Minister Irwin and asked him at the earliest opportunity to have staff on site who could do a number of things -- among them would be to talk to the homeowners, the leaseholders, in the area and seek to get them to know that the federal government is also interested in this. They were certainly aware of the presence of the provincial government in seeking to find a resolution to this issue. We are hopeful that through a meeting this week, the parties will come to a meeting of the minds.
There continues to be a lot of confusion with regard to some of the understandings with leaseholders in the area. There is the issue of archaeology and the responsibility of the developer under the Heritage Conservation Act. Those issues are still issues that need to be satisfactorily resolved. I understand that the leadership of the first nations in the area is trying to keep a lid on things, but I have been really concerned about some things that I have heard about some incidents at the so-called checkpoint.
But again, it's a very difficult issue. The federal government has a very key responsibility here. We as a province are trying to ensure that we keep the parties talking, and we're trying to diffuse situations when they need to be diffused. We have staff on-site, and have had for quite some time.
G. Wilson: I have my last question, and then I will yield to the member for Prince George-Omineca. With respect to the archaeological matters, I think the minister is quoted -- and I think it's a quote I have used, giving complete credit to this minister -- as saying that you can't argue with bones. I think that pretty much says it all when it comes to this matter of archaeology. It would seem to me that in the land approval process, the subdivision process or the land development process, there is already a provision within the act that providing archaeological fact is a responsibility of the developer. One of the difficulties we have is that the developers see that they may find themselves in double jeopardy if indeed there has to be a second set of conditions provided that are not within their control and which they may ultimately be responsible for.
Could the minister tell us what progress we are making toward getting one set of documents put in place so that that set can be provided and so that we don't have duplication? We don't want to have conflict between one archaeologist saying one thing and another saying another thing -- where you may have two reports that may, in fact, be contradictory. Is there a process to streamline this work?
Hon. J. Cashore: Our government agrees with the approach the hon. member has just outlined. We are trying to get an agreement among the parties so that we can achieve what the hon. member has just outlined with regard to one set of documents and a cohesive, focused approach. That is certainly the goal.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to get back into the estimates. I'd like to carry on from where we left off last Thursday when I left the debate. At that time we were talking about the inherent right to self-government, and the minister agreed that there was no real precedent in court, either by the Delgamuukw decision or by the Court of Appeal. He did recognize that it was a political decision by this government to move in that direction.
Some time ago we asked.... I just came in at the tail end of the member for Peace River South's question, so I'm not sure if he was asking for the same thing; if he was, I apologize. Some time ago we asked for a copy of the legal opinions that were obtained by the minister and this government on the Delgamuukw. I have a heck of a time with that name. Let's say the McEachern decision; it's a lot easier for me to recall.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Yes. We had asked for the legal opinions the minister got which, in fact, guided him in setting up the interim measure; we have been unable to achieve them. Would the minister care to tell us whether or not those would be available to all members of the House? I think it would be in the best interests of all the citizens of the province to have some idea of what basis the minister made those interpretations on, and of the subsequent actions, because over the course of the last year, particularly, the minister has made reference to these legal opinions a number of times in this Legislature. I think it would help us all in understanding this government's position if we had a copy of those interpretations.
Hon. J. Cashore: As the member knows, a member of the executive council is not able to release a copy of such a document. I know that his former colleague, the member of the Social Credit caucus, as a former cabinet minister, has had that experience as well, and I know that he would confirm that.
However, what I am prepared to do is read into the record what I think will suffice with regard to the substance of legal input, to satisfy that question. The following are some of the legal findings upon which our policies are based. I do believe that.... I don't think the member is asking so much for a document as he's asking, on the record, how we would characterize that legal opinion -- that legal position with regard to our government.
"Aboriginal rights continue to exist today. The scope and content of aboriginal rights may vary from context to context in accordance with distinctive patterns of historical occupancy and land use. Thus the province consults with specific first nations to identify the existence and nature of aboriginal rights specific to various groups of aboriginal people. Aboriginal rights are non-exclusive. The policy is to determine if aboriginal rights can co-exist with other Crown-determined rights."
Again, just to digress for a moment, if we look at that Sam Green case that I've referred to frequently, the judge actually says that within the decision.... He was able to make his decision in the context of the balancing of those two sets of rights. In so saying, he affirms that there are two sets of rights. People often say: "What about our rights?" Well, the fact is that they do have rights. There are rights on both sides of this issue that need to be addressed. So I'll just read that again:
[ Page 14334 ]
"Aboriginal rights are non-exclusive. The policy is to determine if aboriginal rights can co-exist with other Crown-determined uses.
"Aboriginal rights are protected under section 35.1 of Canada's Constitution Act, hence the province has committed to endeavour to make its best efforts to avoid any infringement of known aboriginal rights. Where infringements are unavoidable, the province is guided by the test laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sparrow for justifying infringements. These longstanding disputes should be resolved through conciliation and negotiation. As a result, if a proposed Crown action and an aboriginal right cannot co-exist, and if infringement would result from the proposed activity, our policy recommends that negotiations be carried out to resolve the conflict. Some of the tools used to resolve the conflicting interest fall within the scope of interim measures."
As a follow-up to that last point, I would again refer to the Sam Green case, in which the learned judge referred to the fact that our government has an interim measures policy, in justifying his lifting of an injunction. Again, as I said a few moments ago -- or, I guess, an hour and a half ago -- the Gitksan have appealed that lifting of that injunction, so we are very interested in the outcome of that.
L. Fox: I thank the minister. As I understand it, that was a quote out of a legal opinion supplied to the government by a legal firm. Would the minister care to elaborate on which legal firm that was?
Hon. J. Cashore: Those are the legal findings that we have ascertained on having listened to our legal advisers in the Attorney General's ministry.
L. Fox: I recognize the sensitivity around internal documents, and so on, that cabinet uses to form its policy or public policy. But given that the initiative has already taken place, and that policy now around this issue is well developed and defined, would it not be possible at this time for these documents in their entirety to be made public? The decision of cabinet that has been taken from this helps British Columbians understand the direction this government is going in. It would be a useful tool for cabinet as well as the rest of the members.
Hon. J. Cashore: What I have just put on the record actually responds to what that hon. member is requesting. After all, what we want and what he has asked for is to be able to see the legal framework that we have ascertained to be that which comes out of the body of law which has been determined. In addition to that, I would think it is far more useful to actually enable us to send him a copy of the judge's decision in the Sam Green case, because not only do we have a legal opinion there, we also have a judicial judgment based on that court's understanding of the law. That goes much further than what is being requested. I have put on the record our understanding of the legal basis upon which we must act, but we can go further now and put that court case on the record.
L. Fox: One final question. As I understood the minister in an answer to an earlier question, this opinion came out of the Attorney General's ministry. Was it something that was done in-house, or was it something that was contracted out to an independent firm?
[5:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: In my role as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, from time to time I seek advice from the Ministry of Attorney General, which assists me with decisions that I must make or advice that I must give. That was where I received that advice.
L. Fox: The advice was directly out of the ministry; it was not contracted out by the Attorney General ministry to a private firm, as I understand the minister. Did I understand the minister to nod his head to that? Does he want...?
Hon. J. Cashore: I wasn't nodding off. Yes, it certainly is my understanding that that was the legal opinion coming from the AG's ministry. I cannot speak for all of the work that goes on within that ministry or how they go about doing their work.
L. Fox: I want to get onto another issue. The minister and I covered at some length, a number of Friday mornings back, the issue of the effect of the interim measures agreement on recreational lease holders. There have been a number of questions asked of the Ministry of Lands by these leaseholders, and they've had varied types of answers. I'd like to take the opportunity, with the indulgence of the Chair -- these are all directly related to the interim measures act -- to ask the minister questions on behalf of my constituents.
The first is: "I asked for compensation for the improvements I have made to the structures on this lease." The background to that question is.... The minister earlier suggested that all the terms and conditions that are contained within the existing leases would continue to be in place -- at least, this is my understanding -- even if a particular property were negotiated as part of a land claim settlement. Maybe I should clarify that first before I ask this question.
Earlier in the debates, I understood the minister to say that all the terms and conditions of the leases would be adhered to or negotiated into any agreement that would see lands that leases were on turned over to a native band. Did I understand the minister correctly?
Hon. J. Cashore: What I said was that the terms and conditions of existing leases would be met.
L. Fox: Perhaps I could ask then: met by whom?
Hon. J. Cashore: By the Crown.
L. Fox: For clarification, just so I'm sure that I'm understanding correctly, if there were a purchase option -- let's say in an agricultural lease -- and subsequently that was up for negotiations, and part of that agricultural lease was given up.... Originally, the development of that property went into the purchase price of that lease; at the end of that lease, the individual farmer would buy that out for the agreed-to formula that he signed on. Now, how would this take place if that property was negotiated into a band settlement?
Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the circumstance the hon. member has described -- and he may want to give a little more clarity as to whether he's talking pre-treaty or post-treaty; I'm just not sure -- the first and very strongly held position of government would be that we would not want to see that particular property, where that kind of leasehold
[ Page 14335 ]
arrangement exists with a clause in it to enable purchase, become part of a treaty. We would do everything we possibly could to avoid that being the case. There may be some instances where that would be a very difficult principle to fulfil. It would be very exceptional if that were to happen, and if that exceptional instance were to take place -- and I say this very strongly -- then it would be absolutely imperative that there be very close consultation with the party before, during and after to ensure that if there was any transition, it would be done in a way that fulfilled the terms of the lease agreement and was respectful of the needs of the party involved. But the position we'd be going to the table with would be to do everything that we possibly could to avoid that coming onto the table and being potentially impacted.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's answer. I guess if that were the case -- and I truly believe the minister is taking a firm stance on it -- there's a question in my mind, then, why we wouldn't consider those leases as real property, particularly with the indications of agricultural leased land. The whole idea of that program was to put land into production for the purposes of farming and to enhance agricultural opportunities, particularly in the rural regions of the province. There are a number of these leases in my constituency; there are presently something like 23 of them, I think, applied for in the Prince George regional office that are being processed through this consultation process. But why, when they're given out...? The whole idea of giving out these leases is to add to the farm. Why would we not consider at least those types of leases as real property?
Hon. J. Cashore: Because there are many different kinds of leases, and not all leases would be moving in the direction of becoming private property. I think that what we are saying is that fee simple land is not on the table, that we will uphold the terms and conditions of leases and licences, and that we will seek, where leasehold land is involved in a treaty, to focus on those lands that aren't impacting on the desires of current leaseholders or on any aspect of them.
L. Fox: Obviously, I'll get into this in more detail, if we haven't already -- I've kind of lost track -- had the Agriculture ministry debate. But indeed, as I understand it, all agricultural leases are designed for purchase at the end of the development time. If you go into grazing leases and those kinds of issues, it's a totally different story. But agricultural leases are designed so that once they're into production, the farmer can purchase them; the whole idea of developing them is, indeed, to add to his land base for the purpose of farming.
I see the minister is talking to the Agriculture minister. I know it's unfair for me to talk about agricultural leases to the Aboriginal Affairs minister, but they are indeed being affected. If the minister would be prepared to make a commitment to get back to me on this before the end of estimates, I would accept that. If he would make a further commitment -- and a statement; I think this puts something on the record here -- that as these leases mature, some of which will be maturing at different times, and as the negotiations are going on, the negotiations will not prevent anybody from fulfilling the contract they entered into with the government when they undertook the application for the ag lease.... At that point there was a commitment made by government and by the farmer. I would at least like to see a statement by the minister that this negotiation process would not prevent the province from honouring the terms and conditions of that contract.
Hon. J. Cashore: I just had a brief chat with the Minister of Agriculture, and he advises me that contrary to what the hon. member said, not all agricultural leases result in eventual ownership by the leaseholder; it depends on the terms and conditions within the lease. This is not my field, but as I understand it, it depends on the terms and conditions within the documents pertaining to the lease. I'm not trying to duck this issue, but the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the House, and I do encourage this hon. member to canvass this issue with him in the Agriculture estimates.
With regard to the policy on Crown land, I will again place on the record that with regard to leases and licences, the terms and conditions of existing leases and licences on Crown land will be met. Treaties will clarify the rights and responsibilities of first nations and non-aboriginal communities with regard to the settlement land. We will be taking the position to the treaty table that leases and licences should not be expropriated as a result of treaty negotiations.
With regard to the issue of compensation, where possible, the province will avoid disruption of interests held on Crown land. Fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests will be assured. If disruption occurs, compensation for commercial interests will be fair and will be consistently applied across the province in a timely manner. The province will not calculate compensation with first nations based on past land or resource use or alienation.
[5:30]
L. Fox: I will certainly clarify the lease, because I'm not aware of any agricultural leases in my region of the province that do not have in them a clause to purchase at the time they are developed and brought up to the stage where they can be approved for purchase. So I will certainly have to clarify that with the Agriculture minister.
The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs just mentioned the issue of compensation. Earlier I quoted a question that was asked of the Lands minister. That question was whether compensation would include the market value of improvements that happened to be on a lease. If the minister would answer that for me....
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the point the hon. member was raising about agricultural leases, I just want to tell him I did have another word with the Minister of Agriculture, who happened to be in the House at the time -- we aim to accommodate. He advises me that there are a variety of agricultural leases in the province, and that there are agricultural leases that do not contain a provision for purchase. However, he states that the hon. member could be correct in his local knowledge of the area he is referring to. It may be that the leases in that area do have those provisions in them; that may be the case. It's our understanding that that is not the case on a provincewide basis.
I want to ask the hon. member if he would restate the question that he just asked.
