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)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 7
[ Page 14469 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. We have one pleasant task to perform.
Law Clerk: A letter from the Ministry of Attorney General, office of the Deputy Attorney General:
May 19, 1995 Mr. E. George MacMinn, QC Clerk of the Legislative Assembly Room 221, Parliament Buildings Victoria, B.C.
Dear Mr. MacMinn:
Re: By-election, Electoral District of Abbotsford, May 3, 1995
Enclosed is the original letter from the chief electoral officer, Robert A. Patterson, certifying the election of John van Dongen as the member to represent the electoral district of Abbotsford.
Yours truly, Ernie Quantz, Acting Deputy Attorney General
A letter from Robert A. Patterson, chief electoral officer, to Ernie Quantz, QC, acting Deputy Attorney General:
Re: By-election, Electoral District of Abbotsford, May 3, 1995
The November 1, 1994, resignation of Harry De Jong, the member for the electoral district of Abbotsford, created a vacancy in the membership of the Legislative Assembly.
A writ of election was issued on April 5, 1995, requiring that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy. Accordingly, May 3, 1995, was designated as polling day.
The completed writ of election has been returned to me, and by this memorandum, I certify the election of John van Dongen as the member to represent the electoral district of Abbotsford in the Legislative Assembly.
Robert A. Patterson, Chief Electoral Officer.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the letter of the Deputy Attorney General and the certificate of the chief electoral officer with the result of the election of the member be entered in the Journals of the House.
Motion approved.
G. Campbell: I have the honour to present to you John van Dongen, the member for the electoral district of Abbotsford, who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claims his right to take his seat.
The hon. member for Abbotsford took his seat.
D. Lovick: I have the pleasure today to make two different introductions. First, I want to welcome a group of students from Nanaimo District Secondary School -- otherwise known as NDSS or even as ND -- here today with their teacher Mr. Ted Miller, who besides being an excellent teacher in Nanaimo was also the former Member of Parliament for the constituency of Nanaimo-Alberni. So I first ask my colleagues in the chamber to please join me in making this group welcome.
The second group of people I wish to make welcome, and I ask my colleagues to join me, is from the Harmac Pacific pulp mill in Nanaimo. These folks, doing their bit for community service in Nanaimo, bought a dinner with the MLA as part of an auction in Nanaimo, and today they came to collect their marker. I'm happy to tell you that this group represents both management and labour, and I'm going to introduce them without differentiating. I ask the House to join me in welcoming, then, Mr. Al Brett, Murray Duncanson, Roger Killin, Jim White, Gerry Tellier and Bob Smiley.
L. Reid: In the precinct today are 56 grade 6 students from Howard De Beck Elementary in the riding of Richmond East. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, in your gallery today first of all is Mr. Umendra Singh, who is with the Voice newspaper, which caters to the ethnic communities here in British Columbia. It's his first visit, shockingly enough, to Victoria, although he's lived in British Columbia for quite some time. I'm sure he'll be back to contribute to our economy in the future. Joining him also are Mr. J. Sharma and Mr. Kulbir Mahi. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.
[2:15]
D. Streifel: In the gallery this afternoon are a number of students, parents and teachers -- more than 40 of them, as a matter of fact -- from Hatzic Elementary School in the constituency of Mission-Kent. I bid the House make them welcome.
J. van Dongen: I would like to introduce to the House today my wife Karen, my sons Stephen and Peter, my mom and dad, and a number of friends and relatives who helped get me here. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
M. de Jong: I have the privilege of introducing to the House today my constituency assistant, Wendy Whittle, who is visiting us for the first time. I hope that members will make her feel welcome, along with assorted other guests from the Abbotsford and Matsqui area.
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Act.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the bill be read for a first time now.
[ Page 14470 ]
The Employment Standards Act sets the basic conditions of employment and standards of compensation in the workplace, and as such, lays out the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees. The existing act is the result of the consolidation in 1980 of ten different statutes. This bill is being introduced in direct response to the first comprehensive review of employment standards in the history of British Columbia. It includes many of the changes recommended by Mark Thompson in his report Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace: A Review of Employment Standards in British Columbia, and reflects extensive consultations with people across the province.
The act, which has been rewritten in simpler language and restructured to make it easier to read and use, includes changes in the following areas: enhanced flexibility in the workplace, by allowing for scheduled compressed work weeks; enhanced terms of employment, such as family responsibility leave; development of policies to promote the level of awareness of and increase education about rights and responsibilities under the act; establishment of an appeal tribunal separate from the investigative process; and strengthened enforcement, with the introduction of penalties, interest and fines. These and other amendments address the changing economic and business conditions in the province. This bill is designed to ensure equity and fairness for all British Columbians.
Bill 29 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.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move that the bill be read now for a first time.
I'm pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. The proposed legislation amends the following statutes: the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2) and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act. These are basically housekeeping provisions designed to meet some specific needs in the communities of Abbotsford, Dawson Creek, the city of Vancouver and the GVSDD. In addition, Bill 31 contains provisions to ensure that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the election provisions of the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter are not inconsistent with respect to election materials.
Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BENEFITS AND PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES IN 1995-96 BUDGET
G. Campbell: Over the last week it has become obvious that the NDP budget is a sham. Instead of truly balancing the budget by cutting costs, the minister backed away and manipulated the books with $250 million, against the advice of the auditor general. Can the minister tell the House whether prior to the last budget she prepared any documentation listing options for real cost saving in public sector compensation?
Hon. E. Cull: During the preparation for the last budget we looked at all possibilities for cost saving.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: The B.C. Liberal opposition has obtained a secret Ministry of Finance document outlining specific options for real cost saving in the public sector. The document contains a smorgasbord of options, including a hiring freeze, unpaid days off and wage rollbacks. My question to the minister is: why did she deceive the public with $250 million she didn't have when she had a real choice to make real cuts in the costs of government in British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: I ask the member to have a look at the latest Business Council of B.C. statistics on public sector compensation in British Columbia. For the first time in many, many years, public sector compensation has dropped below the compensation increases in the private sector. The Public Sector Employers' Council, with the Public Sector Employers Act, is doing the very job we said we would do, which was to make sure that we honour and respect our employees and treat them fairly but live within the means of British Columbia's taxpayers.
F. Gingell: This document recommended deferring the recent BCGEU compensation increase as a way of saving hundreds of millions of dollars. Had the Minister of Finance taken the high road to balancing this budget, she would have made significant cuts to the cost of her NDP government. Why did the minister choose the low road and pretend to balance the budget through inappropriately booking proceeds from a phantom contract for the Columbia downstream benefits rather than making substantive cuts to the cost of their government?
Hon. E. Cull: I am delighted with this question, because now we see what the Liberal opposition would do to deal with their promises, which we know clearly don't add up. They've talked about cutting the corporation capital tax for big business, about eliminating the school property taxes...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. E. Cull: ...and they've talked about balancing the budget, but they won't tell us how they would do it. Now we know: they're going to do it on the backs of the people who provide services to this province. We have rejected laying off teachers, nurses and other vital public servants. We have rejected reneging on contracts with our public employees, and we have come in with a cost-effective way to provide services to British Columbia. There is a choice, and these questions make it very clear what the choice will be.
The Speaker: A supplemental question, hon. member.
[ Page 14471 ]
F. Gingell: The real choice was whether this minister was going to bring in a budget that was based on truth and honesty in the accounting procedures, rather than shopping around for opinions that she knows are not valid.
All governments in Canada are concerned about the size of government. Seven other provinces have taken steps to control the growth of the public sector, while this government has allowed the size and cost of the public sector...
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
F. Gingell: ...in British Columbia to increase by 26 percent during their mandate. Why has the minister given in and backed off from any substantive cuts that were recommended in her document back in December 1994?
Hon. E. Cull: While almost all other provinces in Canada, particularly those that have been led by Liberal governments, have been slashing and burning their public services, what has been happening here in B.C....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Will the hon. member for Delta South please come to order.
Hon. E. Cull: ...is that we have had over 400,000 new British Columbians move in in the last four years. When people in this province, during the time I spent going around talking to them about the budget, said to me to cut government spending, they didn't say to cut teachers, they didn't say to cut police officers, and they didn't say to cut nurses. They said to make the kind of cuts that we made to administrative spending in our budget.
We have to provide services to the almost 100,000 new British Columbians we have each and every year; we have done that. We've reduced the per capita cost for the third year in a row by over 2.5 percent.
VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for gaming. The minister made it clear during his press conference that he doesn't have a plan for combatting illegal video lottery terminals. Can the minister explain why the government would reverse the initial decision to legalize VLTs without even knowing what steps it will take to crack down on illegal ones? Is the government really that inept at enforcing the law?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Premier said in October 1994 that when we formulate this policy we will listen to the concerns and the wishes of the people of British Columbia. They have spoken very clearly, and we have heard very clearly: there shall be no VLTs anywhere in British Columbia. In addition to that, let me say, with respect to the grey machines, that we have spoken to the UBCM -- some members of the UBCM -- and we have looked at dealing with the issue of grey machines with the liquor licensing, with business licensing at the hands of the municipalities, with bringing in new legislation in the next session and also with pressing the federal government to amend the Criminal Code. We are onto that, and we'll be dealing with that in a coordinated fashion.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: The government made a good decision by finally admitting that British Columbians overwhelmingly rejected the initial plans to legalize 5,000 VLTs. Why doesn't the minister go the next step and incorporate into his perceived new gaming law, the one that may be coming in a month...that outlaws all of the so-called grey machines? The government has often estimated that there are as many as 10,000 illegal machines in British Columbia. Now, after the inept announcement today, how is it going to get rid of them?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are estimates that there are somewhere in the order of 8,000 to 10,000 grey machines operating in the province of British Columbia. These machines are illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada because they have not been authorized by the province. At my request, my Deputy Attorney General is convening a meeting immediately with senior criminal justice branch officials and representatives of police forces around British Columbia to develop a strategy...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: ...to deal with the illegal grey machines in operation at the present time, now that a decision to not proceed with legal VLTs has been taken.
APPOINTMENT OF CHRIS CHILTON TO HEALTH MINISTRY
M. de Jong: Last Thursday we learned that the Premier's disgraced chief of staff had landed softly in the Health ministry, courtesy of a $125,000 parachute. Neither the Premier nor the Health minister could yesterday explain what the new job was, nor could they explain what expertise or skills Mr. Chilton brought with him that qualified him for that position. What we do know, however, is that $125,000 is sufficient to purchase home- care support services for over 500 British Columbians -- individuals who need that support to preserve their dignity and independent living standards.
[2:30]
My question to the Minister of Health is: what does he have to say to those elderly, blind, disabled individuals who have been told by this government that it can't afford $60 a week to provide home support services for them, but that it can miraculously find $125,000 to provide to its friend and insider, Mr. Chilton?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would say to those constituents what I hope the member opposite would say: be very afraid of what the federal Liberal government is doing to medicare in this country. Be very afraid. We are looking at cuts for health and post- secondary education in this province of $800 million. Mr. Chilton brings a background as senior staff at both provincial and federal levels. He brings a knowledge of the health system and personal involvement in it. And unlike the Liberal opposition, he seems to recognize that there is a threat to medicare, and it comes from federal Liberal budgets and this Liberal opposition endorsement of that slash.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
[ Page 14472 ]
M. de Jong: Let me try to put this to the minister in terms he might understand. Two weeks ago I alerted him to the fact that over 500 individuals in Abbotsford alone had been advised that they were going to be cut off from their home support services. His pathetic response at the time was: "Well, tell those people to avail themselves of my appeal mechanism within my ministry." Those homebound, disabled individuals should launch an appeal through the ministry. My question to the minister is: why should those patients, which he has abandoned, have any faith that their interests are going to be protected by this minister, when it's clear that this government's only priority is to reward and protect friends and insiders like Mr. Chilton?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I invite the member opposite to join me in Committee A for estimates debate in the very near future. I will say there, as I've said in this House, that the budget for home support services in this province is up over one-third during the term of this government. That's concrete support. At the same time, we are taking care to make sure those dollars are spent most effectively. I have said to this member and will say again: if an inappropriate decision has been made, bring it to the attention of ministry officials responsible for providing those services, but also bring to the attention of your constituents your party's abdication of its role to defend medicare.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday in estimates the Minister of Health stated that he had spoken to senior staff in the Premier's Office about getting a special adviser into his ministry. That special adviser turned out to be Mr. Chilton. Can the Premier advise the House whether or not Mr. Chilton was one of those senior staff members present at the meetings in the Premier's Office recruiting and looking for a highly paid person to advise the Minister of Health?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have made it very clear that I've made changes in my office. Mr. Chilton has a background as a senior member in my office who was in charge of dealing with the introduction of the royal commission report on bringing health care closer to home. On top of that, he was a senior adviser for eight years in Ed Broadbent's constituent office and an adviser to Margaret Mitchell, who was the critic in this area. On top of that, he was on the city council in Ottawa and on the hospital board there. He indeed has a long history in understanding our health care and will serve the people of this province well in protecting medicare from over $800 million in cuts from the Liberals in Ottawa that this Liberal opposition said wasn't enough of a cut to health care in British Columbia.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday in estimates, the Minister of Health refused to answer a number of questions. The question I'd like to ask now of the Premier is: can he tell us whether or not Mr. Chilton was involved in appointing Mr. Chilton to the Ministry of Health?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That was a decision that I took with the Minister of Health.
D. Symons: Mr. Chilton, the new special adviser to the Minister of Health, is just one more special friend who has gotten an inside track from this NDP government. British Columbians need to be assured that this partisan hack will not be used by the NDP as an election strategist while on the ministry payroll. Will the Minister of Health today table the job description of his new special adviser, listing what, if any, qualifications he has for this $125,000 golden parachute?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought that both the Premier and myself spoke to the qualifications of this individual. I might ask in return: will this hon. member finally stand up for British Columbians and say to his federal Liberal friends that they got it wrong -- that $800 million worth of cuts will damage health care in this province, and that they need to revisit that issue? Will you stand up and do that, sir?
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Section A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In Section B, here, I call debate on Motion 87.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)
On the main motion.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to bring it to the attention of the House and of those who may be watching us, I'll again read the motion that we're debating: "Be it resolved that this House condemn the American Bonneville Power Administration for breaking a solemn commitment on the delivery and disposition of the Canadian entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty."
I have watched this debate and listened to it very carefully. I was almost reluctant, as a member from Vancouver, to rise, thinking that people may ask: "First of all, what can she bring to the debate? How is it that her constituents are affected?" I must say that as I have watched many more on both sides of the House discuss this issue, I have worried daily about the effect it will have on my constituents, and therefore I want to join the debate around condemning the American Bonneville Power Administration. I am concerned for this reason. I live in a city of 500,000 people, where we enjoy a quality of life that is delivered to us by the wise and careful use of our natural resources. I and my constituents know the value of our resources and how important it is to conserve, protect and ably use them for all of us in British Columbia. So what happens in the Kootenays, and what happens when an American corporation reneges on a deal, immediately affects those who live in the Kootenays and in the interior of this province; but I, too, and my constituents are also affected by that.
What our government has done in negotiating an arrangement, a deal, with the American Bonneville Power Administration on the Columbia River Treaty and obtaining downstream benefits is to protect -- and we continue to
[ Page 14473 ]
protect -- the resources of British Columbia for all British Columbians -- not only just for us now, no matter where we live in British Columbia, but also for our next generation, the children who will follow us, and their children.
Others have spoken much more eloquently than I about the past misdeeds of previous governments in not protecting those resources, and our government has said: "Never again; never again will we sell out our resources to any country. Particularly, never again will we repeat the past mistakes of previous governments in not protecting and getting the full value of our natural resources." Over and over again, previous governments have sold out British Columbia interests in the areas of natural gas, softwood lumber, fish, apples and our water. Previous governments have not protected the resources that British Columbians so ably value -- and need to value, not only for our economy but also for our well-being and our quality of life.
Our government, with our agreement with the Bonneville power corporation, has said: "No more will we sell British Columbians short." We negotiated hard, but we negotiated fairly. Those in this room who would not give recognition to the long, hard negotiations that ended up in a fair agreement simply do not understand what governing responsibly is all about. The deal is a good deal, a fair deal and a legal deal; no one should mistake that. But whoops, oh my gosh, the Bonneville Power Administration got into some trouble among its own. The markets changed, they said, and they raised their hands in horror and said: "Oh no, the market has changed, and we've upset some of our customers. Our customers aren't happy with us, and they're putting the heat on us to demand better service from us -- the BPA. They're actually asking us to meet our mandate here. Gee, instead of us looking to our own and looking internally in our own country about managing our resources properly and in an environmentally responsible way, we're not going to take any of that responsibility. We're going to renege on our deal with British Columbians. We're going to renege on a legitimate agreement that we signed." Well, I say -- and our government says -- to the BPA: "Too bad. Too bad, BPA. It's a legitimate deal, it's a fair deal and it's a correct deal; and you're going to live with it."
I must say that anyone, on either side of the border, whether they live in British Columbia or in the United States, who gives any solace, comfort or credence to the BPA for reneging on this deal is shamefully abandoning all the interests and their obligation to represent British Columbians. As I said, we have a legitimate deal, and our government will continue to represent the interests of British Columbians, even in the face of the BPA employing shameful business tactics to hide their own internal problems and incompetence.