L. Fox: The question I asked was whether or not -- in the compensation that the minister just referred to -- the market value of any improvements on those leases would be part of a compensation package. How would one determine the value, or is the process yet to be designed with respect to that?
[ Page 14336 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: The process is yet to be designed. It would have to be a process that was based on the principle of fairness. In terms of how that would be ascertained, there would have to be input into the process that would involve the opinions of various parties -- various stakeholders. It would not be a function of the treaty negotiation itself; it would have to be based on a process outside the treaty to ensure that fair compensation is provided.
L. Fox: The reason I asked the question -- back to the minister -- is that I'm sure the minister can see that if all of a sudden the property is being negotiated, and if that negotiation takes a long period of time, the market value of that property is going to drop substantially. There are going to be a lot of discussions around the true value of those improvements on that particular piece of property. If it's not sellable, obviously there's no market value. We may even see appeals to the Assessment Authority based on that kind of argument.
There's a real need here to provide some comfort to individuals who may or may not have improvements on leased land that is being negotiated. We need some form of guarantee that they are going to realize what they perceive and perhaps what a fair market would have provided in terms of a sale, rather than two or three or four years of negotiating successive decreases in assessment, and then the government arbitrarily takes, at some point, that lower assessment. That's the fear, and that's the reason I asked that question.
Hon. J. Cashore: I thank the hon. member, because having that kind of input from the different regions of the province is helpful. It has to be fair. Those kinds of considerations have to be part of the mix.
F. Gingell: I was most interested in this recent discussion. The minister will appreciate that in the course of debate around the Assessment Act and assessment practices, the practice of the province as sculptured in the legislation is that all leasehold properties will be valued as though they are freehold or fee simple. One can see at this moment in time that if the scenario that has been set forth becomes the practice, and the value of these leasehold interests do drop, it may be appropriate for the minister to talk to the Minister of Finance on the issue of the practices for assessing fair market values of leasehold properties, because these changes and drops in market value are going to come about specifically because of the aboriginal land claims process. I'd be most interested if the minister believes that it would be appropriate for him to act as a spokesman on behalf of those leaseholders in dealing with this issue.
Hon. J. Cashore: I accept that advice. In the context of the two questions that have been asked by the two members, I don't think we should necessarily assume that as a result of treaty-making the fair market value would go down. It could be that it would actually go up. In both instances that speculation is hypothetical. But I would say that if treaties produce certainty -- if they resolve unresolved issues such as road trespasses and achieve a kind of certainty with regard to those access issues; or if as a result of a treaty there are certain cash components that are of benefit to local businesses -- there may be factors that actually would result in those properties increasing. It's a bit of a hypothetical discussion, but I think that at the end of the day fairness has to be the principle, and we welcome the kinds of advice that we are receiving from various members on this issue.
L. Fox: I know we could have all kinds of debates about actual value and property value and whether it's going to actually depreciate or appreciate. I guess the only.... I don't have those answers, and I'm not sure that the minister has them, either. I'm just very concerned and trying to relate to the minister some of the concerns from residents in my constituency. They're not getting the answers when they call the Ministry of Lands, and that's one of the reasons why I'm bringing this forward. I understand that the ministry of lands has a lady in the Prince George region who is in the aboriginal affairs department. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: Within the lands branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is their own aboriginal group to address that. But I had understood that the hon. member was going to provide us with some more information. I do know that he did refer to the fact that he had raised this in estimates a year ago, so I'm not saying.... Oh, not this one; okay, this is a different one. We would like to have that information and have a chance to follow up on it.
L. Fox: The reason I asked the question about that structure is that I have a number of questions. I think it would be useful for this ministry and the Ministry of Lands to perhaps have more dialogue in terms of providing consistent answers to individuals who phone in on these issues, because when this person was asked whether or not there would be any compensation for improvements or structures on the lease, the answer was: "There's nothing in place at this time. We are negotiating with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs." That was the answer this particular lady was given. Obviously, there's immediate concern that their improvements are not being protected at this point in time.
Subsequently, there was a lot of concern around the issue of leaseholders not being informed, and that this government had not been proactive in informing them in May 1994 that the interim measures were in place, and here were the guidelines. In fact, what's happened instead is that we've had individuals becoming informed about this on an individual basis as they've applied. I think there's a need for real communication-building throughout the province between the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, so that there is a consistent message being given out there.
With respect to the earlier issue, yes, I have number of copies of letters -- about 35 or 40 that I've put together -- along with a letter that's being developed to send to the minister's office. It provides him with great background to all the issues surrounding recreational lease concerns.
I'll let the minister respond, and then I think the member from Delta has a question.
Hon. J. Cashore: In responding, I was going to move the motion very soon. I don't know how imperative it is to the hon. member to have a chance to do that right now, and I don't think he hears what I am saying. Perhaps somebody could check with him.
With regard to the points the hon. member was making, I appreciate that he is going to send us that information. I just want to say, as I said this morning, that since the Delgamuukw policy -- the requirement to consult, and government getting its processes in place for this to take place appropriately -- we
[ Page 14337 ]
believe that we've come a long way. We think that the processes are there, and we're seeking to administer this in a way that provides for a minimum of any possible disruption.
I would remind you that when I was the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, before the Delgamuukw policy was anywhere near being in place, one of the constant concerns I had to deal with in that ministry was the backlog of referrals in a variety of areas that had nothing to do with first nations. So let's remember that there are those referrals to other pro forma processes. This is not an unusual thing. It is another area of referral that is required, but these referrals were there before in other contexts. Sometimes I think it is assumed in some instances that it's caused by the aboriginal referrals, when that is not always the case. I just wanted to make that point.
Hon. Chair, I was going to move at this time that the House do now adjourn, but I believe we have one question from the member....
[5:45]
F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, as you have just stated, I represent Delta South. Delta South has the Tsawwassen Indian band and their lands. It also has some Musqueam band land there that they received in an arrangement. So the Delta council is, of course, taking an active role, and they are members of a treaty negotiation advisory committee that I believe is part of the GVRD. I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I ask it as a local MLA. The treaty negotiation advisory committee feels that they need to be treated as full members of the negotiating team and therefore have the right for open information -- and, of course, be willing to accept the responsibilities of confidentiality. I was wondering if the minister would respond to that request.
Hon. J. Cashore: Very briefly, we have -- with the protocol agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities -- ensured that municipalities are in a position, in the context of their treaty advisory committee, to appoint a member to be present as a member of the provincial team. This person would not be a negotiator, but would be in a position to be privy to all that happens within the negotiation and be able to advise their members and negotiators with regard to their interests.
With that, I move the committee now 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:43 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to do a couple of things here, in starting, this afternoon. First, there was a question this morning about William Rudd House. Assisted by the member for New Westminster, we got some of the details. Just to fill in some of the blanks, it is a 12-bed residential care facility for people with deteriorating physical disabilities. It is adjacent to Queens Park Hospital and is going to be operated by the Pacific Health Care Society. We anticipate the first residents will be moving in this September. It is funded by the Ministry of Health, designed in consultation with the MSS -- the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. It will be aimed at adult clients. In answer to the member's question, it is unlikely that a mentally handicapped person who doesn't have other conditions would be eligible for admission. In other words, a severe mental handicap by itself probably would not qualify the individual.
The other thing I want to do this afternoon is introduce some people. I apologize for neglecting them this morning. On my left is Mr. Bob Cronin, assistant deputy minister for corporate services; behind him is Ms. Thea Vakil, associate deputy minister for regional programs; and to my right is Mr. Brian Copley, executive director for mental health services.
[2:45]
Just one other note: we are joined in committee this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, the member for Comox Valley. One of the things I have asked the member for Comox Valley to do in her role as parliamentary secretary is to do a good bit of consultation in the province on long-term mental health strategies. So as this debate goes on, I would anticipate that the parliamentary secretary will choose to enter into the discussion on mental health services for the people of British Columbia.
L. Reid: Just prior to the recess, I posed a question to you regarding the status of emergency room care for the mentally ill. You did not respond; in fact, you adjourned the debate. But in terms of a cross-section of how those services break down across the province.... I am aware of hospitals such as the one in Williams Lake, which is just now completing construction of a secure facility for individuals who are admitted either with violent behaviours or with mental illnesses. It is a holding area as opposed to a treatment area. Indeed, there will be decisions made about where those people need to be transferred in order to receive the best possible service. Could
[ Page 14338 ]
the minister perhaps give me a breakdown of what that service looks like today across the province and of any new decisions that will impact on improving that level of service?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I should say that there are some 13 psychiatric beds in acute hospitals around the province. The member opposite identifies a real concern, particularly of people in smaller communities. We have just recently announced building some residential crisis facilities in the Cariboo. We're working on plans to add 60 crisis residential beds as alternatives to hospital care. In many cases, what is needed is security, not acute care. The mental health division is working hard to continue the improvements on emergency mental health services through consultations with communities, consumers and family physicians, and through training the police, who may be the first to encounter somebody suffering a mental health crisis.
As I say, we are opening community-based, after-hours emergency care so we don't have the situation that I know the member opposite is aware of and that I have become painfully aware of at times: that the only real backup, the only place to deal with somebody suffering a mental health crisis, ends up being a jail cell, which is something that I don't think any member of the House finds acceptable. We are working to develop 60 crisis residential beds as alternatives to hospital care. Clearly we'll be targeting communities that don't have that sort of emergency response or capability right now.
There is another thing I want to mention. Not only does the ministry see this as a central need that must be addressed, but communities and health planners around the province have identified this as a priority issue in their own communities. As they decided on the priorities for Closer to Home projects, this rose near the top in many, many regions. Of the $42 million in the Closer to Home fund, close to $6 million was allocated for mental health-related services and $3 million to community-based emergency response programs.
So we're working on it centrally. Communities around the province are taking funds that have been allocated for new community-based services and targeting those as well. I acknowledge that nobody who has looked at some of the unacceptable conditions that face people -- in smaller rural communities, largely -- finds that acceptable in the long term. It's an issue that is being addressed, and we continue to work on it.
L. Reid: Is it the ministry's intention to have a crisis bed in each community, each acute care facility? And if that is the intention, would the minister be so kind as to give us the status? Are we halfway there, three-quarters of the way there, or are we simply beginning that process?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is something we're approaching systematically. The goal is, as the member suggests, to have this service widely available throughout the province -- not necessarily in hospitals. But if you've got a community the size that will support a community hospital, chances are that it should have this sort of service available, too. We have now set benchmarks, saying that this is the number that should be available, community by community. We're probably about a quarter of the way to where I want to see us end up on this issue.
L. Reid: To continue with questions in the mental health area, earlier this morning we discussed the mental health initiative, the downsizing of Riverview and how that would all come to pass. My understanding is that the targeted date for completion is the year 2002 or 2003. If that's the case -- I need to tie back to this earlier question -- and we're only a quarter of the way down the road in terms of crisis beds, we in fact have no interim measure for another six, seven or eight years. That's a concern.
I understand what the minister said about putting a plan in place. No one disputes the necessity for a plan, but the families are asking both your office and mine for a short-term plan. To go back to the earlier question, is there a secure bed in each hospital in British Columbia? I believe the minister responded that we're a quarter of the way there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are really two issues here that I would like to try to separate. One is the reconfiguration of tertiary level services, which the Riverview redevelopment is all about. We should move those closer to home. We shouldn't ask everybody in the province to come to Coquitlam if they need that sort of service. That's one issue, and we did indeed discuss that this morning. We have talked about the timetable, and yes, that's when we should complete that. But let's be clear: the beds are there now. We're not going to close Riverview in the interim and then start from ground zero. The beds remain there until we redevelop and move people to facilities closer to their homes.
The second issue the member identifies is this: what do you do for crisis mental health conditions? That's quite different from long-term chronic care. It may lead to it in some but not all cases. If somebody stops taking his or her medication for whatever reason, and finds himself or herself in a crisis, wandering the streets and is picked up by the police or social workers or whoever, he or she needs someplace secure to get back into a routine which may enable return to the community quickly or may require further treatment at a secondary facility or perhaps a tertiary facility, though it is probably unlikely it would be a tertiary facility.
On that we have two approaches here. One is to say yes, we need some mental health beds -- psychiatric beds -- in acute care facilities. As I said earlier, there are now about 713 around the province. They are designed for secondary service as well as emergency service. More importantly, we are looking at what we can do for crisis intervention and are saying, where possible, that what we need is a secure place, but it should be more residential than institutional.
So let's look at how we do that and, as I say, the target here of.... We've already got a plan for doing it community by community around the province. We are about one-quarter of the way to where we should be. We are targeting the 60 residential beds in the next little while, and the communities are also making this a priority as they look at mental health planning for their communities in their regions.
L. Reid: I certainly don't take issue with the fact that we wish to separate residential services from institutional services. Earlier in today's debate, I think we established that we agree. But you indicated that a number of individuals fall through the cracks, and in terms of a short-term plan, it's only fair to acknowledge in this debate that individuals who are downsized from Riverview -- and I can certainly cite more than one case today of people who have been discharged and
[ Page 14339 ]
who have ended up in a group home situation, then have left that premise unattended, for whatever reason -- have oftentimes ended up, typically, in a correctional jail setting as opposed to a secure bed in a hospital. It may be that they are there only 24 hours, but the fact remains that when those communities don't have that secure protected bed, they are often sent to a jail.
My question comes back to this: if we are a quarter of the way there and we have approximately 100 health care facilities in the province, does that mean there are still 75 that do not have beds to house these folks who find themselves at loose ends? That's the point of my question. I can appreciate that the bigger picture is residential or institutional, but I'm asking specifically about the short-term plan. Both you and I know there are many folks who are falling between the cracks.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have just a couple of observations. Let's consider the individual who may be going through a crisis, for whatever reason. It may be an urban or a rural setting, and the individual may or may not have been at Riverview at some time. That really is a secondary thing. I would submit that we need to have a place where the person is secure and cannot do himself, herself or another individual harm, and where he or she can get access to some services, be those counselling, physician services or psychiatric services.
My submission to you is that that does not necessarily mean we want an acute psychiatric bed. We are working to develop a residential setting for crisis intervention that may be much more like a group home than like a ward, a setting that can provide security but doesn't need to be in an acute institution. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have acute psychiatric beds widely distributed, and our target is to have about two per 10,000 in the province. The only area of the province right now that has none -- it's a longstanding issue -- is the Cariboo. As you know, the members for Cariboo North and Cariboo South announced for me that we were going to be investing $1.1 million in developing acute psychiatric beds in the Cariboo at a number of institutions.
But the other issue here is that we need in-patient psychiatric beds in hospitals. They can serve as both emergency beds and ward beds. I submit that we also need this residential response so that the option isn't hospital or jail. I think there's a third option. It's probably a better health option than either of those for somebody who is going through a short-term crisis. Maybe that person, after going to that crisis intervention residential setting, is indeed admitted to a psych bed in an acute facility. He or she may go to more community services or may be readmitted to Riverview if tertiary services are needed.
[3:00]
I submit that we need that range of options. I don't think it's enough to say we need more psych beds in hospitals. I think we need more secure facilities to respond to the mental health crises of British Columbians. We have to be very, very careful when we say that the answer is acute beds.
L. Reid: Both the minister and I have much correspondence, I'm sure, from the families who have had their mentally ill person present an emergency and not receive appropriate care -- i.e., they weren't held, they went out and did bizarre things, usually at their own peril. The question is not to limit what you have spoken of in terms of the range of residential institutions and all of that. The question of a secure bed in each setting is the minister's response to what happens to the individual who presents an emergency. Both you and I know that often the only option available at that time is jail. We're not at the stage where residential could be considered a conceivable option, because we certainly don't have the patients in front of us, nor would we make any kind of determination based on that.
What I'm hearing not just from family members but from health care workers is that they're often in a very desperate situation in terms of how to best contain those individuals and secure them for their own safety. The reference I made earlier to the Williams Lake hospital was about the secure room that was adjacent to the emergency entrance. It is a place where individuals simply cannot injure themselves any further. That is the concern that I'm raising with the minister today in terms of families but also in terms of health care workers. I appreciate you providing the entire range of services, but it's the immediate response that I'm looking for today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't disagree that that sort of security is needed. The long-term mental health plan contains work to enhance the designated psychiatric units within acute hospitals. We're looking to develop observation units in some 17 smaller hospitals that have a catchment area that can't support a ten-bed or 12-bed psychiatric unit, which is about what you need to attract enough professionals to support a unit. We plan to do that broadly throughout the province. That's the goal here, and I don't think you would disagree.
One of the things I must say, though, is that I'm sure the member opposite and I also receive correspondence from individuals whose real concern is perhaps not with the availability of facilities -- because a facility may have been available -- but with provisions of the Mental Health Act on whether the individual they are talking about can actually be or should be detained for his or her personal safety. As the member knows, we get into this balancing issue of where the rights of the individual to direct his or her own life and the need for protection of individuals from harm -- it's a very delicate balancing line.
As we look at these pleas to make sure we have crisis facilities available, in many instances the facility has been there. In some cases, the issue is with the provisions of law itself; in other cases, it's the training of law enforcement officers or health workers or others who are dealing with the individual in crisis and may not understand the complexities of that law and may make inappropriate decisions. That's why, as I mentioned earlier, one part of this has to be trained law enforcement officers and others who may encounter somebody going through a crisis incident with their mental health.
M. Lord: Perhaps I could just add a word to what the minister has said. As the minister mentioned, I've been doing quite a lot of work in the area of mental health in the last number of months. I think it's important for all of us to understand that this world is not a neat and tidy place. We can't one-off -- close a bed, open a bed and expect that somehow this is the magic bullet that we're all looking for. I think we can get lost and consumed in a numbers game that is really somewhat irrelevant in the community.
[ Page 14340 ]
Just to add to what the minister was saying in terms of opening crisis beds and taking care of people in communities, the other important thing is the tremendous amount of work that is going on at the community level to supply crisis support for people before they need to go to the emergency department. There are outreach teams working in the communities. They have excellent communication with crisis centres, mental health workers and others so that when a mental health client, for example, begins to decompensate and appears to need a crisis bed, that can be sidestepped by some immediate work by trained workers. This, I think, is an important aspect of the work that is going on in the community care level of mental health.
L. Reid: I appreciate the remarks from both members. I think we can always agree that sometimes those infrastructure plans work well in urban centres where there are some choices, some options. They tend to be very scarce plans once you move outside the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island. Again, that was the point I was attempting to make earlier in terms of how consistent we are across the province.
I'd be the first one to agree with the minister that there certainly are gaps in the service and that people are falling through the cracks. Certainly we discussed earlier the plan to downsize Riverview and the number of bodies that will be leaving that facility. In 1992-93, 105 beds were closed; an additional 50 beds were closed in 1993-94. In the current fiscal year, 63 beds will be closed, and in the remaining seven years of the initiative, approximately 50 beds will be closed each year. The reason I'm raising those numbers at this particular time is that I think all the issues we've discussed since this morning will only be emphasized by having greater numbers of individuals moving into different settings within the community and different settings around, hopefully, the new land use plan for Woodlands and for the Riverview site.
Certainly there seems to be some confusion among individuals who write to me in terms of what tertiary, secondary and primary care will look like. I certainly understand the minister's earlier discussion of how best to have a continuum of service, and that the ministry is working along those lines. I applaud that. I think that's an excellent opportunity for the province to address patients at different levels of need and in different areas that may require additional services. But in terms of communicating that effectively to the public, I would welcome the minister's comments in terms of what that new service may look like.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member is right; there may be some confusion. I want to do the numbers one more time on Riverview so we understand what we are actually doing there. There are other issues here, among them the provision of psychiatric services in secondary psych beds and residential beds within acute facilities around the province. Downsizing at Riverview has gone like this: from 1,220 beds several years ago, we are now at a level of 800 beds. We reduced the size by some 400 beds. At the same time, we provided some 1,500 residential beds in the community. As the downsizing goes on....
You mentioned the figures of 105 beds and 50 beds for 1992-93 and 1993-94. In each of those years, the same number of designated beds in the community were opened up as a result of Riverview downsizing. This is not a case of closing beds and saying: "Roll out your bed and roll onto the park bench." That is not what we did; that is not what the plan is. That is not what we are going to do in the future. We haven't done it in the past; we have no intention of doing it in the future. Not only are we doing that with the replacements, but when we reach....
The target here is to ask: so what is the right number of tertiary beds in the province? It's around 550, given the current population. The decision was made that those 550 should not all be at the Coquitlam site and that we ought to be developing some of them in the regions, where they will be closer to people's homes. We have allocated 100 for Vancouver Island, 100 for the southern interior, 50 for the northern interior and 300 to 320 for the lower mainland.
That's the redevelopment plan. I think most activists in the mental health community are aware of it. They understand it. There may be a lot of concerns, as you and I discussed this morning, about whether housing should be added to the Riverview lands and what should be done with some of the very special features of that site, which mean a great deal to those who have lived at Riverview or been involved in the mental health community. We need to take those concerns into account. That is one issue: tertiary facilities for those with a chronic condition who need an extended period of care. They need sanctuary, as I said this morning. The other issue is clearly: how do we make sure we have acute psychiatric beds widely distributed in the province? As I said, we have around 730 now; we need to add a few more. We've just announced the addition of 15 in the Cariboo, the only area where we didn't have any. In addition to that, we need ways of dealing with crisis situations either through those facilities or through residential facilities in the province. So that's the goal.
This year we have $500 million allocated to do 50 specialized residential beds, and yes, the goal is to downsize Riverview by 50 beds this year. The money is there, the development will be done and there will clearly be a transfer of resources, as well as people. This is not just downsizing without a plan, and those plans get better, I submit, by the year.
As far as the communication with the broad mental health community goes, I'd certainly welcome my parliamentary secretary's comments on what we've done so far, the work that we need to continue to do and perhaps the member opposite's suggestions of various ways we can continue to improve in communicating the fact that there is a plan in place here for those requiring mental health services.
M. Lord: The minister certainly has identified the challenge that we are facing in the mental health division in the ministry, which is how we more effectively communicate to British Columbians the very good work that is going on in that division and the very solid plans that are in place around the replacement of Riverview, as well as the housing, the strategic community spending and the other initiatives that are going on.
So it is a problem that we're grappling with. There is excellent work going on, as I have discovered since I have been involved in mental health. But how do we communicate that effectively? How do we let the media know that the anecdotal case that they like to put in the face of British Columbians is not the reality for most people with mental illness in British Columbia?
[ Page 14341 ]
So along with the minister, I would certainly welcome the comments from the opposition Health critic and her assistance with that job.
L. Reid: I'm not going to go into great detail regarding the new agreement between the British Columbia Medical Association and the Medical Services Commission at this juncture, but I will ask if mental health services have been considered as part of that public awareness campaign in terms of services that have been discussed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: No. We haven't focused on that sort of "appropriate use" of mental health services. Actually, it would be an interesting debate. The public information campaign that the member refers to begins not with targeting specific behaviours or specific sets of services, but with public awareness for all British Columbians, saying: "This is your health system. It's not the ministry's, the doctors' or the government's health system; it's yours. Be a steward of it and use it appropriately."
[3:15]
As we go on, we will be looking at "appropriate and inappropriate behaviours." The behaviours, at times, may apply equally to the use of mental health services or use of acute services that have to with physiology rather than psychology. There is no particular target here that says: "Hey, let's target mental health and inappropriate use of that."
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. Just to extend that discussion, this is not about targeting a particular audience; indeed, it is about raising awareness of what the system looks like, ownership of the system and taking responsibility for it. At this juncture, its responsibility is probably greater than the mental health clients.... Their parents, their family members, would welcome that information. If there is any way that can be a consideration when that advertising campaign is structured, that certainly makes good sense to me. I certainly think that we all agree that television is the medium of the day. If there is a way to ensure that at least some overview of what services could be accessed in this province, we would perhaps have people making better choices. I do think that the minister and I would probably agree on that.
I want to reference a piece of correspondence from the Canadian Mental Health Association -- from my folks, the Richmond branch. They raise some very interesting questions. I am happy to share a copy of this letter with the minister, but for the purposes of debate I'll just touch on a couple of their major points. They say:
"First and foremost, the main responsibility as an organization is to ensure that the mentally ill person is in receipt of the best possible services in their own community. The current restructuring of health care is concerning us in that we see fewer dollars available for mentally ill persons once the new restructuring process is in place."
Again, these folks are at the front line. These are their concerns. I have to think that they are concerns that are shared by a number of different branches across the province. The letter continues:
"It is important to point out at this stage that the present government has not included the community non-profit sector in the makeup of transition teams that will be recommending various options to the regional health boards. The makeup of these transition teams are heavily laden with individuals from the institutional, clinical models of service delivery, as well as Ministry of Health representatives. It is extremely worrisome that the community support sector has been left out of this process. We are also disappointed that our staff has no representation at the regional health board, and they're making a case for union/non-union staff, who in fact do have such a mandated representation."
Who will represent the non-unionized sector of our workforce, which delivers the same quality of services as their unionized counterparts? I think that's a significant issue in the delivery of mental health services, because both the hon. minister and his parliamentary secretary made reference to the necessity and urgency of transition teams. I know it is certainly not just Richmond that has both union and non-union transition teams working in the communities, and I can assure you that more areas than Richmond are seeing some difference in representation at the table and wondering how best to incorporate those different teams into the process. Could the minister kindly comment?
[B. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I first want to touch briefly on the issue that the member opposite raised about communication with mental health consumers, and then deal with this issue about transition in the governing structure to regional health boards.
What I want to say is that I think the member opposite is aware that my predecessor and I have made the Provincial Mental Health Advisory Council a very significant player in advising those who work for the ministry or contract with the ministry on mental health issues. The membership of that council reflects the diversity of those interested in the issues and the diversity of those with whom we attempt to communicate.
We use this as a vehicle for communication. This advisory committee includes everybody from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the College of Psychologists, the Registered Psychiatric Nurses' Association of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Alzheimer Society of B.C., five family members at large, the West Coast Mental Health Network Association, the Caregivers' Association of B.C., the Mood Disorders Association of B.C. -- and I have listed just one-third of them, so I'm going to stop.
Similarly, we have two advisory councils. The Provincial Mental Health Family Advisory Council includes some of the same groups but also looks at regional representation, so we hear what's going on in different areas of the province. The Provincial Mental Health Consumer Advisory Council includes organizations such as the Patient Empowerment Society at Riverview and regional representatives from around the province. So when my parliamentary secretary and I say we'd appreciate your advice, we mean it. We've consciously tried to set up structures so we can hear clearly what the needs are, where the cracks are -- to use the phrase that we used this morning -- and what the priority issues for us are as a ministry in dealing with those who require mental health services.
The ministry, through these advisory councils and through its staff, does as much communication of what the services are, where they are available and when they are appropriate as it possibly can. Sometimes I think we overwhelm with almost too much information. I assure you that we're serious about communicating both services we cur-
[ Page 14342 ]
rently have and what we're doing to try to improve those services. I mean it sincerely: if you have ideas on how to make this better, let us know, because we're interested in pursuing them.