[2:45]
Many of us on this side of the House are actually negotiators; we have had lots of experience in negotiations. I think that perhaps that experience is lacking on the opposite side of the House, because they've been fooled by the BPA. It's too bad that they've been sucked in, and caved in to the shameful business tactics of the BPA. It's too bad that the Leader of the Official Opposition and his colleagues have decided to side with the BPA. I feel badly that they don't recognize a bad business tactic. Perhaps if Michael Campbell were here he'd recognize a bad business tactic. Unfortunately, a Gordon Campbell doesn't recognize it and has caved in and fallen for it completely.
We do recognize the tactic, though. We know that BPA is in trouble amongst its own, and it's negotiating. We say: "We've done the negotiations. It's a fair set of negotiations. We have managed our affairs properly. We have managed our affairs in a fiscally responsible way that protects our resources for British Columbians, that allows our resources to be used not only for this generation but the next generation, and we will continue to do that in a very fiscally responsible way." We will not be swayed by those who say that somehow we should run scared, that we should listen to the BPA and that markets have changed, etc. It's interesting, because markets do change; over the course of business deals, markets and other factors change. But when you sign an agreement, that's the agreement that you have to live with. In future, markets may change further to benefit one of the partners more greatly than at the signing of the deal, but that's what it's all about.
In fact, those who are of the free enterprise party support these kinds of negotiations and these kinds of deals, and for anyone now to give credence to such a shoddy business tactic, to say, "British Columbia, you should run scared, you should run away," is really.... First of all, they don't understand what it means to govern in a responsible way, they don't understand business tactics and they don't understand what it means to negotiate a fair deal. Our government understands that, and our government will continue to protect the interests of all British Columbians.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to add a few words to the main motion before the House. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on the amendment that was moved by the Liberal opposition. I am pleased to note that that amendment was defeated, because I don't think it was very well thought out. I think it was an ill-considered move on the part of the Liberal opposition. It wasn't constructive and it didn't really seek a remedy to this issue that the government has found itself in.
My only regret with the government's position -- and I don't disagree with all that the government members have said on this debate, and indeed, the Minister of Social Services has made some comments today that I would tend to agree with -- is that the government is not willing to admit that it too, perhaps, has been caught in a mistake that has been made on this. The reason that we are in this situation today is the result of mistakes that have been made on all sides. No one is exempt from blame on this issue, including the government.
When the Premier launched this debate and moved his motion he admitted that the instructions he had given to the negotiators on the downstream benefits were to seek alternative arrangements to returning the power at Oliver, which is prescribed in the Columbia River Treaty. I think that the Premier, perhaps unwittingly, divulged the problem and the mistake that was made on the part of the negotiators representing the province of British Columbia. We should never have entered into those negotiations with the BPA; we should never have told the Americans that we wanted to enter into alternative arrangements. We should have told the Americans right from the start that we wanted our power back. It's our power. Those downstream benefits are owned by us right here
[ Page 14474 ]
in British Columbia. We should have told the Americans right from the start that we want the power back and that it's up to them to find a way to deliver that power to Oliver, British Columbia, which is prescribed in the treaty. If we had taken that tough stance and had looked the Americans right in the eye from the start, we wouldn't have this problem today. We could have forced the Americans to come to us begging and crawling on their knees for some means of buying the power, short-term or long-term -- but no, we want the power back.
Why didn't we do that? The Premier has admitted the mistake. I wish the government was big enough to admit that it too made a mistake; that we've had a false start in the negotiations for how we're going to deal with the second half of the Columbia River Treaty and how we in British Columbia are going to take advantage of the tremendous downstream benefits that were negotiated back in the 1960s by a previous government led by Premier W.A.C. Bennett. Those are tremendous benefits. It's a valuable resource, and it's owned by all of us as British Columbians. The Premier has admitted a mistake inadvertently.
I wish the government would just be big enough to stand up and admit that it, too, made a mistake. But now the government is seeking support and trying to galvanize the support of all of us here in the Legislature and all British Columbians to take the tough stance that we should have taken in the first place with the Americans and tell them we want the power back. That should be our negotiating position. It should have been from the start, and it should be now.
Why do we want the power back? Because, first of all, it's ours. We own those downstream benefits. If there's one benefit from this debate that's taken place and from the shoddy business practices that the BPA is guilty of, it's that we've had a chance to highlight this issue and bring a greater public awareness of the value of these downstream benefits for all British Columbians. The Bonneville Power Administration has unwittingly served the interests of all British Columbians and done us all a favour. It has done that by helping us to have this debate in the House and to have a wider awareness throughout British Columbia of how valuable these water resources are and what these downstream benefits are. I can tell you that before this issue came to the floor just last week, there were many British Columbians who didn't really understand what these downstream benefits were all about.
Indeed, there were members of Liberal opposition -- the leader of the Liberal opposition -- who clearly had no idea of what these downstream benefits were all about. In fact, initially the leader of the Liberal opposition proposed that all of the downstream benefits should be spent in the Columbia-Kootenay region -- a nice idea if you're trying to buy the votes or bribe the voters of the Kootenays. But we're talking about billions of dollars over the next 30 years. Clearly the leader of the Liberal opposition did not understand what he was talking about. The Liberal position has been unclear from the start.
An Hon. Member: Just a minute. Are you saying you're surprised by that?
D. Mitchell: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is not as surprised as I am by that. But I actually believe that when a leader of a party that's wishing to become government in British Columbia makes a pronouncement on public policy, he would actually take the time to do a bit of research. One wonders where they're getting their advice from. One wonders who drafted their amendment yesterday that was so ill-considered that it was defeated by a strong majority in this House. One wonders if all of the support staff paid for by the taxpayers are spending their time trying to teach the Leader of the Opposition how to comb his hair. They should be spending it on research and trying to understand these crucial issues.
The downstream benefits issue, thankfully -- thanks to the Bonneville Power Administration, interestingly enough -- is now understood by most British Columbians. Perhaps even members of the Liberal opposition understand how valuable a resource it is and that it is owned by all of us, not just by the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region and not just by B.C. Hydro.
When we take the power back as we should -- and we should demand that the Americans deliver that power back to us -- one of the questions is how we're going to use it. It doesn't go automatically to B.C. Hydro. In fact, we as British Columbians should know if the government has entered into negotiations with B.C. Hydro to see how much B.C. Hydro is willing to purchase those downstream benefits for.
Back in the 1980s, there was discussion in our country, in western Canada, of a western Canadian power grid linking up British Columbia with our neighbouring provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan -- a western Canadian power grid, where we would be able to use surplus hydroelectricity and share it with our neighbouring provinces, depending on peak power loads and the fluctuations in power demand in the western provinces. Why is that idea not being discussed in British Columbia today?
Why are we so anxious to enter into short-term or long-term sales for the second half of the Columbia River Treaty with our American neighbours, when they are trying to outmanoeuvre us and outnegotiate us, as the Americans pride themselves on doing? Why don't we just tell the Americans we want the power back?
Why don't we talk about entering into negotiations with our neighbouring western Canadian provinces for a western Canadian power grid, an idea that received much discussion back in the 1980s? It had merit then; it has merit today. We have to look over the long period, over the next 30 years. Short-term considerations should not be driving this arrangement.
When we look at the motion that is before the House, the motion is seeking to condemn the BPA. I wonder how useful that motion really is. Rather than condemning the Bonneville Power Administration, why don't we just sit down with them and tell them to deliver our power, give us our power back and deliver it to British Columbia today?
Yes, we may have a short-term surplus in power for a very short, defined period of time. But there will be ways of marketing that, not only throughout western Canada but.... Taking a look at British Columbia, we already have a deficit in terms of the projections made by B.C. Hydro in their electricity plan for 1994, because of the fact that the Kemano completion project is not being followed through with --
[ Page 14475 ]
because this government cancelled a legally binding agreement. How can we in all honesty be claiming that the Americans are guilty of shoddy business practices when the government of British Columbia itself is guilty of the same kinds of practices in terms of their relationship with Alcan for a long-term commitment there?
There have been a lot of mistakes made. I don't think anybody can feel very proud about pointing fingers at one another. The government would do well by all British Columbians and would have virtue reflected upon it if it were willing to stand up and say: "We have made a mistake, and we're willing to take a second look at this. We want our power back. We're not going to flinch in our negotiations with the Americans; we should have been tougher the first time around, and this time we're not going to waver. We want the power back." That should be the message.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand in my place and speak in support of the motion this afternoon. The B.C. Reform caucus does think that the Bonneville Power Administration indeed acted in bad faith when it cancelled the project. Notwithstanding that, we must look at some of the circumstances that were laid out that may have encouraged them to look at doing that to seek a better deal, being the hard business transactors that they are.
The government should have known from day one that it was dancing with the devil. It only goes to underline the sheer stupidity that this government should bring forth a budget which included a commitment for which they had not yet signed a legally binding contract. It seems to me that this gave Bonneville Power the kind of strength it was looking for in terms of getting a better deal for the power. The government should look in the mirror when it discusses this motion, and none of us can feel good about the fact that we may have lost an opportunity for British Columbians to reap the benefits of the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty. None of us can feel good about that.
There are four points I would like to articulate. First, the province should never have misled British Columbians into believing that this tentative deal was a legally binding deal. That's one point. Second, the government should never have committed the proceeds from the sale of the downstream benefits before it had a legally binding contract. Third, the auditor general and Peat Marwick both warned the government not to pretend that this $250 million was indeed a legitimate expenditure. Fourth, by spending $1 billion in anticipated proceeds and using that fictitious $250 million to balance the budget, the province allowed Bonneville to pull the rug out from under us.
What bothers me most is that we are pointing below the line without talking about and developing a contingency plan where we can create new opportunities with the power that could come back to us, should Bonneville not meet the obligation that was part of the negotiated obligation of only a few months ago. We should be looking at developing a contingency plan to utilize that power back in British Columbia. The speaker before me identified the fact that this amount of power is almost equal to that which was lost in the province by the shutting down of KCP. I think there are all kinds of opportunities to utilize this power for enhancing rural economic opportunities. We're very heavily dependent on power in British Columbia; many of our industries are high power users, and a very high cost of their production is hydroelectricity. We could be utilizing this power back in British Columbia over a long term, and getting far greater return for it than the $5 billion envisioned in this deal.
If we are truly going to get a good deal out of Bonneville, we have to create some alternative markets. You cannot, in my experience, try to sell an item to only one buyer and expect to get real fair value. If you have a number of buyers for it, then you create real fair value. We have to do the best that we can to create alternative plans -- first, to demand that Bonneville live up to the agreement signed in 1964 and deliver that power back to British Columbia. That's item number one. Item number two: develop a long-term scenario as to how we can develop and utilize the opportunities that could be created in British Columbia through the utilization of that power.
Those are some of the items I wanted to have on the record, and with that, I take my place.
[3:00]
D. Jarvis: I rise to talk to the original motion. I just wanted to say that the loss of the $250 million was the result of the collapses which we're aware of in the negotiations between the Bonneville power association and the provincial government. This has drastically affected our so-called budget, which now appears to be quite a deceitful document and which was being used for political purposes, without question. Now we see that we've gone from a fictitious budgetary surplus of $114 million to a very real deficit of $473 million. What we have is further proof of the incompetence and deceit of the government in Victoria now. I assume that if the government had played hardball in these negotiations at the very start, we wouldn't be in this position at all.
The single overriding issue in this matter is not the incompetence of the NDP government in their negotiations with Bonneville Power; it's using the future money that they were to receive to balance their budget. The government applied the presumed downstream benefits received from the Columbia River negotiations to the benefit of the deficit. At the same time, it off-loaded $337 million in transportation expenses to show a surplus of $114 million. With the loss of the downstream benefits of $250 million, the true bottom line shows that B.C. is, in actual fact, in a deficit position of $473 million.
The NDP deliberately misled British Columbians by saying it had a deal when, in fact, no deal was made. I would refer to section 3 of the memorandum of understanding, which says:
"The legal and technical teams be requested to complete drafting of the definitive agreements by December 31, 1994, and if definitive agreements are not drafted and executed by all parties before December 31, 1995," -- and we now know it's not going to be signed by the other party -- "the transactions contemplated by the statement of principles not proceed and negotiations between the parties be terminated."
Section 6(d) says:
"The statements of principles, this memorandum of negotiators' agreement and any drafts, proposals, correspondence and other documents resulting from any of them will have no legal effect; only fully executed definitive agreements among all relevant parties will be legally binding on the parties."
[ Page 14476 ]
"Will be legally binding" -- so that's the fact. This government is continually trying to bait the situation by saying that an American company has reneged on a deal. Clearly, they didn't have a deal. The parties and the memorandum of understanding say so.
We put forward an amendment the other day in which we suggested that we get back together with Bonneville and use members of other parties who have maybe a little more business acumen than the individuals on that side of the House, and let's see if we can get a deal back on the table. No one in this House and no one in this province wants to see the deal go down the drain.
It's quite obvious that things are changing, and I'm surprised that the government has not been aware of it. They voted against our amendment, so one wonders whether they want to sit down and negotiate, or if this is just another little plank in their election program that's coming up. They were warned. In the Trumpy letter that was released by the Finance minister's own department before the budget was brought down, they were warned not to go too fast with the downstream benefits. The Finance minister's own staff said: "Do not get involved in using the moneys from the downstream benefits -- when it comes through -- on other than the debt." No, they haven't done that. They clearly were deceitful.
Markets are changing in this country and all over North America. There's a real war beginning out there in the North American markets for the supply of hydro and gas. This will probably change the electrical and power industries for years to come. Deregulation of U.S. power utilities is ostensibly the root cause. Hydro power is no longer the only cheap, clean fuel and is basically being replaced by gas-fired turbines that will produce power. Across the U.S.A., cogeneration plants fired by natural gas are booming. These plants are quicker and easier to build, they're cheaper to build, and they are popping up everywhere across the country, which is causing the cost of electricity to fall. It's basically falling to the syndrome of the supply-and- demand marketplace.
British Columbia is either not aware of what's happening or is not trying to stopgap this situation ahead of time, and I will talk about it as I go on a little further. In the last two years and over the next two years to come, over 60-plus gas-fired cogeneration plants will be in production. The New York Mercantile exchange will now be introducing an electrical futures component for contracts in their market. Competition will be greater than ever before. At one time we had gas and oil competing against each other on the futures market; now we're going to have electricity competing with gas and oil. Today gas is the lowest performer as far as producing power.... It will be, as I said before, electricity versus oil and versus gas. The U.S.A. markets are no longer starving for our power -- not as they were before. It's a wide-open competition now. To make matters worse, B.C. is way behind these other jurisdictions -- no thanks to this government. When they came into office in October 1991, they stopped all the IPPs through B.C. Hydro.
Because I am criticizing them for using the proposed moneys that they were to receive from this agreement, they say that I'm supporting the United States and that I'm anti-British Columbia. I'd just like to say this: let's go over, right or wrong, some of the items when this government first came into power in 1972. There was an agreement with the United States on the Ross Dam. Right or wrong, this government here, the NDP government, cancelled it. Right or wrong, when they came into power in 1991, there was an agreement between B.C. Hydro and the IPPs, which was set up by the previous government. They cancelled those agreements with IPPs -- this government here. I see the minister from Bulkley Valley shaking her head, saying: "No, that's not right." It's a fact, and if she goes back through Hansard, she will find out that it is a fact. It was only recently, after the Gathercole report came out, that B.C. Hydro agreed to accept IPPs in this province.
L. Fox: Ask her what happened to cogeneration in Houston.
D. Jarvis: Yeah. In her own riding, she should be well aware of the situation because of the cogeneration plant in the town of Houston.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, this government is quite aware of the situation in the Windy Craggy area, where there was an agreement; they were entitled to mine there, and they cancelled that agreement. Right or wrong? Who knows? Let's look at what this government did with the Kemano completion project. They cancelled an agreement. What we're trying to say is that this government should not rest on the fact that they are the only ones in this country who have never cancelled an agreement, whether it be good or bad. They're just as much responsible as anyone else is.
We see what has happened, with the result that we have not kept up with the marketplace. If any of the members over there were aware that we're having problems with power in North America.... All they have to consider is where the future is and that, at the present time, gas is the future to provide cheap power. That's what the supply-and-demand rule bases itself on -- supply and demand. We have not done so in British Columbia. Alberta has. We're losing this market to Alberta. You look at any group of.... If you look at the pipelines that go down into the U.S. markets -- the major markets that buy most of the power, that we're trying to sell our power to.... Northwest Pipeline just put in a $600 million building program on their pipelines; Pacific Gas put in $800 million; Alberta Natural Gas tapped off of Nova's pipelines and hooked up with the United States very quickly; Northwest Natural Gas is developing all their pipelines. But British Columbia, unfortunately, hasn't seen fit to take that market away. So we can't rest on hydroelectricity to provide us with power, because hydroelectric power is too expensive.
I'm surprised that this contract or this agreement -- this uncompleted agreement -- with Bonneville Power Administration was not concluded; but we were unable to give our thoughts on it, because the government, as usual, held their talks in secrecy. This, like everything else with this government, gets them in trouble -- always has and always will. Surely they knew that the markets were going to change; surely they knew that there was something in the wind. After all, they spent $1.2 million on lawyers out of Vancouver and another $300,000 on lawyers out of Seattle -- up to $1.5 million on solicitors -- to try to find out what's going to happen, and to negotiate, but they failed to do it.