The transition to regional governance in decision-making in health, I know, has been a matter of concern for some involved in the mental health field. We've done two things structurally to make sure that the voices of mental health are heard. First, every transition team in every region that's working on how we structure health services and structure a management system for that region must include somebody from the mental health field. That's a requirement. You have to have somebody from finance, obviously; you have to have somebody from public health and the acute sector; and you have to have somebody from mental health. That's how high we think this level of attention should be to attend to it.
Second, at the present time every regional board is structuring regional advisory committees -- and one of those will be on mental health -- in all regions to bring in the community side, the advocate site and the institutional side to advise the region on how to both ensure that the mental health services and transition in governance and administration are as smooth as possible so that the new governors of the system are aware of needed improvements to the mental health system.
I must say that in my discussions with mental health advocates around regionalizations, one of the things I've said is that I understand their anxiety about moving to a new governance system, particularly since, after a decade and a half in the wilderness, they finally found a government and some ministers who think that mental health is important and who have increased funding to mental health to an extent, I think, that's above and beyond virtually any other field of activity by the ministry. We understand their anxiety about losing at the centre those friends they've had for the last three and a half years.
I've also said to them that as advocates and providers, if they want to see mental health acknowledged and built into health provisions across the province in the way it needs to be -- community by community, region by region -- they need to get involved in regional health board activity and community health council activity to make sure that mental health does not slip back into the sort of neglect I think you and I would agree, hon. member, it suffered in the late 1980s.
L. Reid: Certainly the minister is correct. There is a definite agreement. The question I posed to you was.... Certainly this group, the Canadian Mental Health Association, Richmond chapter, would contend that there is a difference between how non-unionized transition teams and unionized transition teams are treated as they lead up to the organization around regional health boards. I would ask the minister just to clarify that aspect.
Hon. P. Ramsey: When forming transition teams, we make no distinction between unionized and non-unionized agencies and providers.
L. Reid: The other issue this group is bringing forward, and they're talking about funding allocations for core services.... They currently offset the cost of operating some of those transition team activities through fundraising activities and donations -- those kinds of add-on dollars, if you will. Their contention, again, is that if the regional board does amalgamate, there will be a funding shortfall, and the dollars the organization is currently putting into those programs will in fact be lacking. Their question -- and certainly it seems most appropriate for the estimates process -- is: how will that shortfall be picked up, and will it be picked up by the ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me see if I've got the question right, and then if I don't, we'll deal with it. Transition teams are not being paid right now. We're asking agencies to loan staff to make this work. The allocation for services is not involved in this. So I'm not sure if those are the issues you want to deal with. Is your question: "What happens to the fact that mental health societies and chapters of the Canadian Mental Health Association do fundraising for good works locally for add-ons?" Why would that activity cease? I know it's not going to cease in Prince George. There will still be a very active mental health community, and they will still, I suspect, do fundraising for particular equipment or facilities or furniture or whatever they see the need for. And those wishes will be respected by community health councils and regional health boards. The fundraising can be done; the expenditure can be targeted.
It's no different from the foundations at hospitals, which will also continue that role. It may be different in scale -- in the number of dollars. Quite frankly, too often it may be easier to fundraise if you're trying to buy a CAT scan -- just to choose an example at random -- than if you're trying to enhance a residential facility for mental health by buying a stereo system or TV or whatever. That says more about our general perception of what's likely to impact our health as individuals. And, quite frankly, we've got it wrong. We probably have a far greater potential for needing mental health services than for needing the CAT scan.
L. Reid: There are, again, some areas of agreement that the minister and I share, but the broader issue around funding and involvement of different groups at the grassroots as they build something is basically a regard for volunteers. A number of individuals who currently do that level of activity in agencies and organizations around this province -- the ones who chair the foundations and do the fundraising activities, no matter what the activities happen to be -- are questioning the new structure and whether it will have a place for them. I ask the minister to kindly comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is: absolutely. I must say that while I recognize the anxiety, I think in many, many cases we have now been able to address it systematically. Shortly after I took over this portfolio, the hospital auxiliaries of the province were greatly concerned that that whole auxiliary role, both in service provision and in fundraising, was somehow going to be threatened by regionalization. By working with the organization of individual auxiliaries, we've been able to address that. Similarly with foundations.
[3:30]
I submit that whether it's raising research funds for a particular condition, whether it's the activity of volunteers who provide support for individuals working with a particular condition in their community or whether it's volunteers doing fundraising at a local or regional level to enhance a particular facility or service, that volunteer effort is recognized and
[ Page 14343 ]
supported by the people I have talked to who are sitting on community health councils and regional health boards. They are interested in preserving that; they do not see their role as displacing that. They do see their role as saying: "We need to amalgamate the administration and support of many of the services that we deliver so you get more dollars into service delivery rather than duplication of administration and support." But the volunteer sector? I find nothing but support for it as I travel the province and talk to community health councils and regional health boards.
L. Reid: Perhaps I can seek the minister's advice. A number of issues came forward in terms of psychogeriatric care in the province of British Columbia. I am willing to bring that up under acute and hospital services, or we can touch on it today -- whatever works best for best for you.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My advice is we save that until continuing care. Most of it does it fall under provision of services to those who are residents in the long term care facility or extended-care facility.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comment. In terms of maybe one or two final references to the ongoing discussion of Riverview Hospital that began this morning, there was a contention in this document that the majority of folks who do leave Riverview will find group home placements in the Fraser Valley. Is that a truthful assertion?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One thing that I would assure the member opposite is that a person who is leaving Riverview as a result of downsizing will have a designated place to go. I suspect the majority will be in the Fraser Valley, but not all. The discharge into the lower mainland has been "traditional." If you look at where the 1,500 residential beds have been built, the lower mainland has received a disproportionate share. That is the pattern.
I look toward to the day when we have a better network of mental health services, both residential and acute, closer to home in regions so that the answer isn't always a discharge in the lower mainland. As I said in announcing the 50 tertiary beds in the northern part of the province earlier this month, too often what we have done to residents from the north who need intense psychiatric services is to uproot them from their community and make them permanent immigrants against their will. That is not appropriate. I think the flow to a more regionalized system is one we constantly need to keep in our minds.
L. Reid: I only raise this point at this juncture because, as I review the press releases and the announcements that look at where those new beds will be placed, where those new supports will be received and into which communities, the Fraser Valley has not been on that list. Indeed, if the majority -- and certainly your comments match these comments -- of folks will be entering the system, are we downsizing or going to the Fraser Valley? If indeed that is the case, are there resources required there that are currently missing? Are there plans in place on behalf of this minister and ministry to put those services in the Fraser Valley?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises a good point. I think I partly misled you. I wasn't thinking of the Fraser Valley; I was thinking of the entire lower mainland. You were really speaking of the Fraser Valley, of south Fraser health units. We recognize that there is a need for additional residential beds in the Fraser Valley and on the North Shore. Of the $5 million we announced recently for that in the coming year, one-fifth, $1 million, is going to Surrey North; another $700,000 is going to the Maple Ridge area; and $700,000 is for a ten-bed unit in Abbotsford. We are looking very hard at the need to enhance those residential beds in the Fraser Valley, where you have a very rapidly growing population. While they may not have had to travel quite as far as those from Prince George or Comox, they clearly would be served better by having those beds in their own region.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. Again, I do believe we have some agreement around this issue. Indeed, I think the individuals who have come to both our offices regarding what the new plan will look like can be assured that at least the planning has begun. I understood from the minister's comments this morning that, particularly around the land plan for Riverview, there should be something people can actually take a look at within a year's time -- the spring of 1996. If I have in any way misconstrued that discussion, I would ask the minister to clarify; otherwise I will assume that a year from now there will be a plan so that the majority of constituents, and particularly family members who write to both our offices, can have a sense of where we might go from this juncture. Could the minister comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the things that starts, of course, when you say we're going to have a public consultation process.... You can try to set some time lines for it, but if you run into some things that require more time, you should take more time. BCBC is looking at a year to 15 to 18 months to get it all done and ready. If it takes longer, it takes longer.
L. Reid: It was 12 months this morning. Is it 18 months this afternoon?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I said I think they will have a lot of their work done by spring-summer of 1996. I stick by that.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. I certainly will wish to spend a few minutes this afternoon on a discussion of cancer services in the province of British Columbia and what the new structure may look like. The minister and I have touched on this topic very, very briefly in terms of the tremendous value British Columbians currently place on the B.C. Cancer Agency. That service is consistent across this province. In fact, it's one of the few areas in health care delivery where measurement drives a lot of that service delivery -- where best practice is indeed what that agency is after and can provide. There's extensive data to back up their delivery model. The beauty of their system, in fact, is that.... A number of agencies, provinces and states are looking at replicating that. The New England Journal of Medicine often makes reference to the B.C. Cancer Agency in terms of the model of best practice in terms of cancer treatment.
The minister will know that his comments regarding the future of the B.C. Cancer Agency and how it may or may not feed into the Vancouver Health Board that caused great concern and consternation in the field. I would happily take my
[ Page 14344 ]
seat if the minister could comment on whether or not the independence of the B.C. Cancer Agency will in any way be hindered by a new regional structure. What will that structure look like in terms of the Surrey cancer centre, the proposed Kelowna cancer centre and other treatment centres around the province? How does it impact on Victoria? What needs to happen in Vancouver? If the minister could outline his direction, I would be pleased to hear it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say in starting, hon. member, that I share your view of the great value that the B.C. Cancer Agency has had for treatment of cancer in this province. Last Friday, I attended the official opening of the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre. One of the things that I emphasized most in my remarks to the gathering was the debt of gratitude that I think all British Columbians owe to the doctors, to other professionals and to those who run the B.C. Cancer Agency for the excellent work they've done over the years in providing high quality cancer treatment to the people of British Columbia.
The regionalization issue for the B.C. Cancer Agency is a complex one. I will try to talk about three things. First, I've said very clearly to the chair of the B.C. Cancer Agency and to the board that I'm not going to favour any outcome for governance of the B.C. Cancer Agency in which any of those achievements are threatened. I'm as concerned as anybody that we retain the excellent record and the coordination of clinical services across British Columbia. Let me say also, though, that there are clear circumstances in which we need to look at effective delivery of administration and support services within regions. It is not enough to say that in every region of the province we have a facility that is devoted to cancer treatment and that it operates autonomously or independently of other services in the region and reports only to the board of the B.C. Cancer Agency. I think we're well beyond that.
As we look, for instance, at work in Vancouver on designing a shared services centre for institutions in the lower mainland, clearly the Cancer Agency has to be part of that. It does not make a great deal of sense to say that as we design purchasing systems for institutions in the Vancouver area, we do that for all but the facilities run by the Cancer Agency. There needs to be a level of cooperation -- indeed, integration -- in some of those support services for the Cancer Agency.
That's why, when I announced this government's endorsement of the broad directions of the Lovelace report for Vancouver, I also endorsed the recommendation in that report that a detailed review was required of the governance and management roles of this very complex organization. I know that the chair of the Vancouver Health Board shares that view and has met with both the board chair and the CEO of the Cancer Agency to say: "Let's work on this to make sure that we respect your multi-regional, provincial and national responsibilities and that you also respect my need as chair of the Vancouver regional health board for getting as much bang for the health buck in admin and support within this region as we can."
The clinical modelling in delivery of services is something that has to be preserved. I'll be working very hard with the Cancer Agency and with regional boards to ensure that.
L. Reid: Canadian cancer statistics, as published by the National Cancer Institute of Canada, show that cancer mortality in British Columbia is 11 percent lower than in the rest of the country. So we already have an outstanding system, and you are suggesting today that according to the Lovelace report a detailed examination is required. I'm not disputing that, but I'm wondering why we would not simply acknowledge that this is the leader in the country and perhaps not continue to put some instability in the system in terms of how people look to that agency for providing service.
We've agreed that it's the finest deliverer of cancer care in the country; the statistics prove that. Yet your ministry still has a need to suggest that we're going to attempt to change success. To me there are a lot of other areas in health care that would better benefit from that kind of energy and time and cost in terms of yet another report. That's not to say that they're not important, but it seems to me that if this is one of the best programs this country has, we need to look at the governance model that's currently in place. We need to establish whether or not there is any justification for changing that governance structure.
As the critic in this area, and certainly as a member of the Liberal opposition, I believe in the value of this program and see it as a provincial program. We do not wish to see it fragmented in any way in terms of how this service is received in different parts of the province. And to have a number of different regional boards looking at that service delivery and deciding whether or not they wish to fund it appropriately is not an issue I would be comfortable with. Your comments to date, hon. member, have only created confusion and uncertainty around the future of that program.
To come back to the question I originally posed: do you intend to change the governance model? Will each of the deliverers of cancer care in this province be required to seek their funding and have their governance structure become the regional health board? That is the question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think there are at least two issues here that we're dealing with. One is how we ensure high-quality clinical services and consistency both in protection and in the clinical treatment for those living with cancer in the province. I would submit that that is the essence of what we need to ensure is preserved. We must have centralized governance and centralized decision-making for clinical treatment in detection, education and prevention programs -- the range of services that the Cancer Agency does.
[3:45]
I would also submit, though, that if we ignore the efficiencies that can be made by sharing resources in regions between facilities run by the Cancer Agency and those run by other institutions, we are unnecessarily duplicating services and wasting dollars that could better be put into service delivery. I would submit that in many cases some of this work is already underway. The amalgamation, for example, of lab resources at Vancouver Hospital and the Cancer Agency, is a process that has already begun. As we build other centres, we will look at what we can do to build on other support functions, rather than duplicating under separate governance. Simply duplicating the function is a waste of resources. It flies contrary to what we're trying to do in regionalization in order to get dollars out of duplicated services and into the provision of patient care.
[ Page 14345 ]
I would ask the member opposite to recognize that that, too, is an imperative if we are to preserve the quality of cancer care in this province. If we are to use health dollars effectively, we must achieve those efficiencies, and the Cancer Agency, I submit, must be part of achieving those efficiencies.
D. Jarvis: To follow up on the critic's remarks that there is confusion in the cancer treatment industry, I have an almost direct quote from different individuals who work in the bone marrow transplant team. There is fear and confusion there as to what their future is, and the fact that it is an unusual division of the cancer industry, if that's what you could call it.... The staff have more or less been told that because of the Lovelace report they can expect drastic cuts to staffing. I think this is a unit that cannot be categorized as a duplication of services. This is direct care, and I can't see where any duplication of services in this unit would affect any other department in the hospital. Could the minister please elaborate on that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I just talked to Dr. Neil Fatin. Many of you may know him, as he works with the ministry on the provision of provincial services. He, like I, is unaware of any plans to cut the bone marrow transplant team. This service is one that is centred in Vancouver. It operates out of a number of locations already, including the VH, Children's Hospital and the UBC site, and will continue to do so.
I must say I am quite puzzled by this entire line of questioning. We in this province are facing, as are other provinces, rather substantial cuts in transfers from the federal government. Hon. member, your leader has said at times that we ought to cut deeper. If we're going to preserve the quality of services and patient care in this province, we need to look hard at how to find efficiencies among the support and admin functions that surround patient care in every institution, program, region and community. We must not jeopardize the quality of health services provided for the treatment of cancer or other conditions in British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: I'm glad to hear the minister say what he has said about it, but I would suggest that he and his help should make a statement to rectify the fear and confusion there. I'll tell you, I've talked firsthand to people who are working in that clinic, in that section of the bone marrow transplant team, and there is fear and confusion there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have already written directly to the B.C. Cancer Agency, saying to them what I've said to you in this room today. If you send them a copy of Hansard, I don't think they will find anything new in it. It's exactly what we've already conveyed to them.
I must say, though, that there are those who would raise fear about the impacts of regionalization. I have surely seen that. There are some partisan games being played in a couple of the regions of the province that I think you are very well aware of, and they have nothing to do with the quality of care that's going to be provided under regionalization. It's fearmongering of the worst sort. If we in this room are sincere about the necessity of reassuring them, then I hope you will join me and this government in saying that the goal of regionalization is to ensure quality of services and delivery of services by achieving efficiencies in how those services are delivered. That is the goal, rather than harking back to the position of a year ago that says: "Well, heck, the funding situation we face is not that serious, and we can get by with a few pilot projects. We will worry about actually restructuring down the road."
D. Schreck: I'm motivated to rise and enter into the debate because of some of the comments made by my friend and neighbour opposite from North Vancouver-Seymour. Having spent a good deal of my professional career in management of health and social services, I very much appreciate the very strong commitment that the current Minister of Health brings to the portfolio and the superb job that's being done.
On the North Shore, I have to say that the North Shore regional health council represents a true reflection of our community in a very non-partisan way with leadership in the community committed to governing health care. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of members of that regional health board would probably be, if not card-carrying members, certainly sympathetic to the official opposition. As a matter of fact, I can say that to the best of my knowledge, only three out of more than 20 on that board would be sympathetic to my political party. I think that speaks well of the objective and non-partisan approach the minister has taken in restructuring health care.
Unlike the types of controversies we went through in the seventies with the restructuring of social services, we have here a restructuring of health care services that is based on doing the job and doing it well, taking it out of any sort of partisan controversies, save and except for that which is brought to it by the official Health critic.
What I stand to speak on, however, is my concern about minimizing staff anxiety as we go through change. Staff are bound to be facing enormous anxieties, and to the extent that certainty can be offered to staff, all our constituents and the public are better served. We know that 12 months from now we will lose between $300 million and $400 million in federal transfer payments to help in education, and a year later, we could lose $1 billion a year in federal transfer payments.
We have an official opposition that says if it formed government that year, it would implement $1 billion in corporate tax cuts in that same year. With one-third of all government spending being in health care, if we had to make $2 billion in cuts, that would mean we would be looking at $700 million in cuts in health care. That is bound to be disturbing to the staff who are involved, because they know their jobs could ultimately be affected.
At a time when we have attempted to provide some security by negotiating agreements like the Health Accord and when we have attempted to provide some security by changing the composition of the Medical Services Plan for comanagement, it strikes me that these other influences -- threats of radical change two years down the line -- must be terribly damaging to morale and terribly destabilizing. I ask the minister: what is he doing to provide leadership and comfort to the staff, who must be terrified by the Liberal vision of the future?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member raises an excellent point...
L. Reid: I knew it; I knew it was going to be an excellent point.
[ Page 14346 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: ...and the member opposite says that she recognizes it as an excellent point as well. We have said to our staff in the Ministry of Health that as long as this party forms government, even though we are transferring two-thirds of them to new employers, we will do so in a way that is respectful of their need for security and continuity of employment. Through the employment security agreement, we have said to the acute workers in this province that while we recognize that we must implement the Seaton commission report and downsize the number of services provided in a hospital setting, we respect their need for security of employment and transition funding. As long as this government and this party are in power, that is one of the principles we will act on.
We have said, and I say it repeatedly, that we need to join together in this province to say no to the drastic cuts by the federal Liberal government that my colleague refers to -- cuts which the provincial Liberal government seems not only willing to implement but willing to multiply. The surest route to security of services, to avoid the cut-and-slash approach to the restructuring of health care that we see across the mountains in Alberta, to make sure of this slow -- sometimes I would almost say too slow -- but steady progress toward regionalization and efficiencies in the delivery of health care is to make sure that the members opposite do not form government.
Interjections.
L. Reid: If I might harken both of my colleagues back to the question on the floor, it relates specifically to the future of the Cancer Agency in British Columbia. Specifically, my question to the minister is: will the Cancer Agency in British Columbia...? Will cancer care continue to be a provincial program?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes.
L. Reid: Earlier the minister found some confusion with the term governance, so perhaps we'll spend a few minutes on that. Studies in this province and this country have shown that survival rates for cancer patients in relation to patterns of organization of care delivery.... Specifically, treatment within a comprehensive system based on the consistent application of treatment protocols is associated with a higher survival rate. That's basically what the studies say, and they say it consistently. The question that was posed to you earlier, and continues to come before you, is whether this service delivery will be negatively impacted in any way by the fact that you as a minister have asserted that those services will be sought from a regional health board. That is the question; that's the contention; that is where the confusion lies today.
The majority of British Columbians don't wish to see services for cancer treatment coming under the Vancouver Health Board or any other regional health board in this province. They expect that it will continue to be a program that has a provincial mandate. I ask the minister to comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not to revisit too much of the territory or ground that we've already trod on rather well, the member speaks of the necessity of preserving provincial standards in the clinical delivery of cancer services; I've said clearly that that remains a provincial responsibility. I would also refer the member to another recommendation of the Lovelace report, which I've accepted and endorsed. That's saying we should have a provincial advisory committee on all those provincial services: cancer, cardiac and transplant. It says clearly that these are not just the responsibility of a regional board or a community health council. We need to plan the funding for them and target the funding to agencies and regions. We intend to do that. We don't intend to allow the development of 20 different health care systems in British Columbia; that's not what this is about. So, as I've said, the short answer is that we're going to preserve that core of clinical practice that's provincial, and doesn't vary from region to region to region. How best to do that is the subject of the review that the regional health board, the ministry and the Cancer Agency are undertaking.
[4:00]
I would again ask the member not to ignore and not to minimize the necessity for achieving efficiencies in admin and support for services delivered by the Cancer Agency as we are looking at other agencies, as well. I do not think the member opposite, for instance, would have any problem -- I hope she would not -- if it was decided by the Vancouver regional health board that we ought to have, say, one set of payroll functions for all health providers in the Vancouver region whether they work for the Cancer Agency, the Arthritis Society, Children's Hospital, Vancouver Hospital, Vancouver Mental Health or on and on and on. Those are the sort of efficiencies we need to look at, and that is the way we can make sure that the funds are flowing where the public wants them to flow -- into cancer services and other patient care -- rather than duplication of administration and support.
L. Reid: Again, very specifically: how do you intend to preserve that core service if it is going to be administered by a number of different agencies or a number of different governing bodies? That is indeed what you said if there will be more than one regional health board involved in the delivery of cancer care in this province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I find this a strange dialogue, I must confess. Does the member opposite believe, for example, that public health services are better in Richmond because the employees work for a city council than they are in Castlegar where they work for the Ministry of Health?
I submit that this issue of who's the employer, who's writing the cheque, where payroll functions are located and who decides on computer systems is in the large sense highly irrelevant to quality of care. If the member opposite is saying that we have to preserve all of what Justice Seaton and others have described as health care silos with walls around them, which refuse to talk to their neighbours down the block or in the region, that is the way we should go. I submit to her that we're on a course for disaster if Liberal health policy is to preserve every board and to preserve autonomous support functions for every different agency whether it's the Cancer Agency, the Arthritis Society or VH.
That is the question for the hon. member opposite: what is the Liberal health policy on this? Do you wish to see preserved each of those separate agencies with all of the inefficiencies that Justice Seaton and every study done in this country have identified? If you do, you ought to be clear to the people of the province that you are deliberately -- and I say deliberately -- choosing to preserve those vestiges of autonomy that have no real meaning in quality of care at the
[ Page 14347 ]
expense of getting health dollars into where they're actually needed.
L. Reid: This is not a question that the minister is unable to answer. This minister is deliberately choosing not to respond to the questions that I am posing regarding the future of the Cancer Agency in the province. I will spend a few minutes continuing to make the case for the validity and viability of that program, because obviously there is still confusion in the minister's mind as to how valuable that needs to be. I will quote:
"It is interesting that the recent results for B.C.'s cancer program are so favourable. When you consider that it is a leading program in Canada in terms of development of evidence-based treatment policies and their dissemination throughout the province through a multiregional provincial system, these results are very consistent with the experience that is documented in the literature. It is also interesting that these favourable mortality outcomes are seen in all major categories of cancer groups in the province of British Columbia. Breast cancer mortality, for example, in British Columbia is 13 percent lower than in the rest of the country."
Those examples are the essence of today's discussion. Certainly the fact that this minister continues to walk around the issue is not warming anyone's heart:
"Preliminary analysis also suggests that B.C. cancer survival statistics compare favourably with other advanced industrial nations and in particular are significantly better than those seen in the United Kingdom and other major European countries, where there are poorly coordinated and fragmented systems.
"Statistics from the United Kingdom indicate that despite various high standards of education, their system has not worked to bring high-quality care to the entire population. Again, the problems with the system in the United Kingdom are documented in articles and are no doubt due to the absence of a comprehensive population-based approach to cancer care. The quality of care and outcomes vary from area to area and are a testimonial to the unfavourable outcomes that can result from a fragmented system."
Again, that is the issue I brought to the table some time ago; that is the issue that this minister is not responding to. The question again, hon. minister is: how do you intend to ensure that this very valuable service is not lost, because you would choose to fragment it into a number of different regional health boards?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I intend to preserve this program by doing all I can to resist the federal attack on medicare and to make sure that we have adequate and sustainable funding for health services provided in this province. I think the hon. member knows that is really one of the areas where the battle has to be joined, to fight the continual denial of the official opposition that there is any impact at all to slashing health spending by $340 million.
Second, I have already said very clearly, both in direct correspondence with the B.C. Cancer Agency and in this chamber, that cancer services remain a provincial responsibility. The hon. member seems to believe that that must entail absolute whole ownership and operation of every service in every region of the province by an isolated board of governors and administration responsible for that, and nothing else. I submit to her that she's got it wrong.
I'll give you another set of very high-quality services in the province provided by the B.C. Transplant Society. They have nine clinics in hospitals around this province. Each of those clinics in Prince George, Kelowna and Nanaimo does exactly what we expect: provide good pre- and post-transplant care. The actual transplants are done in the major tertiary centres in Vancouver. Follow-up care to consistent clinical standards is delivered in nine centres. The B.C. Transplant Society makes sure it is consistent in nine centres.
Hon. member, each of those centres is funded and run through a hospital. The Transplant Society does not own, operate or run those centres. To suggest that there is only one model here and that everything having to do with cancer is owned and operated by autonomous agency simply ignores the reality that there are other ways to deliver quality care and ensure consistency across the province. Further than that, it ignores the reality that if we as a province don't do the work we need to do to get administrative efficiencies and reduce overlap inefficiencies, we are deliberately taking money away from patient care and using it to preserve duplications of administration and support.
L. Reid: I will continue. It is interesting that the Ontario government recently completed a thorough study, directed by the provincial government, on the organization and delivery of cancer services to all Ontarians. This study encompassed a three-year period, with the last 18 months being under the direction of a government-mandated provincial cancer network. This study has led to the recently announced provincial cancer strategy and policy for the province of Ontario, which is characterized by the following: the establishment of Cancer Care Ontario, which is to be an umbrella organization responsible for a broad-spectrum, multiregional cancer control system for Ontario. This new structure will be responsible for a broad program of cancer control, including prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, rehabilitation and palliation, as well as education and research. This new structure will report directly to the government of Ontario; this new structure will maintain responsibility for the governance and management of all cancer centres in the province.