There is always a way to settle these matters, and we believe that they can be settled. There will always be customers for our power, and we have the power. What we have to do is establish what is a workable price. It's a market supply and demand business. Let's hope that the government
[ Page 14477 ]
can sit down now that they realize what mistakes are made out there, and we can compete with the other jurisdictions in North America.
Perhaps what we need overall is an independent review of our power needs and export needs. If this was done without having a.... As I say, it must be an independent one, without having someone who has an interest in a political party involved. This would probably be the best performance that we could possibly look for.
But at the present time, we are stuck with a situation in which the government has misled itself by using moneys it did not have in hand to balance the budget in this province. That is deceitful and wrong, and I blame the government for having this happen and disrupting the lives of a lot of people in this province. On that premise, Mr. Speaker, I'll sit down and thank you for the opportunity.
T. Perry: Just before I begin formal remarks, I'm going to presume that I might have leave to introduce some students from Seattle.
Leave granted.
T. Perry: I have determined by sign language that there are a number of grade 6 students from Canyon Creek Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, U.S.A., who are visiting us today. I'm sure all members would join me in making them welcome. They've come at a very timely moment in the debate. I'd like to ask members to join me in making them welcome.
[3:15]
I'll resume my place. I don't think it should go unsaid to our American guests that our distinguished Speaker was born in the United States and educated in Oregon; his mother lives in Los Angeles. We have many fond connections with the country our visitors are from.
But they've come at a particularly timely moment, and I'm going to take advantage of my good fortune of rising at this time in the debate to address some remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, to our American guests, because they may not be aware that the motion we're debating calls on our House to condemn the Bonneville Power Administration -- one of the major suppliers of electrical power in the northwest of the United States of America -- for backing out of a signed commitment for the renewal of the Columbia River Treaty with British Columbia. I see a rare opportunity to penetrate that wall of media indifference which separates us. It's not an iron curtain; I don't know what one would call it in metaphor. Maybe the students can help me. It's some kind of a curtain defined by a lack of information and a failure to transmit information. My friends in the American media tell me that as of last week, the story that we find so important here had failed to penetrate past the 49th parallel.
What we're debating here today is the fact that a formal, signed commitment between our province and the Bonneville Power Administration, signed by the Premier of our province and by the president of the Bonneville Power Administration last September, has been reneged on unilaterally by BPA. Why should that concern American young people and their teachers who are visiting us today, and citizens and voters in the U.S.? I want to take the chance to address that question, because I've noted in the speech of the preceding Libcred member the same vacuousness that has characterized all of the debate from his party. That was summarized beautifully in a letter to the leader of the Libcred official opposition, which I received a copy of from a constituent who wrote on May 16 to the Leader of the Official Opposition:
"I am extremely concerned and angered by your criticism of the British Columbia government re: problems surrounding the Columbia River agreement. In a very delicate situation which could ultimately harm all British Columbians, you are displaying the worst type of political opportunism, designed only to benefit you and your party's electoral fortunes. No one would dispute your right and responsibility to offer constructive criticism, with viable alternative proposals, but all I hear is your usual inflated rhetoric."
That's about what we've heard from the previous speaker and his colleagues.
There was a signed agreement which did much to redress the inequities in the original Columbia River Treaty. The young people who are visiting us today probably aren't aware, just as their counterparts in this province are not aware, of what really happened in the Columbia River Treaty. One of the greatest rivers in the world -- an international river that rises in Canada near the Rocky Mountains, then flows north through British Columbia, back south through the Arrow Lakes and into Washington State south of Trail, and is joined by the Kootenay River, originally flowing south out of British Columbia into Montana, back north into B.C. through Idaho and Washington.... That giant river basin was, I guess, in its time the largest single spawning system for Pacific salmon on the west coast of the Americas. It has been ruined by dams. There were many great benefits of those dams. There were songs by Woody Guthrie from the Depression days that maybe some of the students have heard and that you, hon. Speaker, will remember, such as "Roll On Columbia, Roll On." It's a wonderful song about building dams during the New Deal: to deal with the worst outrages of the Depression; to put working people who were unemployed and on the dole back to work; to create something wonderful; to harness and utilize water flowing to the sea for useful purposes; and for the war effort against the Germans and the Japanese. But there were major ecological consequences.
Last year one sockeye salmon returned to Redfish Lake in the headwaters of the Columbia River Basin -- the Snake River tributary to the Columbia. That's a national scandal in the United States, as, hopefully, all of these kids visiting us today know: one sockeye salmon. Even those creationists in Abbotsford who do not believe in evolution would understand from Noah that it takes at least two sockeye salmon to reproduce. One sockeye salmon is not going to get you far at Redfish Lake in the headwaters of the Columbia. The reason those salmon were exterminated was not only an overaggressive fishery but, ultimately, the dams on the Columbia.
After the New Deal dams had gutted the pristine environment of the Columbia River in the United States, the drive and the push moved north into our country. In the early sixties our then government decided to take a gamble and dam and flood out our greatest river system -- the Columbia River in the eastern part of the province. We don't even talk about it as the greatest any more, because it has been so damaged. We built four major dams. The Keenleyside Dam stored water for the benefit of Americans downstream -- for agriculture -- so that Washington State apples could outcompete ours and put our farmers out of business. We did not
[ Page 14478 ]
install generators in that dam; it was a dam designed purely to benefit American electrical power consumers and farmers. We dammed the Kootenay River at Libby Dam in Montana. We destroyed some of the finest wildlife habitat in the state of Montana and in British Columbia north of the border -- the Serengeti of North America. The richest concentrations of elk, deer, bear, bighorn sheep and other forms of wildlife were flooded out without warning. Further north we built the Mica Dam, which did bring us some benefits in British Columbia; later, Revelstoke. We built the Duncan Dam, which American economists of that time argued was not necessary for the scheme in the first place. We flooded another major valley in our country to benefit American power consumers.
There were benefits in B.C. as well. They were probably not as great as we were entitled to, but there were benefits. We did this voluntarily. We signed an international treaty. The Americans did not force us into doing this; we did this willingly, as a provincial and federal government in 1964, in the Columbia River Treaty. But our leaders were wise enough to insist on a provision for renegotiation, and in 1998 those downstream benefits which result from dams in Canada, which cause massive environmental damage in Canada and cause benefits to American citizens downstream.... We get a 50 percent share of those benefits; we did better this time.
Contrary to what the Libcreds would have British Columbians believe, we assigned a top-notch economist, Marvin Shaffer -- a PhD economist from UBC, from a very strong department of economics, and one of the sharpest minds in this province -- and a team of very sharp minds at B.C. Hydro, and for once we outnegotiated the Bonneville Power Administration. For once, we Canadians stood up on our hind legs and did better in negotiating than the Americans, and Bonneville Power Administration has now ratted on it.
Our American guests should understand that this is not unique to British Columbia. This is not an anti-American argument I make. I myself was born in the United States, like our Speaker. This is an argument against a company which has an outrageous business record. When I called my friend who writes for a Seattle newspaper to ask him about the record of Bonneville, he laughed and said: "They're known for their shoddy business practices throughout the northwest." Why should this concern Americans rather than only us? I think that the young Americans sitting in the gallery also have a stake in this issue. We heard the Libcred critic blithely relishing the idea that British Columbians are going to lose $250 million this year, which the Bonneville power corporation owes us. Somehow he finds that delightful -- that British Columbians are going to be on the short end of the stick. I don't. That means, potentially, services in our province can suffer, despite the best efforts of the government to negotiate a good deal for British Columbians, despite a sound, honourable commitment by Bonneville Power. I don't find that delightful, I find that sad.
I think there are losses for the Americans. These young American citizens over the next few years are going to be facing the question: shall Bonneville return that power to us for our use, which it must do under the treaty, by constructing a long, large hydroelectric power transmission line from Grand Coulee up to the Canadian border at Osoyoos and Oliver? Will they want a large power line running through some of the best, pristine desert country in the state of Washington, through Indian reserves, through wilderness areas? They may not. They may decide that we concluded with Bonneville an agreement that was not only good for us but also better for American citizens.
Will they want to see more and more global warming promoted by the burning of natural gas and gas-fired turbines? Yes, the price may be cheap -- we sell our birthright away very cheaply these days. We can make a lot of money in northeastern B.C.; we can employ British Columbians. But, ultimately, what we are doing is converting a fossil fuel, natural gas, which took hundreds of millions of years to create in the earth's evolution, turning it as fast as we can in southern California into more electricity to power more air conditioners and Coca-Cola coolers.
Some of the teachers may remember the old battle over the Skagit Valley, and the song that the famous black American Malvina Reynolds wrote about the Skagit Valley and the High Ross Dam being built to run the Coca-Cola coolers of Seattle, U.S.A. Well, now we're going to fire more Coca-Cola coolers in L.A. and places south by burning natural gas and contributing more to global warming, because Bonneville Power Administration has ratted on its signed agreement with us. They don't have to do that. We have offered them those downstream power benefits. We have offered them what is now -- since the dams are built and the water is flowing over the dams -- clean power, which does not come at any further environmental cost. We've already paid the price. We have offered that power to our American friends at a price fair to us and to them, and they've decided no, they'd rather contribute to more global warming.
I find it shocking that the official Energy critic for the Libcred party is so ignorant of those issues that he would rejoice in that. They don't believe in global warming; they're too ignorant to know that that's a real issue. But I suspect that a lot of the young kids there who are going to be facing these issues as they grow up -- some of them, I'll bet -- before this issue is concluded, are going to be involved in it. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them are fighting on the same side as we are, just as we did over the Skagit Valley and many other great environmental issues. I know that my friends from the old Skagit days on the North Cascades Conservation Council are probably going to see this issue in exactly the same way as we do up here.
My time is running out, but I want to say one last thing. I grew up in that time when the Columbia River Treaty was first signed. I remember challenging the then Energy minister, Jack Davis, when he first contemplated renegotiating the treaty, and it struck me, sitting on that side of the House, that that Social Credit Energy minister was about to give away the store once again -- and unnecessarily so.
I'm very proud that our government, all the ministers involved -- the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Employment and Investment, formerly the minister of Finance responsible for B.C. Hydro, and the then minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, the member for Esquimalt- Metchosin -- and the Premier and the cabinet insisted on having a very smart, tough negotiating team. I'm proud of the agreement we got. I hope that the Washington and Oregon people who ultimately hold the shares of Bonneville Power Administration will think about the deal that was concluded, and I hope that their press will break the barrier of silence, so that they know what Bonneville Power has just reneged on. And I hope that we will, through a
[ Page 14479 ]
negotiated approach, achieve a solution that's good for both our countries. But if need be, it's time for us to be tough: it's time for us to rule to the letter of the Columbia River Treaty; it's time for us to look after our own interests first in this country; it's time for us to look after our own environmentalists first. We know what BPA has done to the Columbia River: it has written it off. It is happy, ultimately, with one sockeye salmon returning to Redfish Lake.
[3:30]
The last thing I want to say is that I find it sad, but I don't, frankly, find it relevant that the Libcred party wants to give comfort to BPA and try to make a political advantage out of something that negatively affects all British Columbians. It's not going to alter the negotiations. It's not a fifth column, and it doesn't dignify being given that unfortunate appellation. It's just sad. It's pathetic that they have no more interest in the people of this province than to try to score political points on this issue.
I look forward to the resolution of this issue. I look forward to working with many of the young students and their teachers who have joined us today, because I think there's a positive solution that still awaits us on this issue.
J. Tyabji: Yesterday in this debate I had the opportunity to speak to an amendment. What I find today is that we're getting to more of the substance of the central issue in the negotiations. In the main motion, we're talking about condemning the activities of Bonneville Power. I don't think there are a lot of arguments from MLAs who believe that anyone who sits down in good faith to negotiate an agreement and who signs a memorandum of understanding should have a legitimate reason to walk away from the table. If they walk away from the table without a legitimate reason, then we can feel pretty comfortable in saying that that is not an action that we can condone. In fact, we would condemn that. They should get back to the table and negotiate in good faith.
Having said that, it's very important for us to realize that we've never really had a solid debate in British Columbia on the future of our natural resources, specifically as they relate to hydro and water. In this chamber we've occasionally had debates around the issue. For example, on this motion we're going to be talking specifically about the Columbia River Treaty. I notice that in the gallery we have a person who lives in Mackenzie, Rick Berry, who's been talking to a number of MLAs with respect to Williston Lake and the lake levels there. I know that in this debate we've talked a little bit about NAFTA. A few years ago we had an opportunity to speak about NAFTA and how we should deal with it. The central issue of what British Columbians want to do with our water resources and therefore with our hydro should be addressed before the government sits down to negotiate with Bonneville Power. When we first entered into the Columbia River Treaty and the agreement that is the reason that we are currently here today, there wasn't an opportunity for people throughout the province to express a long-term vision for our water and our hydro. Now we have that chance.
At the time that the memorandum of understanding was signed, there was a lot of debate, because that memorandum of understanding was signed without using a very powerful lever that we have with the United States -- that is, the United States was under an obligation to either provide us with the financial downstream benefits of the 30-year Columbia River Treaty or build a power line to Oliver. We've heard from a number of members. I think we can give Mr. Berry some credit for the fact that we have been talking now, today, about the capacity for electrical generation in B.C. as opposed to always focusing on electrical supply.
In addition to that, we should look at the lever that exists in the United States. The U.S. is going to be extremely hampered when trying to build a power line to Oliver through the United States, because of the Environmental Protection Agency's restrictions on construction on the land where they would have to construct that line. As I understand it, a large portion of the land that that line would be built on is currently coming under aboriginal jurisdiction. The challenges in the United States with respect to aboriginal jurisdiction are very similar to the challenges we have in Canada, where we are not sure where the lines are drawn about who is in charge and who has jurisdiction; they are not sure whether the Environmental Protection Agency would be the final door or whether the aboriginal people would be able to block the construction. There could be a very strong argument made that, at the time of the signing of the Columbia River Treaty which mandated the construction, the aboriginal people were not signatories to it. That would be a different legal battle.
Having said that, this was a lever that B.C. had when we sat down to negotiate the original memorandum of understanding. We haven't really used that lever very effectively. In condemning Bonneville Power's actions to this point in backing out of that memorandum of understanding, what we have right now is an opportunity to come forward with a stronger position.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
If one of the elements or ingredients in that stronger position is that we are aware of the logistical difficulties the United States would face in building the power line, then we have an option. We have had a number of MLAs -- the member for Okanagan West and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi being two of them -- who have spoken very strongly in favour of having the power returned to British Columbia. I think that if we're going to talk about that, and if we are going to advocate that very strongly, we have to keep in mind that we might want to negotiate where it is returned, because the United States has a very vulnerable point as far as living up to the conditions of the treaty is concerned. Perhaps we would be able to negotiate where it is returned; perhaps we could negotiate a better point of return for that power.
In addition to that, if we're not going to negotiate the return of the power, then we have to look at the long-term plan for power in British Columbia. Based on projected population growth, what are the demands going to be? Based on those demands, are we going to be able to meet them?
There's another aspect to this whole power debate that we haven't really talked about here. I'm sure the member for Nelson- Creston or the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke know that the Electric Consumers' Association is a very active and informed group of people who have been lobbying for a long time. In fact, they formed around the whole issue of the purchase of West Kootenay Power by an American company, UtiliCorp. If we move back to that, I believe it was in 1986 that the Electric Consumers' Association formed around the issue. At the time, I was working as a
[ Page 14480 ]
stringer journalist for a radio station, and I was at the founding meeting at the Capri Hotel in Kelowna. What I found at that meeting -- and I think there were about 400 or 500 people there; it was quite a large issue -- was the incredibly high level of concern for some form of ownership of our own resources, especially hydro in that case. Whether it's in Williston Lake or the Columbia River system, we have only to look at the innumerable issues with respect to the environment, tourism, the economy, future power supplies, problems with drought, agricultural water supply and all these varied issues to understand why you would attend a meeting such as the Electric Consumers' Association if you lived close to that source.
I noticed two things that occurred over the years after it formed. First, very strong opposition to the sale of that utility was not successful. Notwithstanding that three municipalities came in to try to bid on it to maintain the ownership of the utility in British Columbia, it was sold to UtiliCorp, which has not lived up to many of the agreements they said they would at the time. One of the conditions of the sale has not been fulfilled, but they have never been held accountable by the province for not living up to it.
The second thing that happened after the sale was that UtiliCorp tried to do a bit of funny accounting on their books to bring in a gas turbine generator from Venezuela. Some of the members from the Kootenays might remember that, and the member for Okanagan West might remember it as well. Actually, at that time, the person who now sits as the Alliance leader had asked me to go make a presentation against the gas turbine generator being located in Oliver, because it was going to come into the south end of the Okanagan, and we did so on an environmental basis because of air emissions.
I was very surprised to see that the people who had come together to lobby for sovereignty and control of our natural resources were still active on those issues a few years later, and were that close to the issue that they were successful in preventing some environmental degradation from a gas turbine generator. More importantly, what I find interesting is that to this day there continues to be an Electric Consumers' Association monitoring what is occurring in that part of the province with our water utilities and our hydro. It might be of very great interest to people who are following power and water issues to learn that the Liberal opposition, who are champing at the bit to get into the government side of the House, are planning to sell B.C. Hydro -- to sell it off, to privatize it, to get rid of it as a Crown corporation.