It is interesting to note that Ontario is implementing significant changes in its cancer system, most of which already exist in British Columbia. These include a cancer agency that reports directly to the Ministry of Health, a comprehensive population-based cancer control program that includes all elements of cancer control and the responsibility on the part of this agency for the governance and management of cancer centres.
Again, I will direct my question back to the minister, in terms of the necessity on his part to make a change when if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery -- other provinces are replicating in infinite detail exactly what is transpiring in the province of British Columbia. This minister would stand and defend some sense that fragmenting it into the regions is going to improve upon that delivery system. I would again ask the minister to talk to us today, and talk to British Columbians today, about what this new structure he is proposing will look like, and who will take responsibility for it. Will the funding envelopes flow through those regions? Will the excellence of this centre be hampered in any way by this idea that has no basis?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we've tilled this ground very thoroughly. We can harrow it a few more times, if we wish. The provision of cancer service remains a provincial program.
[ Page 14348 ]
The role of the B.C. Cancer Agency, ensuring clinical coordination, remains. We need to complete a review with the Vancouver regional board and others to make sure we're getting maximum bang for the buck in support and administration, and that is the way we will ensure that high-quality services continue.
I simply will not sign off on any organizational structure that jeopardizes what I think she very accurately describes as one of the best systems for the delivery of cancer services in the world.
L. Reid: If the minister could respond directly in terms of funding envelopes, how will cancer service be funded in the province of British Columbia under his new organization?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Funding for all tertiary services will be provided through a separate funding envelope.
L. Reid: Perhaps the minister would be so kind as to elaborate on that. The discussion and the confusion at the time that the minister was involved in debate, and in the press, was that cancer services would be funded through regional health boards in the province of British Columbia. I believe that the minister has never established the certainty of that remark. Certainly if that has changed, I welcome his input into the debate today. Right now, the system as we know it -- the B.C. Cancer Agency.... Is there an intention on the part of this minister to change that funding base?
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll overlook the comment of my colleague from North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
Look, we have said that we need to plan for funding of provincial services provincially, and that will be done. We need to allocate those funds to the regions in which the services are delivered. We need to empower the B.C. Cancer Agency and others that are responsible for services delivered in more than one region to ensure that consistency of clinical care is there. If the member is suggesting that all funds for all cancer services, regardless of where they are, should continue to flow directly from the ministry to the Cancer Agency to be split up and then down through the regional boards, I submit she's missing the point of much of what we're doing in trying to restructure and get efficiencies in delivery of health services.
[4:15]
We will ensure that quality of care continues. I must say that there are far better ways of doing that than by clinging to an outmoded bureaucratic organization that says a separate stovepipe for every agency has to be preserved. If we go that way, we're not only ignoring the conclusions of every study that has been done about how to get efficiency into large government bureaucracy, but we're diverting funds toward that outmoded system at the expense of patient care.
L. Reid: A moment ago, the minister mentioned a tertiary envelope. Would he be so kind as to detail what would be included in that tertiary envelope?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are actually getting into a debate that might be more appropriate to get into when we deal with the strategic programs and some of the issues around funding formulas, and how we're going to deal with regionalization and distributing funds more equitably for services in the province.
But let me point out the basic principles here. First, we've said that one of the hallmarks of more equitable funding should be recognition that funding should be largely population-based rather than service-based. That means we need a formula for distribution of health dollars that recognizes how many folks live in a region, what their health status is and what the difficulties of delivering the service are, and we should use that as a foundation rather than the system we have now where you sort of take last year's budget, add or subtract a bit and call that planning.
Second, delivery of tertiary services is not uniform around the province. Therefore, regions will be funded to deliver tertiary services within their boundaries that they provide in other regions as well. We need to recognize, particularly those of us who live outside the lower mainland, that many of the high-quality medical services we depend on are delivered through the Cancer Agency, the Vancouver Hospital, Children's Hospital or other agencies. We rely on those services provided through the Vancouver region, and the Vancouver region has to be funded to provide those services not just for its citizens and residents but for other residents in the province. Depending on what services they deliver, the regional budget will include an amount for tertiary services.
The way that could work is one of the things that I've asked for a review and a complete report on, but I'll give you one clear model. An agency like the Cancer Agency says clearly: "These are our regional programs." They run some 26 outreach programs in various parts of the province in addition to the four clinics they will have, so we'll have both the clinics and the outreach programs. Working with the ministry, they decide what the program allocation is and how they can preserve the quality of clinical care. That money is then added to the regional budgets, and services are provided.
[4:15]
We must divorce these two things: the clinical care and quality of care, and who the hell buys the pencils and leases the xerox machine. That issue is important, but it is where we waste a great deal of money in health by duplication and overlap. We have to get a handle on the incredible waste we have in our system -- who buys the pencils and leases the xerox machine, who does the purchasing and runs the lab service. If we don't get a handle on how to get efficiencies in that system through regionalization and amalgamation efforts, we will surely face a crisis in providing funding for patient services. So that, hon. member, speaks briefly to the funding formula for regions. I would suggest that this is a debate we might want to get into more fully when we discuss the New Directions initiative under strategic services.
L. Reid: Will cancer care be in the tertiary envelope?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
L. Reid: Given that that seems to be the minister's assertion, which regional boards will take responsibility for which aspects of the current Cancer Agency activity?
[ Page 14349 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the reasons that I accepted the Lovelace report's recommendation that the review was needed was to get a fair bit of clarity precisely around that question, looking at the primary focus being continuity of the high-quality care that the Cancer Agency provides. When that review is done, I'd be delighted to share it with you.
L. Reid: We began this discussion, hon. minister, around the confusion that was evident in a number of individuals who have contacted both your office and mine about whether or not cancer care will be funded through one regional health board in this province or more than one regional health board. Could the minister comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It will be funded through a variety of regional health councils.
L. Reid: I'll return to the contention that is widely shared in research, which is that once you start sharing that responsibility, you are, in fact, dismantling something that is incredibly important to Canadians -- and very important to British Columbians. We have the finest health care service in the country, and I am not clear as to why you would continually come to your feet and suggest that fragmentation of this service is useful. This is not a pencil-and-xerox discussion. This is far more important, and I'm not impressed that you continually bring it back to pencils. This is about whether you can assure British Columbians that the calibre of service will be retained and enhanced as opposed to fragmented.
I can assure you, hon. minister, that I am not reassured by your comments this afternoon. Indeed, what a number of British Columbians have read in various articles and in interviews you have given doesn't suggest that there's a plan in place. I appreciate that you've accepted the Chris Lovelace report, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the comments and the concerns that British Columbians have. You will receive many reports in your term of office as minister. The point remains: how can you assure us -- British Columbia taxpayers -- that this service will not be jeopardized in any way?
For you to continually go off on a tangent of who buys the pencils and to participate in a debate that's not critical to today's discussion is only interesting to me. It's not meaningful and it's not useful. I need to come back to how important this is to the people who will be reading this debate and who have watched you in the last two or three weeks in the press meander through the discussion about who will be responsible for cancer care in this province.
I am no more assured by the comments you made this afternoon. I'm not clear that there's a plan in place. I'm not clear that there's any necessity today to move from the existing structure. I have cited extensive statistical documentation and extensive reporting that has been done on the delivery of this service. The fact is that many other provinces in this country are replicating our program, and you're suggesting that we're going to do something different. I ask the minister: based on what? You have given us no sense today that you can improve on this delivery. You may purchase the pencils in a different place, but I can assure you that that is absolutely irrelevant to the questions I am asking today.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My colleague from North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggests that I should simply say that ensuring the re-election of the current administration will ensure quality of health care, and sit down. I'm not going to do that.
I must say, though, that one of the things I find very strange about the Liberal critic's and, indeed, the Liberal Party's approach to this is the denial of the need to change anything in the structure of health care delivery in this province. Again and again this member and her party get up and say that regionalization, change of structure or any sort of community-based delivery are ideas that we should just not deal with that just preserving the existing structures, like a mosquito in amber, will somehow make sure that they remain relevant for the future. This is simply a head-in-the-sand approach, and the result of this will be, if they should ever come to government, that they will have to embark on the sort of slash-and-burn approach to health services that we now see across the mountains in Alberta. That is the result of a failure to deal with the necessary changes that are needed in structuring the delivery of health care.
I have continually said to British Columbians, to the members of the board of the B.C. Cancer Agency and to health care providers who make sure that we have high-quality cancer services that this government has no intention of compromising the quality of care or fragmenting the clinical approach that is taken in the cancer centres, in the 26 outreach programs and in the other activities which we have enhanced as a government, and are run by the B.C. Cancer Agency.
But I must say that trivializing the issue of administrative savings by saying, "Well heck, nobody's arguing about pencils...." They are arguing about pencils. They're saying: "You should have everybody doing their own purchasing, their own leasing, their own lab services, their own payroll, their own computer systems, their own, their own, their own...." That is what we've had too much of in health care, and that's what we must get rid of if we are to ensure that the funds flow where they need to flow -- into patient services.
K. Jones: I just heard the minister say that he's going to centralize health care -- every aspect of it is going to be centralized. The true socialist NDP answer to everything is to centralize everything: government controls everything. That's exactly what he's saying right now. I'm really surprised when he's talking about community-based. Supposedly community-based as long as it's controlled by the government is exactly what the philosophy is that you're teaching. You're trying to give people the impression that they're having a say at the community level, but you're really keeping everything under the control of the government and the Minister of Health himself. That's really the whole philosophy behind what you're trying to tell the people of British Columbia. That's what you're saying right here now, and you just finished saying it, didn't you? You've got to centralize everything. Make sure that everything is under control.
We happen to believe that the people and the patients out there need the control, and they need to have empowerment and a say in how things are going to run. It's for them that we work, and not for a conglomerate government-controlling agency or a government that wants to have total power over everything. I'd like to have the minister explain to us, in light of the circumstances of the years and years of health care established countrywide through the Liberal government and
[ Page 14350 ]
through the Saskatchewan provincial NDP, why it is that this NDP government is the first one in the history of Canada to ever shut down a hospital.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's hard to know how to respond when the provincial government which this member's leader admires in Alberta has just shut down five hospitals in the Calgary and Edmonton areas. It's hard to know how to respond. We decentralize the services offered by one institution and disperse them more fairly around the lower mainland, including facilities that this members' constituents use in the south Fraser health region.
It's hard to know where to begin. Essentially, as I understand it, the argument is: why change? I guess that's what the Liberal Party's critic has also said: "Why change?" It's as if the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs never happened. It's as if study after study after study across this country pointing out the inefficiencies of current health care delivery, and the lack of integration and coordination at community and regional levels have never occurred. It's as if no work has ever been done to analyze the economies of health care and to say clearly how we as Canadians can preserve a one-tier, universal and comprehensive health system if we have the intestinal fortitude to make the necessary changes to preserve efficiency and put money into patient services.
[4:30]
Hon. Chair, the clear outcome of that head-in-the-sand approach will be that the people of British Columbia, should they ever have the misfortune to be faced with a Liberal Health minister and a Liberal government, will find themselves as the citizens of Alberta do now, facing one hospital closure after another and facing cuts to health budgets of 7 percent this year rather than a 4 percent increase in health funding, which we are debating in this chamber today.
K. Jones: The minister is obviously very, very confused; he gets mixed up. First of all, he says that we're not prepared to make the changes that are going to make health care more efficient, and the next thing he says is that we're going to be closing down hospitals all over the place. Make up your mind, hon. minister. Come on, let's not get everybody totally confused. Which do you mean?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are indeed ways of changing. We in this government have said very clearly that we see a necessity for making changes in how health services are delivered, a necessity for making changes in how the structure for delivering health services recognizes priorities at community and regional levels, a necessity to place more emphasis on health promotion and illness prevention than has been done in the past, a necessity to integrate care within institutions in the community and a necessity to empower health care consumers to have more say in the delivery of services that they and their families rely on.
We have undertaken an entire program of health care reform to make that happen. We have heard time after time, year after year, in this assembly -- in this chamber and others -- the Liberal opposition saying: "No, don't change. Just wait. Preserve all the existing boards. Don't look at any sort of efficiencies. Don't look at any sort of coordination. Don't fill in any of the gaps that currently exist in the health system. Simply slash budgets and look for the wreckage." That may be the Ralph Klein approach. It may be the approach of the Liberal Party. It's not the approach that will preserve a Canadian medicare system for the people of British Columbia.
K. Jones: The minister is totally out to lunch with his comments. He certainly doesn't know what he is talking about. His references to the Alberta government program as something we are addressing is certainly not the case at all. He should know that. He obviously has not been doing his homework, and certainly his advisers haven't been doing their homework or they would have know better. It is very evident in many of the speeches made by our leaders that the type of health care is patient-oriented. That's exactly what we're going to be doing: providing people with the type of care that they need at the local level, and it is going to be closest to the home, not this pseudo-Closer to Home program.
Could the minister tell us how many staff were let go at Shaughnessy Hospital? How much saving in FTEs came as a result of closing Shaughnessy Hospital?
Hon. P. Ramsey: An invigorating little debate here. The member opposite makes some interesting allegations. Quite frankly, I find that the leader of his party and his stance on health quite similar to the leader of the federal Liberal Party. Both of them mouth platitudes about medicare; both of them adopt fiscal policies which will clearly destroy it. They had better get it congruent. You simply can't slash and hack away and (1) refuse to do necessary changes and (2) not acknowledge that adequate and stable funding is needed to provide health services for British Columbians and Canadians. I suspect that will be one of the issues in the upcoming election. It will be to this member's great embarrassment, if he continues to believe that somehow you can reduce budgets by $340 million over two years -- double that if we get the wish of the leader of the provincial Liberals -- and not affect the quality of patient care.