I have some comments for the member for North Vancouver- Seymour. I'll be reading some of his comments into debate a little later. But the leader of the Liberal opposition, the newcomer.... I can understand that the member for North Vancouver- Seymour might not have known about this policy. I know the MLAs aren't often informed of some of the leader's speeches. Of course, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is a pedigreed Liberal. He's been a Liberal since he was old enough to hold a card. And hats off to him. But he doesn't realize that the person leading his party is a Social Credit person. He's not being led by a Liberal. So it might horrify him...
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: ...to know that his own leader is no longer interested in the Crown maintaining control of our hydro.
An Hon. Member: I notice that nobody asked her to withdraw.
J. Tyabji: I don't know why they wouldn't be offended.
The fact that the Liberals -- the real Liberals -- are upset that there is a Howe Street agenda with respect to B.C. Hydro's future should come as no surprise to the rest of us, who recognize that some of them are well-intentioned, got into this business with the best of intentions and for some reason are still sitting there warming their seats when they could be doing something more productive.
B.C. Hydro should stay as a Crown corporation. The absolutely most important reason B.C. Hydro should stay as a Crown corporation is the definition -- in use under the Water Protection Act, the Water Act, our federal laws, the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA -- that differentiates between a natural water system and a reservoir, between a natural water system and a body of water that is accepting diverted water or that has been dammed or is being used for water control, flood control or power. That distinction will render us incredibly vulnerable if that Leader of the Opposition ever has the opportunity to warm the benches on the other side of the House. As British Columbians, we should all be very frightened of anyone who thinks of selling off our Crown corporation that's controlling the principal bodies of water in this province, for money.
We should be concerned because of the precedents that have been set under the Columbia River Treaty, recognizing that the Columbia River Treaty is a much better deal than we would ever get if we privatized B.C. Hydro. We should know that right now in the Kootenays and in the north, the people who live in those areas are faced with the reality of putting their boat at their dock in the evening, waking up and having to drag that boat almost a kilometre away to try to get it back in the water when the lake levels go down.
I promised the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to read some of his comments into the record. Keeping in mind that at the time he made these comments he was under the leadership of the person who sits as the Alliance leader...
An Hon. Member: A real Liberal.
J. Tyabji: A real Liberal.
...and keeping in mind that -- although the member for North Vancouver-Seymour tries to put out a lot of bluster and pretend that he's sympathetic with the current Liberal agenda, which isn't really a Liberal agenda -- I happen to have sat in a caucus with him and know that his heart is in the right place on water diversion and water export....
An Hon. Member: No, it can't be.
J. Tyabji: It is. I'm not kidding. He actually believes we should have some sovereignty over our natural resources. I respect him for that. I'm not sure how I feel about him continuing to sit there, given the magnitude of the issue.
In an issue of British Columbia Report from 1992 there was a very interesting article called "High, Dry and Disgusted." I should say that there are times when British Columbia Report,
[ Page 14481 ]
which has some very good writers, will put together well- researched articles. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour was talking about a better deal under the Columbia River Treaty. When he was talking about that better deal, he said:
"American officials have indicated that they want additional water beyond the Columbia River Treaty obligations. Ottawa refuses to stand up and fight, either by getting a review of the treaty or taking a tougher stand against American demands."
He went on to say that the government should reject any new requests from the States for water from the Mica, Arrow or Duncan reservoirs. He said:
"I'm not talking about situations where we release water on a compassionate basis in case of drought hardship; of course we should do that if necessary. But water is a limited resource, as the present situation is proving, and there are significant environmental implications to providing more of it to the United States."
He also said: "Any future bulk water transfers below the border must be viewed in the light of whether such transfer establishes a precedent and thus becomes a bargaining chip in free trade disagreements."
[3:45]
Such vision! It's just unfortunate that the member doesn't have the courage to act on that vision and leave the caucus that is now advocating a corporate agenda for our natural resources. He should get up and leave the caucus that is advocating the privatization of B.C. Hydro. At what price does that member's integrity come? Is it a nomination? Is that what it was?
The bulk water issue is one of the central issues in the Columbia River Treaty negotiations. We should recognize that when we sit down to renegotiate, everything should be on the table with respect to current international law, current provincial law and what the province's direction is for our water. We still don't know. We don't know, under the Water Protection Act, if the province is going to retain the right to impose tariffs. We know they are going to retain the right, but we don't know if they are going to exercise the right. We'd like to know that. What is the long-term agenda? What is the vision for the province -- of this government or of any of the other parties?
We know the privatization of the B.C. Hydro Crown corporation is a frightening prospect. If we look at how much of B.C.'s fresh water is beyond reservoirs, we will know that privatizing B.C. Hydro leaves us completely vulnerable to ownership of the water. We will look to the comments of Dr. Peter Pearse for an analysis of what that does. People will recognize Dr. Peter Pearse's name. Although he is with UBC, he was also appointed by the federal government to do the most comprehensive review of Canada's water policy. We often hear Dr. Pearse's name quoted in reference to that. It was only today that I found out that he sits on the board of Alcan, which I thought was quite interesting; it puts a slightly different perspective on federal water policy. But when Dr. Pearse was talking about the drought that occurred in the Columbia River system in 1992 -- a drought that left Lake Koocanusa almost dry and actually killed off a lot of the fish that had been stocked by the governments in that area....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I have to give credit to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour for turning purple in debate about that at the time -- for good reason -- because of his environmental streak, which is too little in evidence these days, I must say.
When Dr. Pearse talks about Lake Koocanusa as a reservoir, what does he say? The professor adds that it's a situation -- with respect to the drought -- that probably is not going to be resolved in any way helpful to Mr. Cutts, who was a rancher who was losing a lot of his livelihood and was complaining that the government wasn't helping him. He says that for anyone whose interests are connected to the man-made lake in the Kootenays: "It's a case of a man seeing an opportunity for a business enterprise which requires an element of luck -- in this case, that there isn't a drought in the States. His luck just happens to have gone bad." He adds: "Americans have every right to take the water from Lake Koocanusa because it is their water. To them it is not Lake Koocanusa; it's the Libby Dam reservoir."
That is what happens when we start to change the designation from a dam that is under our control to a reservoir that's a holding tank for the United States's water supply. If we lose control over the majority of our fresh water by privatizing B.C. Hydro, we will all be in the same situation as those people in the Kootenays and in the north who have seen that their investments have gone, that their livelihoods are disappearing, that their access to water is being diminished. Right now I know of one councillor in the Kootenays who is extremely concerned. Because when this deal fell through, his first comment was: "Well, it's about water." I mean, in addition to the other things that are on the table, it's about water. The reason is that there are about one million acres of agricultural land, just south of the border in the Columbia River system, that are slated, in the American plan, to come up for development as productive agricultural land, and that the development of that land as agricultural land is premised on a consistent supply of B.C.'s water to the Columbia River system.
Well, that being the case, how can we not talk about that in this debate? How can we not talk about a long-term strategy for growth in this province and the power demands that will be coming with it? How do we not look to each party, ideologically and on a policy basis, to find out what their platform is -- where are they coming from? And how can you possibly talk about privatizing B.C. Hydro, recognizing that the sale of one utility in the Kootenays caused such an uproar that nine years later there is still an active association following every move of the government?
We went to the convention of the Electric Consumers' Association a few months ago, and they are extremely worried. That was before the memorandum of understanding was reneged on by Bonneville Power. That was at a time when they thought they had the deal that's fallen through. I can only imagine how they are feeling today, to think that the Liberal opposition is trying to destroy whatever chances we have to go in in a position of strength; that they're destroying our own government's position in sitting down at the table again; and that we're still not getting to the central issue of what the long-term implications will be for British Columbia of whatever deal comes out of this. Because it's more than money; it's a lot more than money. It's more than $250 million, which still might be recovered within this fiscal year -- and we have to wait and see; in fact, we may get more than that in the new deal if we get more of the downstream benefits up front. It's so
[ Page 14482 ]
much more than money, because in the long term, whatever money comes from the downstream benefits will only be a fraction of the financial value of our water as we continue to grow.
B.C. is in its infancy. British Columbia has just begun to develop as a province. I'm frightened to see how easily we can give up our principles and our values for money. Because in this province, where we rely on our natural resources, we have a primary extractive economy which needs to be developed into a secondary and tertiary economy.... But at this stage it's a primary sector. And one of the fundamental ingredients in that -- and beyond our economy even more so -- is water. If we don't protect our water resources, if we don't look to power, if we don't have a long-term strategy, what good have we done our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren as elected representatives in this House?
I say shame on those members who, for the sake of short-term personal gain, will throw away 100 years of principles and values. Looking back 100 years and looking forward 100 years, where will we be? That's the position that we should be looking at when we look to renegotiate this deal: what do we want in 100 years? The population of the province will be more than double what it is now. We will, hopefully, be planning so that these people will be dispersed throughout the province. But we know that no matter what we are looking to the future for, we will need water, and we will need power, and we will need to provide for all the people, not only today but as they exist in 100 years.
I urge in the main motion that we move beyond partisan politics, that we go to the central issue of the debate and that we honestly provide constructive input, so that our government will have the strongest possible bargaining position. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I urge all the members of the House to throw aside partisan slings, and to come forward and look to the future. At this point, with the kind of rhetoric that's been flying around -- most particularly the rhetoric of selling off our Crown corporate utility -- I know I'm frightened for the future of the province.
With that, I'll take my seat.
F. Garden: It's always simply a privilege to follow the previous speaker and her fellow member of the PDA from Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I think that it's indeed a shame for the Liberal opposition that they lost two of their best and most eloquent spokesmen when they moved down the House because they couldn't stand how that party had been hijacked from the Liberal Party. And it certainly has benefited the government that they're now sitting with the PDA, as opposed to sitting in that group of opposition that can't come up with an intelligent argument in this particular debate as to why they should be supporting this government on its initiative and the motion before the House.
But I suppose what we're going to witness in the next few hours is a typical thing. We've got to expect from the opposition that they're going to spend their time -- and the credibility of this province, because I'm sure Bonneville is looking at this debate with interest -- arguing against this particular legislation, and then when the vote comes, they'll certainly vote for it. There's no doubt in my mind.
They've reduced what I think is one of the most important things that has come before this House in the last three or four years from what should be a provincial government and opposition combination going forward in solidarity and taking on this Bonneville power corporation.... Instead of that, they've reduced this debate to the kind of partisan things which we've heard in the last two or three days. Shame on them, because if they ever aspire to anything beyond being opposition -- and the way they're going, I doubt they will -- there are going to be times when they're going to be calling on those around this House, whoever they might be in the future, for the same type of support that we're asking for today.
I'm really pleased that the amendment they raised the other day about setting up a committee was so soundly defeated in this House. It was eloquently stated by the Minister of Employment and Investment how ridiculous it must have seemed to our opponents out there when they saw this apologist opposition actually come up with a motion like that -- going from a position of strength to what would have ultimately been a position of weakness.
Having said that, I would just like to take a couple of minutes to explain to the loyal opposition what bargaining is all about. I've been involved in bargaining all my life in one way or another, dealing with contracts and memorandums of agreement. You know, when you sit down with people in good faith, and you sit across a table and hammer out your differences and come to a memorandum of agreement, you presume at that point in time that all the effort you made to get a better deal or to get the thing cut back have already been made. You've now come to the point where both of you, face to face, recognize this fact: "All right, we've had our kick at the cat. We've now got to a memorandum of agreement. We'll take that back to our principals, we'll get it endorsed and on we'll go to sign the agreement." This was done, as has been explained by other people, and it has been ridiculed by the opposition on the basis that we counted our chickens before they were hatched.
Interjection.
F. Garden: But I want to tell the opposition and the person who's heckling me so soundly on the other side that in 30 years of experience, I've taken a memorandum of agreement back to communities like Powell River, said what we'd come up with, and even before the agreement was finally signed and the benefits started flowing, people in that community started saying: "Fine." They started going on the basis of what was in that agreement, because they understood that the agreement was bargained in good faith and would be honoured. They do, and they go out and make commitments -- maybe something on their house or car -- just on the basis of a memorandum of agreement. So it's not a new thing for people to feel that when you sit down in good faith, you expect the person that you make the agreement with to live up to their commitment.
So shame on the Liberals for being apologists for the Bonneville power corporation. A perfect example we've seen in the last two or three years of how to deal with these people who act like this is the countervail argument that the forest companies have had for years. They were literally dragged through every little piece of committee and legal argument that could be found by the people who were supposed to, in good faith, recognize that we were not taking advantage of the
[ Page 14483 ]
situation here in Canada. We were only doing what we felt was the right thing to do with our resources, and yet the forest companies, had they capitulated in the manner that the opposition is suggesting we do, would have probably ended up on the wrong end of the stick in that deal. But because they stood up for their rights, hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been lost to this province and the industry are now being paid to the industry. If we were to back away from an agreement that was put before us and capitulate, as has been suggested, we would be making less of a deal for the people of the province than was agreed to at that table. Shame on the opposition for their stance in that regard.
Interjection.
F. Garden: Listen, a deal is a deal, and we made a deal in good faith. I would like to suggest to the members opposite that the days are gone when the resources of this province are to be given away for a pittance. The member said it quite eloquently: this is about a valuable resource that belongs to the people of this province, and it should not be given away. We shouldn't be running with our tail between our legs to get back to the bargaining table with Bonneville. We made a deal. If they don't want the deal, then somebody else will make it, because that resource is not going to disappear. It's going to be there, and we'll make that deal.
[4:00]
We're not going to go and listen to the Liberal people just get milquetoast and say: "Oh well, let's set up a committee, and let's go and talk to these people again." We made the best deal that could possibly be made for this province, and these people backed away from it. We should continue? If I had the power as an individual MLA, and there were switches and taps somewhere, these taps would be turned off, the switches would go down and we'd work on these people the way it should be done. They are our resources. For 30 or 40 years we've watched a parade of Liberals and Socreds, or whatever you call them mixing together, giving away the resources of this province.
Interjection.
F. Garden: Those days are over, my friend; those days are over. I was wondering why the Liberals would be in such a hurry to run down there and capitulate, and then I realized that that's part of the pattern. That has happened over the last 30 or 40 years with this type of opposition. It has literally been given away. Well, the people in my riding are saying that that time is over. They even resent the fact that the people in Vancouver are taking advantage of resource communities. They resent even more the fact that the American power company would want to try to take advantage of the province the way they did. I say shame on not only that company but also the opposition for even considering it.
Mind you, that's to be expected. Only the Liberals would suggest that we do something like that, based on the fact that they now want to sell B.C. Hydro and all these other successful corporations that we're making money off. They want to give them away to their friends on Howe Street so they can make the money instead of the people of the province. That's the kind of thing we'd get from a Liberal government if-- perish the thought -- they ever made it. I think what is happening during this debate is that people are starting to realize just where the Liberals are coming from: it's back to the past. That's where they want to take this province -- back to the past: "If that's not a good deal, then let's make it a lesser deal. Let's give it away. Let's sell B.C. Hydro. Let's split it up among our friends on Howe Street." That's what Gordon Campbell would have us do.
A lot of credit has to be given to this government for staying the course and saying: "A deal's a deal." If Bonneville wants to walk away, that's one thing; but, as I said before, we are charged in this Legislature with getting the best deal we can for the province's resources for the people of the province, and I believe this government did it. I support them all the way on taking this company on and not getting back to the bargaining table under conditions that have been suggested in this House.
As I said, the countervail just showed you the kind of things that we could get dragged into if we were to do that sort of thing. We see how flippantly the people in Washington State deal with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. They have that treaty in effect there, and they still flippantly deal with it as if it wasn't a proper agreement. They take extreme largesse with that agreement, and it's time that kind of stuff stopped. It's time that this Legislature and the people of this province stood up and said: "Enough of this nonsense." We are a sovereign power here in Canada, and we've got to be dealt with as equals when we go and sit with people across the line. They should stop trying to take advantage of the people of British Columbia the way they've been doing over the years.
I don't have too much more to say, other than that it really bothers me to hear people like the member for North Vancouver- Seymour stand up and sound.... He may not mean to be an apologist. I'll give him his due; I've heard it said that he's a true Liberal. He may not be an apologist, but he sure sounds like one. Instead of having this debate finished three days ago and all of us walking out of here united and saying no to the Bonneville power corporation, here we are listening to more of these mealy-mouthed speeches. It's getting dragged on and dragged on, and the Bonneville power corporation must be loving it.
I just want to say this: that as long as I'm a member of this side of the House, I will fight for the rights of British Columbians against corporations like Bonneville Power, and I give a great deal of credit to the members from the area that has been badly hit by this and by the flooding over the years. I give a great deal of credit to my colleagues who have stood up for the people in that area and fought for some of the rights that they should have had 30 years ago. So I just want to say in closing that it shows a clear division in this House between what we and a few members of the independent group stand for and what the Liberals stand for: they'd give away this province if they had half a chance. I say they're not going to get this chance.
A. Warnke: I recall my first sentence, reflecting on the budget that was brought down earlier this year, whereupon I think I quoted someone from the public whom everyone recognizes: "The budget is like a box of chocolates. You don't know what you're going to get." To a certain extent, the Minister of Finance obviously didn't know what she was going to get, when she miscues in thinking that she is definitely going to get $250 million for the following year, and then all of a sudden things collapse just in a matter of weeks, not months. Guess what -- she hasn't got it. I guess to that Finance minister, yes, the budget is like a box of chocolates.
[ Page 14484 ]
On the other hand, there are some aspects of this whole debate that are worth following through. I have actually listened to many debates and speeches, but there are a few questions. Of course, we in the official opposition have been accused of being.... The speaker before me referred to us as being mealy- mouthed. Well, I would put it this way. Let's go back to the beginning in terms of whether in fact we really have a deal. Do we have an agreement? Do we have a deal? Do we have a deal that is firm, fixed and final? "Firm, fixed and final" -- do you know who said that, hon. Speaker? That was the Premier. The Premier wanted an agreement that was firm, fixed and final. Do we have a deal that is firm? No. Do we have a deal that is fixed? No. Do we have a deal that is final? No.
An Hon. Member: Yes.
A. Warnke: It fails on all three counts, and anyone who says yes is way off the mark, way off the beam.
The fact is that when you take a look at something called an agreement or a deal, does the Minister of Employment and Investment -- otherwise called the minister of jobs and money -- really have a deal and agreement? No. You know what the Minister of Employment and Investment says? The minister says words such as "a solemn commitment" or "a good-faith obligation" -- or here's another one:"legally significant." What is "legally significant"? In corporate law you can forget about a solemn commitment and about what is legally significant. You've got to have a deal in writing that is solid. You don't have that, and therefore you have problems. That's the problem. We do not have in front of us a legally binding contract. As a matter of fact, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour has said over and over again, you've got a number of clauses here that allow BPA to escape. For that matter, they even allow B.C. Hydro and the government to escape. You have those escape clauses, so did we have a deal?
This the first time that I have actually heard that we in British Columbia have the best deal. This is first time I have actually heard that a best deal is no deal, or the other way around: that no deal is the best deal. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Since when is no deal a good deal? It doesn't make sense -- unless you don't want a deal. Maybe this government does not want a deal. How do we know, if they say things such as that?
Mind you, when we get into contracts.... You'll have to excuse me, hon. Speaker; I have a cold. On the other hand, I remember that back in 1959, Harvey Haddix pitched a perfect game for 12 innings, and he had a cold that night. So that's the way it goes.
By the way, I noticed that one of my friends over on the other side referred to my nomination. I hope that somewhere along the line I get the opportunity to talk about my opposition with regard to nominations -- otherwise known, I think, as Jacob Two- Two and the Hooded Fang. Perhaps we'll leave that for another time. I'd be really delighted if we could find an appropriate forum to talk about my funny opposition.
At any rate, the fact is.... Is there really any "solemn commitment"? Is there really any "good-faith obligation"? Is there really anything "legally significant"? All of these are very shifty words. Even the motion itself contains "solemn commitment." It doesn't talk about a deal; it doesn't talk about an agreement. It's a nice, slippery way out, saying: "It's a solemn commitment, but by God, when we get up in the Legislature, we're going to talk about a deal that has been violated." No deal was violated. Guess what -- the Minister of Employment and Investment signed an agreement that allowed that escape clause. As I see it, the big issue here is the incompetence of the Minister of Employment and Investment. That's what's really at stake.
It reminds me of another time. Hon. Speaker, you are a student of history, and I'm sure there are a number of social democrats on the other side who are good students of history. They're well aware of this one.
An Hon. Member: Socialists. Call them what they are: socialists.
A. Warnke: Socialists.
As a matter of fact, just prior to World War I, the German social democrats in the Reichstag had to face a very difficult moment, and that was when the Kaiser of Germany declared war. The minister of war came into the Reichstag and said: "This is what this government is going to be committed to." The social democrats of that time had a heck of a problem, because a lot of them were pacifists. A lot of them didn't want to have anything to do with the war, but they were patriotic Germans. Guess what they had to do. It was a difficult decision for them. They said that despite the incompetence of the Kaiser, despite the incompetence of the minister of war and all of the generals and all the rest of it, they were duty-bound to support their position. This is the problem in principle.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: There's one hon. member who's not in his seat and who appears to have a lot to say. I thought he had something to say, but when I heard him the other day, I didn't hear him say anything at all. But at any rate, maybe he's jealous; you never know.
There is a principle here: when you're dealing with another country -- or for that matter, when you're dealing with, as in this situation, a company that's in another country.... The fact is that in any international negotiations, by cracky, you'd better have an ironclad deal, and if you don't, you have no business representing that as a deal before, in this case, British Columbians. British Columbians are being sucked in; we are being sucked in. Of course, we have a problem now where we might have to support this incompetent, arrogant minister, who has nothing to do but have an attitude that does not belong in this chamber.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: An attitude -- and a confidence. Exactly, hon. member.
The problem is that we have no confidence. British Columbians have no confidence. How do we know that that minister isn't going to mislead British Columbians somewhere else, as he is misleading us right now? Shame! As a matter of fact, right now, if I were the Premier, do you know what I'd do, hon. Speaker? If I were the Premier, I'd ask for his resignation right now, on the table: "Out you go, out of cabinet -- out, out, out to the far corner, and get banished." That's where the minister belongs.
[ Page 14485 ]
[4:15]
But the fact is that that minister still thinks: oh, he's got a contract. Actually, I think he knows better and that he's misled caucus, because we have one example of a cabinet minister who went along with it -- I mean besides the Premier. There is the Minister of Finance. I can't blame the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Finance has to calculate the expected revenues for the following year. We all do that, even in this chamber. We sort of expect that somewhere in the year we're going to get some kind of salary -- there's an expectation. Lord only knows what might happen; there's no absolute guarantee you're going to get that income, but you have to sort of expect it. That's what estimates are all about.
So I can't blame the Minister of Finance, because she's listening to her advisers and her fellow ministers; of course she's going to include $250 million in her account. But the fact is that one should not cheat their own colleagues -- cheat them in caucus, cheat them in cabinet, cheat this Legislature -- and cheat the province of British Columbia and all British Columbians. How dare that Minister of Employment and Investment -- the man for jobs and money -- misrepresent....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could I just remind you that that choice of phrase is not parliamentary language, and I think you know that. I would ask you to please withdraw that.
A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. As a matter of fact, if anything I have said impugns the whatever-it- is of the minister, I take it back, and I withdraw. But, hon. Speaker, the fact is that when we get down to it, this minister has presented something that ain't so. I have just been astonished over the last few days to hear a number of members -- ministers of the Crown -- get up and say, "We have a deal," when we don't have one, or, "Oh, we have an agreement," when we don't have one. Look at the words of the Minister of Employment and Investment, fellow members: "...we negotiated in good faith and for which we have ample documentary evidence and, I think, an outstanding legal case." Think? Don't you know? Doesn't the minister know?
Interjections.
A. Warnke: There's a very good, esteemed friend, and he'll probably take an opposing view to myself: the distinguished member for Burnaby-Edmonds. He knows darned well that when you have a contract being developed between labour and management with escape clauses in it, when you have those subject-to clauses, it means you can get out, and that's what happens.
I'm really interested, too, in another aspect that the minister has put forward. The minister has come in here and really railed away against the Bonneville power authority, saying that this is a huge American company which is notorious for its arrangements, both in terms of screwing British Columbia and also other people. I believe that may be parliamentary; I'm not sure. But the minister said it. If the minister has so much insight about this being a company that has a notorious history for screwing British Columbia, Canadians, Americans, and all the rest of it, then what the heck was that minister doing negotiating a deal with an escape clause -- a subject-to clause -- in it?
As a matter of fact, one person I admire -- Ray Williston.... I think we know who Ray Williston is. I know that two members know who Ray Williston is. Ray Williston, incidentally, knows something about the Bonneville Power Administration, since he negotiated with them. Ray Williston said: "I could have told them." And indeed he could have told this arrogant young pup of a minister -- I could have told him: if they did not have an absolute firm business deal nailed down with Bonneville, they had nothing. Exactly; right on. And that's what this minister negotiated: nothing. He had nothing. On December 31, 1994, when he could positively see that, what business had he in going to the Minister of Finance and saying: "Include $250 million in your next budget, please"? That is deceit. I'm not sure if it's parliamentary to say that. I'll just say it, and if it reflects badly on the minister, I'll withdraw that, too.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan East rises on a point of order?
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure it's a point of order, but I notice that there are people in the gallery now who need to be recognized. Perhaps this is an opportune moment, while the member considers whether or not that is parliamentary language.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I'd like the House to welcome Ms. Taylor and 27 grades 6 and 7 students from Vedder Elementary School in Sardis. I hope they are enjoying their parliamentary stay, and I hope they are enjoying this speech especially.
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Richmond, I would like to suggest that I don't think the rules or the operation of this House are at all well served by constant references to whether the language is parliamentary. I think we trivialize our proceedings by doing so, and I would ask the member to please reconsider that approach.
A. Warnke: I'm far more comfortable with that, because then I can get down to the nitty-gritty -- the real heart -- and speak where from my heart. I'm much more comfortable with that, so thank you very much, hon. Speaker. The way I see it, the incompetence of the Minister of Employment and Investment is so strong that it is obvious that he is in over his head with regard to negotiating with anything foreign. It's obvious that the minister is negotiating not necessarily in the best interests of the province but has, because of the deal falling through -- or the so-called deal, as he calls it.... The fact is that now that minister is really acting in his own best interests.
An Hon. Member: And running scared.
A. Warnke: And running scared.
There's no reference here to the basic principles of contract law. If in fact the minister has a sound base, never mind thinking whether he's got something legally there.... If the minister has something very sound, I would advise that minister to get right down and spell out what the real strong legal arguments are. Until that minister does that, all this other
[ Page 14486 ]
nonsense and the nonsense spouted by several members across the way -- which is mealy-mouthed -- is a very weak argument. As a matter of fact, all of the arguments I've heard from the other side address everything else. I mean, they've talked about everything but the substance of what this so-called deal constitutes in very solid, concrete legal terms: if you want to use the Premier's language, a so-called deal that is firm, fixed and final -- and, I would add, legal. It's not there; it's simply not there. Regardless of how many people have spoken on it, not one case -- not one shred of evidence -- backs that up, right from the Premier on down to the last speaker.
Now, if that side really wants to make a strong argument for the future.... And never mind saying: "Oh, the opposition is coming up with all kinds of arguments that are going to be used by BPA in court." Nonsense. The BPA couldn't care less what some people say in this forum.
The fact is that.... I'll bet you, when it comes down to the nut-cutting of the whole business, when we get into court -- if they drag us into court just like the Kaiser dragged the Germans into war.... If we're dragged into court, guess what. There won't be a strong legal argument. There won't be a so-called treaty, an agreement or anything else that is firm, fixed and final. We won't see that.
Not only that, but the minister knows it. The minister is misleading his cabinet, his caucus, the party -- his own party -- the entire Legislature and all the people of British Columbia. For that reason, that minister has got to go, and I mean right now.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, in the speaking order, the member for Okanagan-Penticton was to go.... Are you ready or not?
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Okay, thank you very much. Then I will go ahead.
Well, I'm certainly enjoying the debate. It is certainly lively, although from the government side so far it has been weak and insipid, not supported by very many of the ministers and certainly supported only by those who would benefit from the pork- barrel exercise in the Columbia River Basin. Other than that, the arguments in this debate have not been very good at all.
I'm going to talk on a number of areas. I'm going to go into the memorandum of agreement fairly extensively and try to illustrate, in perhaps a calmer fashion than the hon. member who just finished speaking, the realities of this particular agreement.
But I want first to say a few words with respect to the statements of the member for Cariboo North, whose halo had slipped a little in his defence on agreements, union agreements and memorandums. In a very self-righteous way, he was saying that those are fixed and firm. That can be no further from the truth. I hope he doesn't intend to send his inaccurate statement home to the local people to read, because they will see through it very quickly.
Any agreement -- be it a union agreement -- has to go back for ratification. You have the negotiators, and they negotiate agreement. It goes back to the union members for ratification. Everyone in this Legislature and all members of the public throughout the province know that. In any situation that you have negotiators negotiating, it still has to come back. In the native land claims, for example, we have negotiators, the federal government has negotiators and the native bands have negotiators. But it still has to go to the authorities for ratification. Everyone knows that.
We're hearing a lot of confusing rhetoric trying to cover bases that cannot be covered. The government has been caught out, and caught out badly. The member for Cariboo North is very wrong and totally inaccurate in his particular statement, and is guilty of misleading the public. He knows that full well. I think all of the members in this Legislature -- including you, hon. Speaker -- know that very well.
Now, what about this memorandum of agreement? That's what the debate is about. Certainly the inflammatory motion that the Premier has brought forward is directed to this firm document. But when I look at the memorandum of agreement.... I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you have to be a lawyer or a rocket scientist to follow the wording. It's fairly clear. Under section G, it says:
"The parties requested negotiators appointed by each of them to recommend principles for an agreement dealing with delivery to Canada and/or disposition in the United States of the Canadian entitlement on a basis more beneficial than return to Oliver as provided in the treaty."
The reference to the treaty is the original treaty that was made in 1964 or 1965.
What we have is the appointment of negotiators to hammer out an agreement-in-principle. It is followed under section H with: "Now therefore the negotiators recommend to the parties as follows...." Recommendations to the parties as follows -- simply recommendations, no firm contract. No ratification by the governing authorities, no hocus-pocus, no confusion here: just what it says; just a recommendation to the respective authorities, like any negotiated agreement has to have happen. That's normally part of the process. Here the government members -- the few who speak up in defence of their position -- say: "It's signed; a deal's a deal," like the member for Cariboo North said. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[4:30]
Under another section in the memorandum of agreement, it says this:
"The statement of principles, this memorandum of negotiators' agreement and any drafts, proposals, correspondence and other documents resulting from any of them, will have no legal effect; only fully executed, definitive agreements among all relevant parties will be legally binding on the parties."
This has no legal binding effect. This was something that was negotiated by negotiators between the province of British Columbia and the Bonneville power authority. The reality is that the defence of this as some sort of pseudo-legal document is very wrong. It is simply.... All members who say this is a legal document are guilty of knowingly misleading the public.
I listened to the hon. member speak a few minutes ago, and I kept asking that hon. member how he would vote on this issue after listening to the explosive delivery of words. I suspect that the Liberal opposition is going to vote in support
[ Page 14487 ]
of the government -- give the government a vote of confidence after all that rhetoric and noise. I'm going to be very interested to see how my former colleagues, who are now Reformers, will vote on this particular issue -- whether they too will give the government of the day a vote of confidence for their inept handling of this.
This deal could have been concluded; there was a time slot when this deal could have been concluded. But it was not, and that's a fact of life. The government did not fulfil its obligation to the people of the province of British Columbia.
I've listened to a number of apologists for the current government, on that side of the House and also on this side of the House, talk about the Bonneville power authority. The Bonneville power authority is like one of our Crown corporations responsible for striving to get the best possible deal that they can for their customers and clients in the United States. Nothing wrong with that. I can't condemn someone for standing up; I can't condemn the member for Nelson-Creston for standing up in defence of the benefits for his constituents. I may not agree with him -- and I don't happen to agree with the member -- but I respect him for his stance. I respect the Bonneville power authority as well. I don't see it as an us-and-them type of situation; I see this as a business deal.
But you know what? I think that somebody is looking after us. I think that the incompetence and Bonneville power authority saying no is really a blessing in disguise for British Columbians. That's what I really believe. When I look at the reports, we really need that power. We need jobs for people. When I think of a community like Mackenzie.... They may have to shut down their pulp mill for four months or six months of the year because of low water resources in Williston Lake, because we're churning out more power than Mother Nature can refill in those reservoirs. I'm concerned about those jobs. The members on the government side should certainly be concerned about those jobs, because most of those large corporations are all unionized and using union labour.
Instead of that, instead of being concerned about jobs and the future for British Columbians, we find that for short-term expediency, to satisfy some sort of goal -- which is to look good with respect to the budget and to go out for an election -- they were overzealous in trying to claim and maintain that an agreement was made. But if you really look at this and look at any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, electrical energy is a much sought-after commodity. Our economic future is going to be based on abundant and inexpensive power. That's our opportunity in the world for British Columbia.
So why are we worried about Bonneville Power Administration not going through with the agreement in principle and concluding negotiations? I think Bonneville Power Administration, rather than being condemned, should be applauded for giving British Columbia an opportunity for that sane second look. That's what I really believe. We need that power. We may not need all of that power at the moment, but I will tell you this: what has to happen is that we look at options. One of our best options is to have that power transmission line built from the Grand Coulee northward to Oliver -- to a point of delivery at Oliver. Then we can handle the distribution of that power from that point on.
What it does is enable us to consume and utilize as much power as we need, so that our people and our economy can maintain their strength and inertia. It also gives us the opportunity to transmit or sell power through the grid to other areas. It may be to Washington; it may be to an aluminum plant in Washington; it may be to customers in California. But I will tell you this: in order to achieve that, we are going to have to work at building relationships. We are going to have to work together to strengthen opportunities not only for British Columbians but for Americans as well. If we do that, then we'll all thrive. It's a very, very competitive world. The global economy is shrinking, and we have to work together to maintain our standard of living and the opportunities and jobs for the future of British Columbians. That's fairly common sense. I don't think there's anybody who can argue against it.