As to the specific question the member asked concerning how much was saved by the closure of Shaughnessy, the closure was projected by the previous minister to save some $40 million a year in operating costs. We had an independent audit done to ascertain what the amount actually was a year after closure. We have found that we are saving $35.5 million every year, which is going into patient care rather than into the duplication of admin and support that Shaughnessy represented.
K. Jones: The minister didn't answer the one question we did ask. He got carried away, I guess, with his rhetoric and gave us a bunch of other information. The question was: how many FTEs were released with the closure of Shaughnessy?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll get that figure for the member later this afternoon or tomorrow. I know I've seen it in a briefing note, but I don't want to rely on memory.
K. Jones: Could you just give us an approximate figure? Was it approximately 500 FTEs?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.
K. Jones: Okay, let's use 500 for a figure. Could the minister tell us how many of those FTEs ended up serving the people of Surrey?
[ Page 14351 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: There were approximately 1,400 FTEs employed at Shaughnessy in February 1993. As a result of the closure.... Hold on, we're mixing apples and oranges here. That represents approximately 2,800 full-time, part-time and casual staff, so if you amalgamate all those, you get about 1,400 FTEs: 300 non-contract and 2,500 union. Of those, 1,200 of the unionized staff went with their programs and services to other facilities, including the south Fraser health region. We had about 512 displaced staff -- not too far off -- and then 500 who were registered with an adjustment agency, and about 800 casual staff were not offered other employment.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, then, if the figure that I have is really true -- that out of those 2,800 full-time and part-time FTEs, 37 FTEs actually went to Surrey?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's really strange. We're here debating the 1995-96 budget, but the member wishes to debate the closure of Shaughnessy, which occurred in the fiscal year 1993. The dispersion of services and the cost savings that resulted from that closure are well documented in documents that are available to this member. I advise him to read the Bert Boyd report on the savings that were effected and the distribution of services that resulted from the closure.
D. Schreck: I appreciate the minister's advice that debating the closure of Shaughnessy is not in order. I want to say that I'm always fond of reflecting back on about half of the Liberal caucus being stuck in a broken-down elevator in the Shaughnessy Hospital -- complete with a cameraperson from one of the TV stations -- for hours while they badmouthed their leader. That is my vision of Liberal health care: broken-down, badmouthing, offering nothing for our future. We should keep in mind, whenever we think of the closure of Shaughnessy, that that television image will last forever.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
K. Jones: The last diatribe was interesting. It has absolutely no relevance in this. It's as totally unimportant as the person making the presentation of it....
The Chair: Hon. member, that is totally inappropriate and unparliamentary. I request you withdraw that.
K. Jones: I withdraw that, hon. Chair. The minister was probably looking for a question, and he didn't have a question asked of him. Therefore I felt that it was really of no relevance, this attempt to get information from the minister. That was the reason why I was relating to it in that direction....
The Chair: There's a way in which, hon. member, that may be irrelevant, too.
K. Jones: Perhaps I said it in the wrong manner.
The Chair: You may wish to take on your own words and ask questions, then.
K. Jones: I'll just go on to question the minister, hon. Chair. Hon. minister, you didn't answer my question: were only 37 persons moved over to Surrey following the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital? The reason we're asking this is because you brought up the fact that the....
The Chair: Hon. member.
K. Jones: I'm sorry. The minister brought up the item that the closure of Shaughnessy was of great benefit to my community. That does not ring true in the recollection I have of it. I'd like the minister to clarify his statement. It's very evident that there was very little benefit to Surrey or any other part of the lower Fraser Valley, which was supposed to be the focus beneficiary of the closure of Shaughnessy. By far, it was not; it just got token assistance. There are people in the south Fraser area today that are still looking for the Closer to Home concept that they sacrificed.
There are still former workers of Shaughnessy who are saying: "Boy, this is a nice retirement we've got. We get paid a bulk sum of money with the closure, and then we get paid this monthly payment all along. We're sitting there enjoying it, but, you know, we'd kind of like to get to work. We have talents; we have skills; we'd like to be working instead of sitting back here waiting for that job to come along."
Where is the minister going in trying to provide this service to the south Fraser area? He can certainly confirm if more than 37 FTEs moved out of Shaughnessy over to the south Fraser, into Surrey.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I simply refer the member to Mr. Boyd's study and others that have been done on the closure of Shaughnessy. The distribution of services are in there. We are now dealing with the 1995-96 estimates, which include substantial increases for funding of services in his region and others. I see no point in prolonging this dispute on a 1993 decision.
I would ask the member to refrain from this continual slander of health workers that we hear out of the Liberal opposition -- that somehow people are sitting at home doing nothing when they've been displaced under the employment security agreement. It's a myth, and the member knows it; it's a slander on health workers who serve the people of this province well.
T. Perry: I didn't mean to interrupt the hon. member. I am glad the minister just said what he did, because I only recently gave him.... I thought it was also quite offensive what was said by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Having been the MLA representing the riding in which the hospital was closed, I know firsthand how alarmed and frightened people were who lost their jobs through that closure. I had a lot of them calling me, calling me at home, writing very poignant letters. I also know that the vast majority of them are now productively engaged.
[4:45]
In fact, a close friend of mine was recently looked after by those people at the spinal cord unit at Vancouver Hospital, and fortunately he is recovering well. Many of the people who looked after him there were former Shaughnessy Hospital employees -- lab techs, housekeeping people, and nurses I know who are now working in urology. I think it is time for a
[ Page 14352 ]
wakeup call to look at what is going on in the rest of the country. The Quebec government just announced that three hospitals in the city of Montreal will be closed, including the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary. That is an excellent hospital, where I took part of my undergraduate medical training....
Interjection.
T. Perry: That is about to be closed along with two others in the city of Montreal. Six and a half thousand people will be laid off over the next three years, permanently. That PQ government is not making, apparently, any effort to try to modify or soften the blow on those people. No other government in the country has tried to do what this government did, and I think it is worthwhile for members of this Legislature to note that those people are doing good work, and I think it is very appropriate the minister made the comments he did.
K. Jones: We have a serious need for the treatment of health care concerns in the Fraser Valley. Could you tell us how many FTEs you have added in this year's budget to the Surrey area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I'm going to have to ask the member to be more specific. I just got back last Friday from opening the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre...
K. Jones: You should be very familiar, then.
Hon. P. Ramsey: ...but I must confess I do not have at my fingertips an aggregation of all the FTEs that are going to be added to the south Fraser region in the coming 12 months. Is there a specific service you are interested in, or are you simply asking general questions about health services?
K. Jones: At this point I am just asking general questions about the degree of improvement to the health care of the south Fraser area. The minister probably would not want me to get into more specifics, because I get the impression he doesn't even have the answer to how many new FTEs are budgeted for this region of Surrey. Is that what I heard the minister say -- that there does not seem to be that type of information available to the minister? Would the minister now like to elaborate? Has that information been made available to the minister at this point?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think what the member opposite needs to recognize is that in the great majority of cases, hirings and FTEs are employed by agencies other than the Ministry of Health. I can surely talk about what the impact of a 3 percent budget increase might be for services at Surrey Memorial Hospital and the need to make sure we do more than that for Surrey. I can share with him that the opening of the cancer centre probably adds around 100 FTEs to the complement there. While I can share with him some of the figures around the $6.4 million in Closer to Home funds that have been expended in Surrey to enhance community-based services, I suspect he already knows that most of those enhancements have gone on in the south Fraser region. We recognize that the south Fraser is one of the more rapidly growing areas of the province. That is clearly something that gets built into funding allocations, both for hospital-based services and other services.
I must say that on the very week after we've opened the first cancer treatment centre that's been opened in this province for over a decade.... We've opened it in the region that the member speaks of. I think we have demonstrated clearly that we recognize the need for dispersion of those services and that we simply can't place more and more in metropolitan Vancouver.
K. Jones: I have to agree fully with the minister that he certainly does have to start dispersing health care and improving health care immensely in the areas where people are actually living and growing and where growth is occurring. It's certainly not in the Vancouver area, that's for sure.
With regard to this year's budget, could the minister tell us how much money is being allocated to the health care centre, and could he possibly describe the proposal for the health care centre on 152nd Street and Highway 10 in Surrey?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've asked staff to find out how many planning dollars have been allocated for it in the current fiscal year. My recollection is that there are some, but I wouldn't want to give a false number. I can assure the member opposite that the announcement of that site and the need to get on with planning a multi-phased approach to developing health services at that site are things we've recognized as priorities. There is some planning money in this year's budget. When staff have given me the figure, I'll give it to the member.
K. Jones: Could you tell us what type of facilities are planned for that site?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You're giving my staff a lot of work.
K. Jones: Good. I don't want them falling asleep down there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been asking staff to give me the precise phase that we are looking at. The first step was last year, when we did the land acquisition. The second step is this, where you start the planning. The set of services that we're looking at are.... Clearly there is a need for long-term care, and we think that can be met partly at that site. There is a need for increased ambulatory care, which we think can also be met at that site. As planning in the south Fraser health region continues, there may well be other services which they will decide to locate at that site -- either additional services that will be placed at that one or transferred from Surrey Memorial to disperse them more equitably. Preliminary capital budget for the new health centre in Surrey-Whalley.... It's on the border there; I can never remember. The capital planning money for the new health centre in Surrey is budgeted this year at $500,000 for planning.
K. Jones: I wasn't quite sure.... Was the minister referring to Surrey-Whalley? Are we talking about the community health centre? Are we talking about Surrey-Whalley in this regard? My understanding is that this is not in the Surrey-Whalley health sector area, but it is actually in the Surrey Centre health area. Perhaps you'd like to check the figures and see if there's another one relating to the area to the south. Or is it part of the Peace Arch Community Health Council?
[ Page 14353 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try to clarify it. I must confess that sometimes I'm not as familiar with the geography of Surrey as perhaps I should be. I had understood that you were asking questions about that site that we did the land acquisition on last year, which was the new addition to planning in Surrey. That was indeed in the more northern part of Surrey-Whalley. Okay, so that is not what you were asking about.
You're talking about the planning for a health centre, which I understand was part of the south Surrey region.
K. Jones: My understanding is that this is located at the corner of Highway 10 and 152nd Street, which is about the centre of Surrey -- 152nd Street being the centre line of Surrey and Highway 10 being just south of the middle of Surrey, I'd say, and about two-thirds from the north end of Surrey. This would be someplace between the new community council in the centre of Surrey and the Peace Arch council in the south of Surrey. I don't know which area you've designated this one into.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In conjunction with the regional health board and community health councils there, my understanding is that there are a number of potential sites for health care centres, which would provide a variety of services that are now provided through public health clinics -- possibly physician services and a wider range of services.
I've just asked whether there are planning dollars in this year's budget. We have preliminarily penciled in some moneys in the amount of $50,000 for the 1996-97 capital budget to get that work underway.
K. Jones: When we're talking about this $50,000, we're talking about planning money to locate a suitable site for this, among a number of sites. Could the minister give us some indication of where some of these potential sites might be?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I cannot. I would advise the member, if we're getting into this level of detail, to simply write me a letter, and I'll ask staff to provide as many of the details as possible. The senior staff I have with me don't have that level of detail. The facilities planning department works closely with community health councils and regional boards across the province. So send me a letter, and I'll make sure you get the details of where we are in site selection and where the municipality and the regional health board are in identifying potential sites.
The Chair: Hon. minister.... Hon. member.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair, for the promotion. We'll work on that. Hopefully we can qualify some time in the future.
Recognizing that the minister allocated some funds there, could he tell us how the determination of those funds would occur? Is there going to be discussion by all the community health councils in Surrey? Is it going to be just the one that will be within the boundaries of that particular site? How are these going to be serving the whole community, and what determination is going to be made to firm up the location?
[5:00]
I have some concern. I heard about one site being located at Highway 10 and 152nd, but it doesn't seem to jibe with the real needs of Surrey in that there are two other locations that have been identified for quite some time as having a far greater need to service the community. The site at 152nd and Highway 10 doesn't seem to have any population around it, for one thing. It's mostly low-level suburban and agricultural land around there, yet we have a very high growth area in the Cloverdale area, which doesn't have any ambulatory facility. We have in the Scott Road area that services both North Delta and the east half of Surrey another area at 120th that also has a great demand without any services in the ambulatory area.
We need to establish some facilities to which people can be brought for the minor cases and where they can be brought for the more serious cases to be stabilized and then transported to major centres such as Surrey Memorial, Peace Arch Hospital or to the Langley Memorial. Has the minister really been working on these factors? It has been mentioned for the last four years by me and by others. Your colleague from North Delta has also brought it to the attention of various ministers. Is this now going to be in the hands of these committee councils to determine? If they are, were they involved in determining the Highway 10 and 152nd location?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Facility planning will be a responsibility of regional health boards. That's true of the South Fraser Valley Regional Health Board as well as the other 19 around the province. They will be working with community health councils to identify needs, determine potential sites and work with municipalities and the provincial government on acquisition and construction. I said very clearly through the New Directions process that actual taxation authority does not rest with the regional boards. It will rest with the municipalities, and they will be working with them in doing their portion of capital acquisition.
That's all I can really say at this point. The determination of which site is selected and how it fits well into an overall health plan for the south Fraser region is, I submit, something that the member should raise with his community health council and regional health boards. They are the ones that will be doing the planning and making decisions on how those services are sited in the region.