The Minister of Finance has come in.... She would certainly like to have the $250 million, and I can understand that, but I would rather have the opportunity of having and exploiting the options. We can always sell power on the spot market. But last year, British Columbia -- B.C. Hydro -- bought $200 million worth of power. That's a fact; we bought $200 million worth of power. This year we're looking to buy $125 million worth of power. Next year we're going to be short again. And we're going to continue, because we're requiring between 200 and 300 megawatts of power.... As our population grows, as our business and industry and residential demands increase, we require more and more power. Does it make any rational sense to try to sell power -- downstream benefits power -- at relatively low sums and replace it with work on dams at Waneta or Brilliant or Keenleyside, which is expensive power?
The proposal for Keenleyside, which will deliver 125 megawatts of dependable power, is going to cost in excess of $400 million. That's far higher than an acceptable competitive construction cost for power. I'm given to understand that approximately $1 million in capital costs per megawatt is an acceptable competitive figure. This is substantially higher, significantly higher. It doesn't make any sense. The Columbia Basin power is costing approximately 1.6 cents per kilowatt-hour. The downstream benefits power -- a benefit that we derive from the long-term vision of W.A.C. Bennett -- doesn't cost us anything; we get 50 percent of the downstream benefits for nothing. Why could we not see that we should be able to utilize that as an economic strength, to provide jobs and employment for young people in the province of British Columbia?
I'm staggered when I read statistics on the high rate of unemployment for young people. We have a responsibility to young people to provide jobs and opportunities. We have to provide that climate of opportunity for those young people. When we're appalled by the statistics on crime and what is happening in the province today, we have to be mindful that those people who have nothing, have nothing to lose. So why not give them the opportunity? It doesn't matter whether they're high school dropouts or whether they've finished grade 12 or whether they've finished university; give them an opportunity for a fulfilling, meaningful, well-paid, full-time job in British Columbia. That's an obligation we have to the future.
We're looking at legislation with respect to the preservation of our water resources, and water is life. This is no different. Why should we export a raw commodity? If it's surplus to our needs in the interim period, that's fine and dandy, and we can do that in the spot market. But it doesn't make any sense to enter into a long commitment when we know -- and B.C. Hydro has told us, through all sorts of studies -- that we require that power. I relate it to the cost of
[ Page 14488 ]
importing power from other jurisdictions. It doesn't make any rational, logical sense at all. It doesn't make any sense to me; I don't know if it makes any sense to anyone.
Why would members on the government side, who are purportedly so concerned about employment opportunities and union job opportunities, be so wilful and so strong and so determined in endeavouring to sell a legacy that belongs to all of the people of the province of British Columbia? I can't understand that. Why should we strengthen job opportunities for people that live in another jurisdiction and take the lowest type of return for the people in this province? Why don't we use it as a strength, to attract business and industry to the province of British Columbia?
As a Socred member, I was opposed to the sale of West Kootenay Power to any purchaser other than a domestic purchaser. I proposed that we should have a form of corporation, utilizing someone who was in the utility distribution business, and widely disperse shares throughout people in the province for West Kootenay Power and Light. Why did I take that position? Because I knew that the relatively inexpensive power was one of the few cards that was positive for us in the interior of British Columbia.
We don't hold a lot of cards. Sure, we've got a lot of beautiful scenery, a great place to live and great quality of life, but we don't hold the cards that the lower mainland holds, for example, or Vancouver and probably the Victoria area: abundant population, a large reservoir of labour -- a big labour pool -- lots of capital, transportation facilities, and being right here on tidewater. You have all of the advantages. We don't have those advantages, and we're faced with relatively high transportation costs.
So I supported the concept of West Kootenay remaining in British Columbia, or at least in Canadian ownership, for the very reason that I acknowledge and understand that that one card of abundant, relatively inexpensive power was an attraction to locate business and industry, especially in manufacturing and hopefully in the high technology field, in the interior of the province.
It doesn't matter to me whether it's in Trail, Nelson, Creston, Kelowna, Revelstoke or Golden, because I really believe that all British Columbians would be better served having relatively low power rates. But the current government has increased power rates. They're denying the opportunities for jobs. They're denying the opportunities for jobs for all people; it doesn't matter whether they're organized or unorganized in the province. In the last three and a half years, hydro rates have gone up by 22 percent.
It's not just wealthy British Columbians that are paying that. That's taking a larger and larger chunk of individual British Columbians' disposable income to pay their power utility costs. Why? Because the Minister of Finance is demanding more and more in the way of dividends from B.C. Hydro.
Holding the line on taxation; that's a myth, a fable. This is indirect taxation for the benefit of the Minister of Finance, to make the books look good and to provide the income to pay the 3,000 or 4,000 new employees that this current government has accepted or enabled over the past three and a half years.
In question period this afternoon, the minister indicated a population growth of approximately 400,000 people in three and a half years. That's significantly higher than the real figure, because it varies between 50,000 and 60,000 per year. It's a relatively small percentage of our population, probably in the neighbourhood of 7 percent or 8 percent, and yet they've increased the public sector by some 26 percent. It doesn't make any rational sense, no more than perhaps this debate does.
It's important for the future of the province that we retain that power. It's important for us, as a contingency plan and option, that the transmission line from Grand Coulee be built to Oliver to bring power to the border. It's important for us to provide the infrastructure on power lines on the grid so that we can move the power around the province. That's the reality. When we have those things in place, we're starting to hold the cards and we're able to call the game and make the rules of the game, and we'll do that for the best interests of British Columbia.
[4:45]
Again, I cannot and will not support this resolution, because I think every member who supports this resolution -- whether they're on the government side or on the opposition side -- is adding a vote of confidence to the government of the day, but not a vote of confidence in the future of British Columbia. That's the tragedy of this whole debate. In the last several days of this particular debate, there have been a number of options suggested. The Liberals have put forward a motion that I agree with and I supported because it made sense. What we have to have is a better representation of British Columbians in matters like this, and I've always supported standing legislative committees to carry on work rather than that being in the government's hands solely. In the final analysis, it's still a responsibility of government to make the decision. All that a standing legislative committee can do is explore objectively the situation, make a report to the Legislature and put it in the hands of the government. By the nature of our system, the government is the one ultimately responsible in accepting or rejecting the recommendations of a standing legislative committee.
On the whole, it was a reasonable request and a reasonable amendment to this. The government sees it in their best interest to shoot it down and so they did, and I regret that. What we're seeing here is perhaps a display of partisan politics, and in my mind, this is an apolitical type of situation. We're all here to represent our constituents and to represent collectively the province as a whole, but we're failing to do that.
I think it's important for British Columbia to keep the power in British Columbia and build B.C. That's what I believe. I believe the reality is that until Revelstoke 5 and Mica 5 generators come on stream -- and that won't happen until the year 1999 or the year 2000 -- we will be short of power. Shortly thereafter, we'll require more than 1,600 megawatts of power, and we haven't got it. The government shot down Kemano 2. I don't think it was in their wisdom; I think it was rather a knee-jerk reaction. I don't know if it was the right decision or if it was the wrong decision, because the homework hadn't been done. An objective analysis or an environmental assessment by the federal government was never initiated, and that is one that would have had the credibility and the support of British Columbians and Canadians. It was a knee-jerk reaction to shut it down, and it has left the province short of power.
[ Page 14489 ]
The independent power projects have been put on hold for three years. The Premier announced 300 or 400 megawatts, but I suggest that there are all sorts of negative environmental implications that will have to be watched very closely. Then it will be some time before they come on line. Yet they're not adequate to fulfil British Columbia's growing power needs for more than a year or two.
The reality is that this debate is not about the lack of good faith on the part of the Bonneville power authority, and I've tried to make that very clear in reading out from the memorandum of agreement. This debate is a cover-up by an amateur, inept government that had objectives on their agenda other than the best interests of British Columbia and British Columbians. And that's another reality. If we lose a little face, what does it cost us? What does it cost us for that sober second thought? Face is something that I'm willing to lose if I'm wrong. But the overall objective of this Legislature is to act in the best interests of British Columbians. If we fail to do that, we fail to do our jobs, and we only add to the cynicism about politicians and politics that is out there in the public, and we dare not do that.
In closing, I can say that I will not support the Premier's inflammatory resolution, because it closes the door. In our future it's important to maintain continuing good relations with our neighbours to the south. Historically our relationship, whether it's in the Kootenays or the Okanagan, has always been a north-south relationship. In commercial, mining and purchasing it has always been a north-south relationship. We have to maintain that relationship, because the Bonneville power authority is our only opportunity to yield surplus British Columbia power to other American markets.
So we have to work on a business deal, and a business deal has to be fair for both sides. No one is going to run away and be able to say they've got the big advantage or somebody else has got the big advantage. Labour contracts or business contracts, it's all the same: unless a deal is good for both sides it's not going to work. And unless a deal is good for both sides it's not worth the paper it's written on. This was not a legally binding deal. It was a recommendation of a series of principles to the parties involved. That's all it was, purely and simply, and I think that has to be made clear.
The other thing that has to be made clear is that British Columbia needs that power. We need part of it now, and we'll need all of it in the very near future. The year 2000 isn't all that far away, and if you look at the cost of construction projects and the time from the planning and financing to the final building and the power supply from them, we're looking at a long period of time. We do British Columbians a grave injustice if we fail to pull that power back into British Columbia. If we want to balance our books we can do it by stimulating the economy in British Columbia, by enhancing the environment and the opportunity for jobs and business and industry. That's the way to fly, that's the high road, and I would encourage the government to be cognizant of that.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this again, hon. Speaker. I will be looking forward with interest to what my colleagues in the official opposition do and what my former colleagues in the Reform Party do.
F. Randall: I'm going to be very brief. I just want to cover a few points that have been bothering me with regard to the debate on this matter. I guess it all revolves around what a contract is. In many cases I have been involved in, when you draw up a memorandum of agreement and you set out what the terms are, it sometimes takes six months to a year to get the actual document signed, because you are making statements in a memorandum that have to be fitted in with existing clauses in an agreement. Lawyers usually get involved at that stage, particularly.... For example, if the Japanese are dealing with buying a coalmine in British Columbia, they agree on the terms and lay out the guidelines of what the price is and those kinds of things, and then the lawyers get it and draft the actual agreement itself. But the memorandum of agreement was signed by the Premier and by Bonneville, and it set out the $250 million. That number doesn't change; the terms of the agreement don't change. It's a matter of putting all that together in a contract that can be signed. I just don't understand why people are saying there was no agreement; there was an agreement.
I guess the other thing that I wonder is: what would the opposition have said if the government of British Columbia had cancelled the agreement and said: "The price of power has increased, and instead of $250 million, we want $350 million -- plus we want more money each year"? I'm wondering what the opposition would have said had the province cancelled the agreement or the understanding with Bonneville. They would have been screaming that you can't trust this government, etc., etc. They would not be standing up saying there was no agreement, and that the province of British Columbia did the right thing. On the whole case, they would have been arguing the other way. There's no question in my mind about that.
The statements I have read on this relating to the reason for the cancellation of the understanding are statements that Bonneville made: "We're walking away from a foolish business deal. It's as simple as that." They said that on May 16. That's Bonneville. Again, they said: "The combination of depressed electricity prices, a west coast power surplus, rapid technological change and strict new U.S. environmental laws made the deal unworkable." Another quote. They're saying they had a deal, but the deal was unworkable because the economics led to that position, and the price of energy has dropped by more than half.
There was an article in the local paper here -- the Times Colonist -- that said:
"But the usually staid energy market has 'turned on its head,' said an official with the Bonneville Power Administration. 'No one could have foreseen that these changes were going to happen,' said Bonneville press officer Perry Gruber in an interview Monday from Portland, Oregon. Power valued at $45 per kilowatt six months ago is now worth about $20, said Gruber. Among the factors in the drop in prices are surplus energy from California to Washington, efficiencies in combustion turbine technology, plunging gas prices for turbines -- from 22.7 cents per kilowatt to less than 2 cents -- and a requirement under the U.S. Endangered Species Act to allow more water to spill over dams in the winter for salmon stocks."
So Bonneville is saying: "We had a deal, but it was a foolish deal because the price of power has dropped." I'm just asking again: what if the price of power had of gone up and British Columbia had said: "We don't like that deal, we want more money from you"? We'd have heard all hell break loose in this place. There was an understanding in place, and it's common practice with legal documents like that for the lawyers to meet and put the actual document together. But the memorandum sets out the amounts of money, the term and the dates. So there was an understanding in place.
[ Page 14490 ]
I guess the other thing that bothers me is the opposition members who are standing up and saying that there was no deal at all, and that Bonneville is not on the hook for anything. I really wonder how those members are going to feel when they are in court having to testify to their statements made here -- they're certainly on film and in Hansard -- that there was no deal. They, in effect, are going to be used by Bonneville in any legal action; they have elected people in British Columbia standing up and taking Bonneville's position on this issue. I don't know how their constituents can actually support people making those kinds of statements after a deal has been broken.
I also agree with comments made by other members that the power is still there, and that power is money in the bank. I don't think there has been anything lost, and I think the money is still going to be there, one way or another.
Also, on the comments about the budget, I've always been taught that a budget is just a guesstimate of what your income and what your expenditures are going to be. You include what you think are going to be expenses, and you include what you think is going to be income. You're never dead on, but you have to include those when you're putting a budget together.
I was just reading a letter here that was signed by Alan J. Barnard, the comptroller general. It was addressed to the Hon. Elizabeth Cull, chair of Treasury Board. It's about the accounting for the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits. In the last two paragraphs he says:
"Based on my understanding of the agreements supported by KPMG, I feel that it is technically more correct to recognize the $250 million to be received in 1995 as revenue in the 1995-96 fiscal year than to amortize it over 30 years. I recommend that we offer a briefing by myself to Mr. Gingell and any other interested MLAs at the time these opinions are delivered."
[5:00]
The comptroller general offered to do briefings for the Finance critic for the official opposition. He's suggesting that there was nothing wrong with including that $250 million, because there was an agreement and an understanding in place. It was anticipated that that money would be included as part of the income as far as the budget goes. It probably would have been improper not to include it, because it was expected that it was going to be coming in. So I don't know why there are all these arguments about the budget. The Minister of Finance has made it clear that regardless of what happens, she is going to have a balanced budget.
I just want to wrap it up there. I just wanted to make a couple of comments. A lot of the talk that's going on is certainly very concerning. I would hope that all members of this House would support the resolution that is currently before us. It's important that this whole matter of Bonneville be supported by all members of this Legislature.
R. Chisholm: What I'd like to address today is not necessarily the deal. Everybody says that the deal was a deal. We all know that a letter of agreement is not a deal; it is not legally binding. Those are facts under the law, whether we like them or not.
What I would like to talk about a little bit are our accounting practices and budgets. We pay people in our governments to give us sound and good advice. When we pay people for this sound and good advice, I think we're obliged to utilize it. In this particular case, we have not utilized the advice that we paid for. If we take a look at what the previous speaker said, comptroller general Alan Barnard, George Morfitt and the accounting firm of Peat Marwick all advised us against basically counting the chickens before they'd hatched. We did not have the money; it should not have been incorporated into a budget.
Again, the previous speaker said that the budget is a guesstimate. Yes, the budget is a guesstimate, but it is a guess on what we actually have. We don't hypothetically dream up hundreds of millions of dollars and insert that because it stands us in good stead politically right now. Now we have a balanced budget, but it is a balanced budget that is a dream; it's based on a fallacy. We didn't have a legal agreement. That is my problem.
I don't blame the Finance minister. There are other ministers here who fed the information to the Finance minister to use. The Finance minister should have taken the advice of Peat Marwick and George Morfitt. After all, we paid big dollars to get that advice, and we did not use it. We based this budget on a fallacy and on moneys that did not exist. When those moneys had come in and the agreement had been made, that's when that money should have been counted. I'm afraid that right now this government is trying to defend a position that is indefensible. How do you defend counting the chickens before they hatch?
If you are at home in your household, you would only be counting what's coming in in your paycheque. You would not be counting what might hypothetically come in on interest payments in the bank, because if that should happen to change, you would have a shortfall of moneys that you accounted for in your budget. Your budget would then collapse. This is a basic principle that every family goes through; every family in the province goes through this.
So why haven't we learned this lesson here in this Legislature? Why are we paying top dollar for advice and then disregarding it? Governments across this country are doing the same sort of thing. We see it with the federal government. We see the same trait right here in the provincial government. And we're doing it strictly for politics, because there's the potential of an election coming up.
We're in a great hurry to have the balanced budget, which is a very good goal. But if we do not have the money to back that -- if we do not have the resource -- do we have a balanced budget? Maybe it would have been wiser saying we still do have a $250 million deficit, but look what we took it down from: $2 billion. That's a rather good track record in its own right. So why count the chickens before they hatch?
Why not listen to the advice from the experts? After all, as I said, we've paid tax dollars to give us that advice. The position that the government is in right now is indefensible. Now we've spent another couple of days debating this position, which in reality....
When you take a look at the province -- and I just take a look at areas I've talked to people about, for instance power -- we have the horticultural industry that is not very competitive because of the price of electric power in this province. I can name another dozen industries in exactly the same position. Maybe we can utilize this power here. After all, B.C. Hydro has said they're going to have a shortfall, and we already know that the independent power will not be adequate to sustain us and for our needs.
[ Page 14491 ]
One thing that has not been mentioned often enough in this House is that power, to start with, is growth. If we have power, we will have growth. Maybe we should be taking that back in and utilizing it; maybe this is one of the solutions. Maybe this is a boon in the long run -- who knows? Let's not just write off this power. There is the province of Alberta; maybe we can feed it into their grid; maybe they are customers. Maybe we need to assist our businesses that are presently in this province with lower rates, so they are competitive on the world market. These are just suggestions that I don't think have warranted enough thought here. After all, growth is our future, and if we don't have it, we don't have much of a future. Maybe it's in the best interests of B.C. to look along those lines and at what we can do with this power, instead of sitting here and trying to defend a position that is indefensible.
We're not talking about manipulating the books; we're talking about a government that was trying to balance the budget. But we have to balance the budget with facts. If we don't have an agreement, face up to the fact that there is no agreement. State that and get on with life. Meanwhile, we've spent two days debating something they cannot defend. It's high time they said: "Enough's enough. Yes, we did make a mistake, we did count the chickens before they hatched." As I said about what they've done with the deficit, maybe they've done quite a credible job already.
But let us stop fighting with that Bonneville company. Let us get on to negotiating, and let's get the best deal out of this. Or let's take a look at what we can do with the power. But let's stop wasting our time. Governments weren't sent to this building to create fallacies or myths. We're sent here to adequately budget for the province, not to live in a dream land. Maybe it's time the government said: "Okay, enough's enough. Let's get on with the business of governing here. We made the mistake; let's rectify it. Let's get on with life."
Next time, let's learn from this. Let's realize that a letter of agreement is not a deal. After all, we have enough lawyers in this provincial government to advise us what a deal is. If we didn't have a deal, then the government has to listen to the people that they pay to advise them. If they don't, we always end up getting into this kind of trouble, whether it be an auditor general or comptroller general or the lawyers that we have there to advise us on deals that are not a deal.
I'm not going to sit here and rant and rave about what's gone on here, but there are ministers in this House that have to look in the mirror once in a while and be honest with themselves. If you made a mistake, say it, get on with life, rectify it, and let's govern the province. Let's get a balanced budget, but let's do it legitimately. Let's stop playing this game we're playing right here: trying to justify an indefensible position. Let's get on with governing. Let's start using the advice that we pay for. If not, if we're so good that we don't need the advice, let's stop wasting the taxpayer's dollar. Let's get on with a real balanced budget. Let's stop counting the chickens before they hatch.
J. Beattie: Oh my gosh, it's wonderful to be back in the House today.
An Hon. Member: Such a suntan.
J. Beattie: Yes, the hon. member mentions I have a suntan, and she's from the Okanagan as well. You know what it's like to be out in the Okanagan: you just can't avoid getting a suntan.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Years ago in this province a deal was done called the Columbia River Treaty. That treaty was a good deal and a bad deal. It was a very good deal for the Americans. The Americans got good power, cheap power and consistent power. They got a river that was dammed to the extent that it controlled flooding. They got an enormous amount of controlled water with which they could irrigate many, many thousands of acres of fertile land in the state of Washington. Out of that irrigation came lucrative and highly beneficial agricultural crops that have made Washington State one of the largest producers of tree fruits in the world.
But for British Columbia it wasn't really such a good deal. It was an extensive deal: 30 years in length, where the price was fixed. There was too little money for too much damage. In the end the people of British Columbia paid the price of supporting what has turned out to be a real benefit to the state of Washington and other states in the United States.
As I said in previous debates with regard to downstream benefits and the Columbia Basin Trust Act, which I supported, over the years since becoming an orchardist in the Okanagan I've received many presentations from farmers who felt that they were placed at an unfair competitive advantage as a result of the downstream benefits that accrued to the Americans, primarily in the area of controlled water and the irrigation that resulted from that. I can tell you that those feelings of having been unfairly represented by the previous regime -- in fact, a regime that under W.A.C. Bennett negotiated a deal -- still live on.
Just less than a month ago the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen -- which is an area that goes from Summerland to the border over to Princeton -- passed a resolution that the downstream benefits that will eventually accrue to the province of British Columbia should be shared with the people of the Okanagan, the farmers of the Okanagan, because they were severely impacted. The politicians -- municipal, regional and, in my case, provincial -- accept the validity of that argument.
Many opposition members are saying that we didn't have a deal. They're saying that this memorandum of agreement -- which they are assisting the president of Bonneville to move away from as if it had no validity, as if his saying that it was a good deal for everyone when he stood on the podium with Mike Harcourt was not true -- somehow changed overnight. Rather than quietly stand in the House, the opposition members are giving more latitude to a corporation which broke a deal. They went back on their word, as the member for Nelson-Creston said. In the part of the country where.... I notice three Reform members sitting side by side on the other side of the House. They know what type of people they deal with every day. They deal with people who have high integrity. When they give their word on something, they mean it. That is the type of practice we expect to experience in all of our dealings, as government and as people in British Columbia.
[ Page 14492 ]
We were not playing games with the Bonneville power company when we negotiated a deal. We sat down, we negotiated a hard-fought, well-thought-out deal which, at the end of the day, their negotiators and the president of Bonneville accepted as being a good deal. It was a good deal for the Americans, because they said so. It was a good deal for the people of the Kootenays. After many decades it finally redressed the ills that were brought about because of the flooding of their homes, the blocking of the rivers so that the fish couldn't spawn, and the dislocation of individuals and families. These are tragedies that were made in the past, and we have a responsibility to help correct them as best we can.
[5:15]
I am strongly supportive of how this government negotiated a strong deal for the people of British Columbia, a deal that was so good for the people of British Columbia that Bonneville, at the last minute, on the brink of fulfilling their commitment -- a commitment that we thought they would stand by, given their president's words -- turned away from it because they knew that we had done our job. We had paid the price for the last 30 years. We lived up to our end of the deal, but when they saw something coming our way -- something for the people of British Columbia -- they backed away.
In the face of the North American Free Trade Agreement and in the face of Kemano, all capitulations on the part of the federal government, all capitulations to the American hegemony over this continent, the expansionist view that Americans have about our resources: our water, trees, fish, all of the things that Canadians hold dear....
An Hon. Member: Our apples.
J. Beattie: Our apples; that's right. Things that we do well and things that the Americans want.... In the face of all the capitulation of the federal government on all of those issues, this province has stood up and represented itself against the best negotiators in the world and got a good deal.
This government has finally stemmed the flow of everything for them and nothing for us. Whether it's the corporation or the Americans, now it's something for us, the people of British Columbia. This deal has fallen through right now, but mark my words, hon. member for Okanagan West -- one of those naysayers who is just quietly gloating at seeing a good deal fall apart because his government never had the foresight to negotiate such a good deal; quietly gloating at seeing the disservice that has come to the people of British Columbia -- you will see a day when the proper benefits will come, despite the deception of Bonneville.
Let me tell you, I heard some words over on the other side: "You have to have the money in your pocket; you have to have the deal in your pocket." That just goes to show.... The hon. member from Vernon will know, as a respected cabinet minister, that when you make a budget at the beginning of the year, a lot of it is speculation. You don't know what the economy is going to grow like; you don't know whether you're going to get all of the revenues from the tax dollars that you planned on; you don't know whether the stumpage fees are going to go down; you don't know whether the forest sector is going to be strong. But you make a best-guess determination on what your revenues will be.
We budgeted. Yes, we budgeted on the money that we anticipated we would gain from the downstream benefits, just as the previous Socred government budgeted. They were mostly wrong on their budgets. We've always gained more revenue from our estimates. In the past three years, this government has exceeded revenues that they projected. In the last three years, we've exceeded our revenues. We made an estimate in our budget on those downstream benefits, based on the word of the president of Bonneville Power Administration that his company said it was a good deal for them and for us.
But notwithstanding the deceit that has come from that corporation and from the Liberals, who are giving them room to move away from a deal, and from other members of the opposition who are doing the same, and notwithstanding the fact that we won't get that money this year, we will still live up to our commitment to the people of the Kootenays; we will still make good on our word, because those are the people who paid the price for the rest of this province, that grew from the power, that grew from those downstream benefits.
The people from Vancouver who sit back smugly in their chairs as if somehow they created the wealth.... It's the interior of this province. Those Reform members should wipe the smiles off their faces, because their constituents want to be represented in this way. They know that it's the interior that produces the goods, that produces the wealth.
Despite the fact that that $250 million is not in this year's budget, we will spend that money on the people of the Kootenays, to continue rebuilding that economy, to give them the sense that they have worth within this province -- not to be treated like worthless pawns in some Vancouver-centred economy and to be thrown away for some next generation. That's why we support the ALR; that's why we support controlling where water goes in this province. That's why we're going to put money back into the Kootenays in this budget, to support the continued growth of the people of the Kootenays.
This government doesn't govern by the bookkeeper mentality that those people over there would like. Despite the fact that these members opposite think that they're the best bookkeepers, I'll remind them once again that this is the government that has exceeded revenue estimates three years in a row. We have spent within the budget of this province's resources. We know where the money is going to come from, and we'll account for that money, despite the fact....
We have a higher priority, and our priority is for the people of this province. We put the people of this province above anything else. When we say we will make good on our commitments to the people of the Kootenays.... I'm proud to stand with this government and fulfil our commitments. We will do that. We will bargain strongly in continuing ongoing debate with the opportunistic position that the Americans and the Bonnevilles take, and we will win at the end of the day. We have the resources; we have the strength of forethought, and we have the support of the people of British Columbia. I'm proud to support this motion, and I just wish that the opposition had the same kind of foresight that the people of British Columbia have.
L. Hanson: I, at the end of the day, will likely support the motion that's before us. But the motion before us has really nothing to do with why we're spending all this time here. It's an attempt by a government that took a chance, that took a
[ Page 14493 ]
gamble for political reasons to make an announcement that they knew wasn't necessarily written in stone, but they had the guarantee that it was going to be there. But what the heck, maybe we can finesse this through the system; maybe we can finesse a balanced budget; maybe Bonneville Power will go ahead with this, even though maybe it isn't a deal written in the correct form; maybe we can get some political points by doing that; maybe we can put a balanced budget before the people; maybe we could call an election; and maybe we might have a chance of retaining a few seats.
But the motion before us.... I think Bonneville Power is wrong. They should have never signed that letter of agreement in the first place, because there was some intent there. I think we all recognize that. But it doesn't have anything to do with the arguments that are before the House today. This is strictly a smokescreen to try and divert attention from a government that took a chance -- a political chance for political points, political gain -- and lost.
I don't have any argument. The government stands up and says: "We're going to go ahead with the deal that we made with the Kootenays." Well, that's the government's decision. That's the authority given to them by electing more members than anyone else. They'll pay the consequences of doing that, just as they have to pay the consequences to the people of British Columbia for including that $250 million in the budget, which they are so proud to announce is balanced, when, in fact, all of the professional advice they could get said: "Hey, don't do it; you're taking a chance." They said: "Well, we'll take a chance anyway."
Then they come forward with a motion that's trying to divert attention from the mistake they made in the first place. And that's all that this whole issue is about.
As I said when I stood up, I will support the motion because I think Bonneville is morally wrong for what it has abandoned; why would they have signed the darned thing in the first place? But the fact is that it has nothing to do with the debate in this chamber; it's simply a smokescreen trying to hide a government that took a chance for political points -- no other reason -- and got caught at it. That's why I think this government should have gone ahead with its plans and called the election after it made the point; then we would see what the true test is. But all of this is a waste of the public's money, the public's time and the elected people's time, because it is nothing but a try to divert attention from a government that included in there, against professional advice, some money that it shouldn't have for the political benefit that it could get by saying it had a balanced budget.
C. Evans: It looks like this debate is winding down. I want to try to encapsulate what I think has been going on here for the last few days. What is happening here is really, really extraordinary. For several days in this room, we've been discussing issues...
Interjection.
C. Evans: ...paramount to the...
Interjection.
C. Evans: ...future of a whole bunch of people in the province.
It's understandable that the gentleman who is hollering at me here doesn't get it -- not because he isn't intellectually capable, not because he doesn't understand the moral issues, and not because he doesn't belong to the same political party as I do. The gentleman has all the capacity and facility that he needs to understand the issue. What's going on here is the same thing that's been going on here for years and years and years, which is that it applies to people who live in a certain geography, and the gentleman can be forgiven for not understanding, because he doesn't live there.
You might remember that I stood here about five days ago when Bonneville cancelled the deal, and I asked you -- and your brothers and sisters over there -- if we couldn't just fight this one together regardless of whether we lived in the same place or had the same political understanding. I believed at the time that it might work. I kind of thought everybody here might put aside what they think of the other fellows' politics or their geographic lack of understanding, and we would all get together and in a day would have a debate, and people everywhere, in all parties, would stand up and say: "We will support our neighbours." It didn't happen. It continues not to happen.
[5:30]
What has gone on here is absolutely amazing, hon. Speaker. Never mind their political self-interest; the people in this room couldn't even get together to support their fellow British Columbians for two days in order to balance the budget of British Columbia, in order to rectify damage to the ecosystem, in order to help some people repair their lives. They couldn't even agree if they wanted to try and run for office in southeastern British Columbia and didn't want their words in this room held against them, because there are people working here who consider anything that I say anathema to their beliefs or their future. There are people working here who think that their job is not to represent the people of British Columbia but to speak at them rhetorically from this room.
You've got to sort of look under the rocks. You've got to try to figure out why that might be happening, because it makes no political sense. Everybody over there has to try to run for office in the East Kootenay.
Interjections.
C. Evans: Everybody that's shouting at me right now understands that somebody wearing their party label, be it Liberal or Reform or Social Credit or independent or Progressive Democratic Alliance.... All those people.... Somebody wearing that label is going to have to try to go and stand by the shore of Lake Koocanusa and run for office. They're going to have to try to run in Castlegar. They're going to have to face a crowd of construction workers in Castlegar, B.C., and there will be Liberal signs over their heads. They're going to have to do it in spite of the things they've said here in the last two days, and in spite of that man standing over there, the leader of the Liberal Party, who said: "Don't build those dams." The Reform people. As much as I think they actually understand the rural people, the historical ripoff, the resource issues and the handshake nature of an agreement -- I think they understand all that stuff -- they couldn't bring themselves to get together in here and back British Columbia's position with Bonneville.
[ Page 14494 ]
In trying to figure out why, I had to walk up and down the streets and ponder the issue. It kept me up all night long. I had to try to figure out why these people would stand up in this room and argue against their own political future -- even if they didn't care about the land. I had to come to the conclusion that one of two things is true: either those people working over there in the Liberal Party actually have decided to ally themselves with the buyers of this power south of the border, or this is the first crack in the door that they see leading to the day that the leader of the Liberal Party has promised: the day he will sell off the Crown corporations, including B.C. Hydro. He sees the crack in the door right now.
I was stunned to get up one day a couple of weeks ago and read in the newspaper that that political party over there believes in the sale of B.C. Rail, B.C. Systems, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries. I haven't been able to find any other reason that for the last three days.... Even as it's winding up, even up to this moment, the people on that side of the room couldn't stand with British Columbia for even one week -- unless it's because it suits their agenda. For sure, Bonneville deciding not to keep their word is embarrassing to the government. I accept that. It will be equally embarrassing to the government if the price of wood crashes and we don't collect the amount of stumpage that we have predicted -- or if the price of natural gas...or if there isn't the income tax predictions. Everybody who goes to work here knows that when you make a budget you're making a guess, and you have to try to collect that money by the end of the year or it's embarrassing. Mea culpa, it's embarrassing that they aren't going to keep their word, but embarrassment is nothing. This is about the future of British Columbia. It's about water, and it's about somebody's agenda to dismantle what the people of B.C. have built.
I was riding on a ferry with my son a little while ago, and we were talking about where he lived. We were talking about British Columbia, and I said: "You know, Phil, you're the luckiest person in the world, and your generation is the luckiest in the world." Like kids do, he sort of said: "Aw, come on, dad, don't lecture me." I said: "Well, you see that ferry that's passing us?" We were going on the ferry trip to Vancouver, and there was a ferry going past at the time. I said: "You see the ferry? This isn't like Europe, where the ferries are private and it costs you a week's wages to get across the water. You own the ferry boat." And I said: "You see, look past...."
Interjection.
C. Evans: Yeah, congratulations! "Pay attention, because there's a guy over there who's going to take it apart. Look behind the ferry boat, Phil, and see the trees on the island. Now look on the other side of the boat and see the trees in the United States. It isn't like the United States. You own the trees, Phil. They're your trees. You want to make parks, you want to cut them down, you want to do whatever your generation wants to do -- you get to do it, because they're yours. It's not like that in the United States; it's not like that in Europe; it's not even like that in eastern Canada. And Phil, look; if that's not enough, look at the lights on the hill above the ferry boat on the island. You see the lights? The company that flips the switch is yours. You own the lights; the dams that make the power are yours; the power line that runs to the house is yours. It's all for the next generation of British Columbians."
Interjection.
C. Evans: I don't care if it was built by the free-enterprisers or the socialists. I don't care who built it. It's worth appreciating. What's happening here...
Interjections.
C. Evans: Folks are talking all around this issue.
...is that at this moment, one political party is running for office on the platform of dismantling the province. So when we come in here and say, "Hey, could we all get on the same side for 15 minutes? Could we just stand together on one issue?" they can't do it. They can't do it, because they don't fundamentally believe in having the power company in the first place. Where I live, for better or for worse, we negotiated an entitlement -- an accord, we called it -- that said we would make another electric company that would be owned by the people. It would be put together with the Keenleyside, Brilliant and Waneta dams, and the value from the electricity that came from those dams would go to the people who live there, who have to deal with mitigation of the things that have happened in their drainages since the treaty was signed. I didn't get why the Liberal Party might possibly not want to support us in this hour of need, until I figured out that of course they don't want us to have our own power company; they don't even think British Columbia should have their own power company.