K. Jones: I want to get a clarification from the minister. Does the minister consider it appropriate for MLAs to be advising or putting forward their views before the community health councils and the regional health councils? Is there a process for doing that, or is it that you just go and present your case or make a written submission? Is it inappropriate for the MLAs to be making submissions to the local health councils?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am somewhat puzzled by the question. I assume that this member opposite talks to his municipal council, as I do in my riding. I talk to my school board about what they see as their needs, and I discuss with them needs that I am aware of in the community. I surely would have no compunction about engaging in similar discussions with my community health council. They are people who represent the community broadly. Starting in 1996, a third of them will be directly elected by residents of the community. They will have responsibility for health planning and facility determinations in his community and in his region. So I see nothing that
[ Page 14354 ]
would inhibit the member from making his views known to that decision-making body, as I am sure he would to his municipal council or to a school board.
K. Jones: I'm really pleased to hear that. I just wanted to have the approach to deal with that clarified by the minister so that everybody could understand the proper procedures, so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding in regard to that.
Could the minister tell us, then, with regard to the proposals that are on the books for planning -- and, I presume, development to working drawings in this year's budget in order that these facilities can be accommodated and can start construction either this coming year or even the latter part of this fiscal year, say, January 1996 -- who is making these planning decisions? Are these councils, who appear at the moment to be still trying to feel what their role is, actually going to play a role in determining the particular facilities that we're talking about today?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member notes, we are in a period of transition. The community health councils and regional health boards in his area are surely going to be involved in planning and decision-making on these facilities.
K. Jones: That means that the minister is going to give them $50,000 to do that planning for this year. Could the minister tell us how planning is going to be done to get to the stage where they can start construction next year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope I didn't misspeak myself -- $50,000 is penciled in for 1996-97. That's next fiscal year, hon. member, not this fiscal year, for the health centre that you were speaking of. The other thing is, this money is the money that will be provided to the regional health board. This is based on the current priorities that we've heard from regions and communities around the province. The regional health board may wish to change those priorities, but in any case those priorities would be the ones that would be funded through planning.
K. Jones: If there's a dispute between two health councils in regard to the regional plan, who's going to be involved in making the appropriate decision? Is the regional health board going to override one of those particular councils and say that they know better than the one that is directly involved?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Two-thirds of the regional health boards, as I think the member knows, are composed of members from community health councils. They have the responsibility of doing broad health planning in the region. They have a responsibility for doing facilities planning. It is their responsibility to work with community health councils to develop an integrated plan that fits the whole region; that's how it's going to work. They are empowered to do that work.
K. Jones: So the regional health council will make a decision with regard to the whole region, yet we've got five councils that make up the region. Four of them that may have no interest in, say, the fifth area could certainly see that the fifth area would never have any voice in it. How do you correct that imbalance? Since the populations are not equal in these different councils, how do you get proper representation for those areas that, say, have greater demands?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be glad to provide the member with the guidelines that we've given to regional health boards for developing voting on issues like this. We've said clearly that they must include the principle of representation by population or some form of it. They must also ensure that we don't have a situation where one community dominates all others in a region.
I must say that inevitably, I suppose, there are disputes among communities and areas within communities. We are saying that the best level to resolve those disputes is the regional rather than the provincial one. We're empowering regional health boards to represent their communities and make those decisions.
K. Jones: Just one last question: is the minister proposing some form of ward system to provide representation within those councils?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No.
L. Reid: If I might spend the last few minutes....
An Hon. Member: Take a break.
L. Reid: You certainly may.
If I might spend the last few minutes in debate on the screening mammography program in British Columbia.... I know that the minister and I -- and the individual opposite who is standing in for the minister, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- have discussed the necessity of this program many times. Both of us are more than aware that breast cancer is the leading killer of women in the 35-to-54 age bracket. It certainly seems to me that there's been a lot of discussion about making changes to that program. I'm not in favour of changing the program.
I believe that screening mammography, beginning at age 40, is well documented in terms of its success. Reports in the province have looked at the suggestion that that program begin at age 50. I'm not keen that this ministry or this government make that change. I think the results, in that British Columbia has the most comprehensive screening mammography program for the 40-to-49 age bracket, are something we should applaud. I wonder if the minister or his designate could perhaps comment on the status of the current program, and certainly on full-time-equivalents and part-time staff in that program, and whether or not we are meeting the needs of British Columbia women in the 40-to-49 age bracket.
I will certainly continue to expand on this if the member opposite wishes the minister to return; I certainly have no issue with that. As the minister and the member are both aware, there has been discussion about the necessity for the 50-plus program, in terms of saving some dollars for the ministry and for the province. But my contention remains that the program in the 40-to-49 age bracket is incredibly important. It's the only thing that's allowing us to get a handle on mortality around breast cancer, and hopefully, it may improve treatment levels around breast cancer.
For the minister's interest, I'm asking questions specifically around the 40-to-49 age bracket, in terms of continuation of screening mammography and whether or not there's been any expansion of full-time-equivalents or part-time staff to cover the continuation of that program, and if the ministry has
[ Page 14355 ]
made any decisions around discontinuation of the program between the ages of 40 to 49 and starting at age 50, because that has certainly been reported in the press. I would simply ask the minister to clarify.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member opposite knows, women between the ages of 40 and 49 may now access screening mammography at any of the centres run by the B.C. Cancer Agency, without physician referral. There are no current plans to change that.
As the member opposite also knows -- I suspect that in some cases she reads the same set of literature as I do, because I see cc to her on the bottom of my letters, and I suspect she sees the same to me -- there is considerable scientific and medical debate about the value of screening mammography for that age range. This province, unlike some other jurisdictions, provided it. We have no plans to change that, at least not without clear, scientific consensus which involves not only the physicians providing the service, but also consultation with advocacy groups very involved in the issues surrounding breast cancer. I know there's a lot of concern about this. Quite frankly, I think that the screening mammography program is, as this member has said, one of the real hallmarks of early detection in this province. It's also, I might say, considerably cost-effective compared to the misuse of diagnostic mammography for screening purposes.
[5:15]
As far as expansion of FTEs goes, I'm unable to identify specific FTEs for the 40-to-49 age bracket. We are looking at opening a number of new centres for screening mammography in the coming year -- one in the Simon Fraser health region, a second centre in Vancouver, one in the North Okanagan-Vernon region, one in Sechelt, which will be an ancillary centre, and one in Williams Lake. We continue to expand the screening mammography program and make it more accessible both by sited centres and by the mobile centres, which I think have worked so well in the Peace country, in the Kootenays and in other areas of the province.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. I would simply ask for some clarification around the number of sited centres in the province and the number of mobile units in the province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: For a minute there, hon. member, I thought I was going to have to count the stars and the trucks on the little visual that they provided me with.
L. Reid: I've not seen that one.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's actually quite a good graphic and shows just how widespread centres are in the province. It really does illustrate how far we've come in making sure that this is widely available.
In 1994-95, last fiscal year, there were 12 of these fixed centres, which are dedicated wholly to screening mammography and are operating on a full-time basis. Those are in the more populated areas. There are six of what the Cancer Agency calls ancillary centres, which may make use of unused time at a mammography site or use mammography equipment located in the hospital on a part-time basis for screening. There are two mobile units: one for the interior and Kootenay, and one for upper Vancouver Island.
The list that I gave you of sites to be opened this year is in addition to that, so we will be adding three fixed centres and two more ancillary centres, which will bring the number to 15 fixed, eight ancillary and two mobile.
L. Reid: I would like to ask the minister for clarification. The only one I am not clear on is the ancillary centre. You were making a reference to the fact that hours of screening time would be available when that system is not engaged in what other practice?
Hon. P. Ramsey: They are really done for diagnostic purposes and located largely in hospitals. Then, as I think you are aware, the mammograms are sent to a high-volume centre -- one of the fixed centres -- so that we can ensure consistency of diagnosis and interpretation.
L. Reid: I certainly appreciate the graphic. I think it's extremely well done.
My next couple of questions will probably centre on whether the minister believes that any women are not finding the service available to them. It's my understanding that most of these services operate during business hours, or 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. I wonder if there's any thought of opening evening or weekend clinics. It seems that there are women yet today who don't avail themselves of the service because they are not able or it's simply not convenient to take time away from their families or work during daytime hours. That's a consideration and a concern that's been brought to me a number of times. Is it possible to open a clinic from 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. once a week or even once a month, similar to the Red Cross blood bank? Is it possible to capture some of the audience that's not yet taking advantage of this service? Could the minister kindly comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I share the view of the member opposite that flexibility of hours is surely something that needs to be looked at. I don't have the information available to me on the hours of operation for each of the 20-some sites that we have just discussed. I would also suggest, hon. member, that there are other high-priority issues, and you might wish to comment as well. One is increased work with the first nations communities. I think the mobile unit in the central interior is starting to do a good job on that. I remember that before I was in my current position, one of the things I was lobbying the Cancer Agency very heavily for was a mobile unit to address aboriginal needs, particularly in Fort St. James.
I kept stressing, contrary to views that it's only 100 miles to Prince George and surely they could drive that once every two years, that women from the Carrier-Sekani nation, who live along the shores of Stewart and Takla Lakes, simply would not see that as home and would be very reluctant to do that. I think the mobile unit is starting to address some of those issues. There are other areas in the province where similar issues arise.
The other thing I think we need to do a lot more work on is making sure that some of the ethnic populations in the province are making use of mammography services. Clearly there are some cultural barriers that we need to figure out how to work with. In some cases, the B.C. Cancer Agency is forming partnerships with ethnic groups to try to make sure that the services are as widely used as possible. I would say that in urban centres that remains one of our larger challenges.
[ Page 14356 ]
L. Reid: Again, I do believe the minister and I have some common ground. Certainly I don't need the hours of operation today. I trust the ministry will look, at some point, at trying to capture the remaining number of women out there who are still not availing themselves of the service. As the minister and I both know, 2,500 women annually will receive a diagnosis of breast cancer. If there are ways to continue to refine our approach to that, I would certainly welcome that. The minister's comments around aboriginal women are extremely well taken. As for the ethnic communities whose first language is not English, at different health fairs around the province I am pleased that a number of those materials are now being translated into a variety of languages. Again, I think the attempt is to capture an even larger audience. All of those initiatives, I welcome and applaud.
I would again make reference to your yet-to-be-proposed advertising campaign around different programs available in health care. If we can look at some translation issues around some of that television advertising, that indeed may be a very useful vehicle as well. Certainly there are multicultural channels available to you. I do not know if it was your ministry's intention simply to do BCTV, but if it is possible to look at channels other than the mainstream, I think it would indeed be useful to capture some of that audience as well.
In terms of other issues around cancer treatment, certainly the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, B.C. Chapter, which is currently under the presidency of Judith Caldwell, has done some fascinating work. I am delighted to be part of that process, and I am now part of an advocacy committee that looks at ways to ensure that not just women have a better understanding of some of the health care options they might have at their disposal but that the broader community has a sense of what it is to suffer breast cancer or any number of different cancers that most of us or family members have had to experience.
One of the issues the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation continually comes back to is the issue of communication. Certainly I would give my highest accolades to Dr. Ivo Olivotto of the Cancer Agency for the book that he has put in place in terms of trying to provide -- not just to women, but in this case particularly women -- almost a series of steps they might take to better understand the etiology of their disease and possible treatment measures. So many women around this province, so many people who are cancer patients, often believe that there is no consistent source of information and that there is no way to encapsulate all the things they need to understand about treating their own disease. If there is any way that you as minister or this ministry could applaud the efforts of Dr. Olivotto, I would certainly welcome that. I think the fact that somebody takes the time to commit that kind of expertise is something we all should be intensely proud of.
I certainly will concur that there's more work to be done around cancer treatment. When the ministry is looking at ways to establish awareness programs, I think the language is certainly one issue and the general sense of communicating a message that you're not alone. So many cancer patients -- no matter the tumour -- come back to the table and suggest that it's just an incredibly lonely road in terms of trying to find the answers to their questions. So if this is about humanizing health care, I trust that we can continue to work together, hopefully, to bring in line some of the issues about how best your ministry might communicate that message, not just for women in the province. I would look forward to your comments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think anybody on this side of the House would do other than share in the applause for the work of Dr. Olivotto and some of the work that he's done with support groups. I think the member is aware, surely, that this government has done what it can to make research into breast cancer a priority. There was the announcement by the Premier last fall of $750,000 of additional money for that and the continued attraction of the best researchers we can get to the province.
I'd just also like to say that I think we do find ourselves in agreement on one of the things that happens very often when somebody is diagnosed with a cancer -- I speak from a couple of instances in my immediate family. There's a feeling of incredible loneliness: "This has never happened to anybody before, and I don't know what's going to happen, and I'm alone in this facing whatever forces prevail." Any of the efforts of various support groups and advocacy groups for breast cancer patients and others in their work with health units to establish support groups for people undergoing treatment, or trying to determine in their own minds what their treatment options are, are incredibly important.
We spoke earlier of the necessity for ongoing volunteer involvement in health care in the province. This is one of the areas where that support of your community.... Members from the community who have experienced a similar condition and who understand not only what the textbooks say your treatment options are but the effects on you as an individual and on your family -- on your entire life -- know what can best provide that help. Quite frankly, that's something that's very hard to design or fund. It comes from people who recognize their common humanity and common mortality, and they seek to provide assistance to their fellow citizens.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. It was indeed a very emotional meeting for me when I last attended the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and realized that I was one of the few women in the room who had not experienced breast cancer. I would certainly applaud the level of commitment that this group of individuals has, in terms of advancing the issue for all women.
Noting the hour, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]