It's been kind of depressing to me throughout the week that we seem to be a small group of people having a conversation with ourselves. You go home at night and turn on the television, and it's not about this debate. I always thought that the problem with the treaty itself was that this debate didn't happen, so the people out there in Surrey didn't read about it. And now I've come to see that we could actually have the debate, and it still doesn't get reported outside this room; it still doesn't matter in Surrey.
Hon. Speaker, in wrapping this thing up, I just want to say to all hon. members and to yourself: thanks for letting it happen. To the people you're not supposed to refer to but who are scribes for a living and work up there, I guess I'd like to say that I don't think democracy can work at all if you don't even come to work. And to the people up there who have had to listen to us all, one day a whole bunch of people trying to write up the history of this moment will appreciate what you did. You might be the only people to have recorded this event.
Lastly, for the people who work over in that corner of the room and who aspire to be government, I need to correct a statement I made standing right here three days ago. One hon. member over there actually asked me if I'd step outside. Nobody has asked me if I'd step outside since I was 17. The remark I made that caused the member to ask me if I'd step outside was that I said his leader had taken the American position in this debate. First, the hon. member stood up and asked me to withdraw; then the hon. member asked me to step outside and repeat those remarks.
I want to correct what I said, because what I said was wrong. You have to write down what I think is true. It's not true that the leader of the Liberal Party stood up here and said he was on the American side. It's not true, if you're listening in your office. What he did do was stand up at his seat and say he supported Canada and the British Columbia side.
And then he took the American position all the way through his speech. It's not true that he said he was taking the
[ Page 14495 ]
American side. It's only true that he took the American position. The American position is that there was no deal. The Leader of the Opposition's position is that there was no deal. The American position is that they can renege on the deal. His position is that they can renege on the deal.
So when the member asked if I would step outside and say that, I just want to....
Interjections.
C. Evans: It's hard to have a conversation with you when you won't shut up.
Interjections.
C. Evans: Do you think we could get just enough quiet here that I could finish, and then we could have supper?
I just want to say this to the member who asked me if I'd step outside and say that his political party was taking the American position: I did, hon. member. I went to Creston and said it to a bunch of farmers, and I went to Nelson and said it to the construction workers. And I'll meet whoever in your party has guts enough to call himself a Liberal in the election, on the street, all through the interior, and I'll tell them again and again and again. Because it's not only the truth; it's the nail in your coffin if anyone in your party ever tries to get elected for the first time east of the Cascades.
[5:45]
Thank you, hon. Speaker. I move adjournment in view of the hour.
The Speaker: The hon. member's motion....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. There being no more speakers, I believe the hon. member.... Is the hon. member moving that we now call the question, or is he asking that the debate be adjourned until...?
C. Serwa: Point of order, hon. Speaker. You're giving him advice. He definitely moved adjournment of debate. It's a non-debatable motion. He was clear in what he said.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I must correct the hon. member for Okanagan West. The Chair was not clear on what he had moved. It was not an attempt to advise him. If the member moved adjournment of the debate, then that's clear. I just wasn't clear.
The motion as it is, however, hon. members, is not complete. If the member is moving adjournment of the debate, we need instruction as to when it will be resumed.
An Hon. Member: Next sitting.
The Speaker: Well, that's not the Chair. He's been advised he shouldn't advise the member. So I'd like for the member....
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the Legislature.
The Speaker: There is a partial motion already on the floor, hon. member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, it is customary that when a motion to adjourn debate is moved, it is for a period of time. The traditional motion would be "adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House after today," and I so pronounce.
G. Farrell-Collins: A point of order, hon. Speaker. It's a simple matter. The member can just clarify what it was he was going to say. If he meant that he was finished speaking and that there are no more speakers and let's vote, that's fine. If he meant let's adjourn the House until tomorrow, then maybe he can say that, and we can get on with it. But I don't think we should be telling him what to do. He's the one who had the floor and he should....
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I think the Opposition House Leader's point is well taken.
If the hon. member for Nelson-Creston would make the proper motion, then we could proceed.
C. Evans: Gracious, what a kerfuffle!
Interjections.
C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I am through speaking, and it would appear to me that everyone in the room has an opinion on what the appropriate motion should be.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the motion is all that we require. Would the member please move the motion?
C. Evans: I move the motion.
The Speaker: It would be of great assistance if the hon. member would simply state the motion in its complete form.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. It is quite clear, with even the slightest variation, that whenever a member rises to move adjournment on a debate, it is usually in the form that I stated earlier. I'm simply asking the member to so state.
C. Evans: I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Smallwood moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
[ Page 14496 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; L. Krog in the chair.
The committee met at 2:49 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
M. de Jong: The minister is by now well acquainted with the interest I have in the home-care support issue, in particular, changes that have apparently occurred which are affecting significant numbers of British Columbians. I wonder if we could begin by having the minister clarify on the record the nature of the change that has taken place.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Several changes have taken place in home support during our term of government. One has been increased funding for this very important service. The budget last year -- which will again show an increase -- was about $154 million. When we took office, the budget for home support was just under $110 million. So year after year after year we have increased both the number of hours provided through home support and the amount of money that we allocate for provision of this very important service.
This area of health care is continuing to face increasing demands. We are looking hard to stabilize this service, and we are doing a review of the least essential home support services. Looking at that, hon. member, makes it possible for us to continue expanding the provision of service to the higher-care client. The services being reduced are not for health services, as I think the member is aware, but are at the housekeeping level for clients that are determined, through the screening process, to be able to live independently without those services.
We have clearly said and will continue to say that clients who are being reduced.... Well, let me phrase it the other way: no service will be reduced where this would lead to the client requiring residential or hospital care. That's one of the principles we've asked all care managers to adhere to very carefully. As I said in the House -- and I'll say it again here, perhaps with a little less volume -- the member has constituents and I have constituents who feel that the process has not been fair. I would urge him to ask them to contact the care manager in their area to review it. There is both an informal review and a formal appeal process.
M. de Jong: I will not suggest that the minister is in any way callous toward these people to the point of not caring; I think that is certainly not the case. I wonder if he is completely aware of the difficulties that arise for people who are not naturally predisposed to furthering their own cause or position.
The prospect of a 93-year-old lady who is blind, otherwise disabled and home-bound launching an appeal of a decision to withdraw support services from her is a daunting task for anyone, but particularly for her. I think we are being somewhat unrealistic in placing the onus on those individuals in the way I think the minister is suggesting.
I would like the minister, if he can, to further clarify what his understanding is of the changes that have taken place following the recent labour dispute. I think that is significant, too, and I'll just make mention of it. Put ourselves in the position of elderly or disabled individuals who have had the provision for home-care support curtailed -- and some removed entirely -- during a fairly lengthy labour dispute. Throughout that dispute they were silent, made no complaints on the basis that all this would come right once the dispute was settled. Their lives would return to normal. But their lives, in most instances -- or in many instances -- didn't return to normal or, if they did, they returned to normal for a week or two, and then they were suddenly confronted with a call from either continuing care within the ministry or from the home support caregivers -- the private suppliers of home support services -- to say that they no longer qualified. What a slap in the face for these people who have put up with reduced levels of service on the promise that that would be made right following the settlement of the dispute. Their reward is: "I'm sorry, you're cut off entirely."
My understanding is that the ministry has adopted new guidelines; the ministry has adopted a point system that classifies individuals differently from how they were previously categorized. This is the minister's opportunity to provide and place on the record what that classification system entails for these individuals today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: While staff is getting me a little bit more information, let me respond to a couple of things.
First, I surely recognize the fact that there are some individuals who feel that they have been victimized during the review process by a bureaucracy that doesn't care for them. I would submit, hon. member, that they are a minority. I submit that the great majority feel that their case managers and ministry staff care deeply about their health needs, care deeply about preserving them in an independent living situation and are sensitive to changes in care levels. I believe that is the case for both the agencies that provide the services and for the case managers who work with them and with the ministry.
I would urge the member -- and I think he is already probably doing it; I know that's what my office does.... If I find an individual who may not be able to present his or her case well to an office of government, my office and staff essentially act as ombudsperson, trying to assist the individual in making sure that needed services are received. I assume that the member opposite has asked his staff to work in a similar manner with his constituents.
Let me just say that it gives me no great pleasure as minister to say: "We have to do some adjustments within the home support budget." I recognize very clearly the value of this service to the individuals who receive it and, more importantly, to the whole direction that we are moving in the provision of health care: enabling people to live independently. That's why we have established a checklist for home support. We have done as much as we can to say that we are looking at reductions in services which will not effect a person's ability to live independently. I assure the member opposite that that is one of the instructions that the ministry and I have been giving to case managers and to agencies that are involved. The
[ Page 14497 ]
most common service reduction, hon. member, has been a reduction from four hours of housekeeping service a month to zero. That's one hour a week. I recognize that it doesn't seem like a large amount, but when you add it up over the thousands, sometimes it does, particularly when you can take those hours and put them into hours of personal care -- health support rather than housekeeping. So I believe that the best way to maintain this as a viable part of the health system is to make sure that health dollars are being spent as efficaciously as possible.
M. de Jong: I understand that the minister's staff is trying to locate further information, but I'm going to return to my original question, which related to my suspicion that the ministry has adopted some manner of points classification system. Can the minister indicate whether that is the case, whether that represents a change from what took place previously and whether that is in place now?
Hon. P. Ramsey: With great regret, I'm going to have to ask the member to repeat the last part of that; I missed it.
[3:00]
M. de Jong: Just referring again to my suspicion that some manner of points system had been introduced, I'm wondering whether that is in fact the case and whether it represents a change from what previously took place. What is the present classification system?
D. Schreck: While the minister is consulting with staff on the point question, I'd like to amplify the discussion a bit. I'm concerned.... I know we all have this issue in our constituencies. I spoke just an hour ago to the home coordinator on the North Shore about the allocation of hours in the budget that they have, and just last week we had a person from the North Shore -- not one of my constituents -- in my office talking about not being able to get the number of hours that she had previously received. I think something is being lost in the jargon here of what the public policy issue is that we are discussing. Using some of the terms of the homemaker service without understanding what it or home care is -- in some people's minds it's bathing someone who is ill; in other people's minds it's sweeping the floor.... If we could use some plain language, we might be able to more quickly get to what the public policy issue here.
Many of us can't do all our homemaking duties because of the weird hours we work when the Legislature is in session. Since being here, I've had to hire a service that comes in once a week to clean my house. It costs me $60 to have this team of four people come in for 45 minutes and go through the place and do what I used to do when I was home all the time.
As I understand it, the way this homemaker service used to work was: if my income were below a certain level and I were ill, instead of me paying the $60 to have my house cleaned, the homemaker service would. Part of the adjustment that's taking place involves people with sufficiently high incomes who require only to have their houses cleaned. They have to do the same thing I do now and pay for having the house cleaned. What is at issue? Who pays for having the house cleaned?
I'd like to have it explained in terms that I can understand rather than having the image before me of a blind person who can't bathe themselves having that service removed. I can get very upset if services are being removed from people who cannot otherwise function and might be institutionalized. I have a considerably different reaction if what we are saying is that instead of having the taxpayer pay for my neighbour's house being cleaned, they'll have to pay for it themselves if they have a decent income. What are we really talking about here?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've been conferring with staff over several things: one, the concern about a "point system." Various agencies have developed a checklist for the criteria we're looking at here. I have not had presented to me a "point system" that says so many points and you're on, so many points and you're off. I'm not quite sure that would be an appropriate sort of an instrument to have developed -- it might be more rigid than we wish.
I would like to point out very clearly, though, as exemplified in the comments of my colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour....
D. Schreck: Lonsdale.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Lonsdale? Oh, dear. Whose seat did I just take away?
D. Schreck: The constituent I was serving was from Seymour.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yet another constituent seeking defence of medicare from the New Democrats.
Let me just say this. We need to recognize the services that have been provided here. They range from sweeping and dusting to meal preparation, bathing and dressing -- that sort of personal care. In no instance that I'm aware of has the personal care component of homemaker service been reduced. We have asked staff to look very hard at the provision of housekeeping service and say whether people have the means to provide it or whether it is not part of the essential services to remain independent.... We'd look at adjustments to those levels.
I would also say that one thing we found as we embarked on this, which may have caused some variation among our different communities, was that different agencies and case managers around the province were using very different criteria. Part of what may cause more cases being adjusted in some areas than others is our attempt to ensure consistency, so that the level of homemaker service that we're providing in Kamloops is the same as the level in Kelowna, Chilliwack or Burnaby. That has been one of our goals as well.
Let me restate the principles that this service is built on. We've increased its funding by one-third or one-half over the four years of our budget cycle, because we see very clearly that there is a need. We must spend those dollars well, though. In a way it reminds me of some other areas of health care: if we don't spend the dollars well, the entire service is threatened. We think these adjustments are necessary to preserve the long-term viability of this program.
[ Page 14498 ]
M. de Jong: I wonder if I can put a series of short questions to the minister for clarification. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale referred to information which indicated that income has now become a factor. That suggests to me some manner of means test. I won't ask the minister to comment on whether that's something he's in favour of, opposed to or considering, but can he confirm whether income is now a factor that is considered?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Home support service has always been an income-tested service.
M. de Jong: Has the standard, or the test, that was formerly applied with respect to both personal home care and housekeeping duties changed with the more recent changes in policy?
Hon. P. Ramsey: No.
M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister could then confirm for me that, to the best of his knowledge, his ministry has not adopted any manner of point system to determine the eligibility of individuals for home support. And I should say that I take no issue with the minister's assertion that we are dealing here specifically with housekeeping duties. I take no issue with that assertion, at this point.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Many areas of continuing care require assessment to determine the level of services that are going to be provided. There is a set of guidelines, or a checklist, which has been used by case managers in home support. As I have said, to my knowledge there's no "point system" that says so many and you're in, so many and you're out. We are looking at something that in part, I think, requires case managers to attend very clearly to what clients are saying.
I would just add one thing to your characterization of the services that are being adjusted here. A clear criterion is that when withdrawal of housekeeping services would impair a client's ability to remain at home and would lead to a need for residential or hospital care, no adjustment will be made.
M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister's comments. I think he will agree, however, that that tends to be a very subjective assessment. What is in the mind of the assessor and the response of the assessee may be two completely different things.
I think that leads to another issue that has arisen throughout this debate and throughout recent weeks when this unfolded. That is the manner in which this change has been introduced and communicated to the people who are most affected. Maybe I can begin in that vein by asking the minister when these changes were first considered and when the decision to eliminate the housekeeping service -- because that is in effect what happened -- was made.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I actually work on adjustments. Working on getting a uniform application of the provision of homemaker or housekeeping services began nearly a year ago, in June 1994. The ministry worked with continuing care managers in each health region to say clearly that we had some budget constraints. We needed to look at demands for service that were rising above the ability of even the generous increases that I have described to absorb. We needed to look hard at how we were going to monitor utilization to make sure that those who required services got what they needed and that their adjustments were made. This began nearly a year ago.
One thing I must say is that I know some of your constituents -- and I think some other constituents, particularly in the capital region -- have perceived a connection between this and the unfortunate labour dispute with home support agencies. There was no such connection in policy. The final resolution of that dispute led to no change in ministry policy.
M. de Jong: The minister has commented several times on the injection of funds to this program. I think those numbers as they appear in the estimates books are clear and indisputable. I will caution him, however -- to the extent I can -- with this comment: direct comparisons between moneys spent are perhaps a bit misleading in this case, insofar as an argument can be made that the expenditure of $10 on the side of home support service may result in much more significant savings in terms of alleviating pressures on other institutional care facilities. I think we have to be careful that we're comparing apples and apples insofar as I think we can realize much more significant savings. The government touts its Closer to Home policy. This, I presume, is part of that strategy. I urge the minister that he remain mindful of that, particularly when he -- as he will, and I expect him to -- trots out the numbers that show increased injections of funds.
But to return to the point the minister made about this matter being discussed within the ministry way back in June 1994, and his emphasis on the fact that there is no, in his words, correlation or connection between the labour dispute and what has now transpired in the last few weeks, if that is the case, I suppose my criticism might be all the more pointed from this perspective. Why then have my constituents in Abbotsford and others in the capital region and around the province apparently been taken so by surprise? Why has there been no work done to prepare them or to alert them to the fact that their lives are going to change?
[3:15]
I don't get home support. God knows I need it, if you look at my house, but if I were elderly or disabled and had come to rely upon even four hours of home support in a month or a week.... Let's remember, for many of these people that's the visit they get during the week, and they look forward to it. It becomes a part of their lives. At least insofar as the individuals who I've met with in their homes, it just has tragic consequences for them, even psychologically, to know that next week "my girl" isn't going to be coming anymore. As I say, my criticism is perhaps all the more pointed.
Maybe the minister can tell me about the work he thought was being done to prepare these people, but I will attach the caveat that my view is that no work was done.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I surely recognize that home support clients have, in some cases, felt under considerable personal stress as the result of the unfortunate labour dispute with the workers employed by the agencies that provide them service and because of uncertainty as some of the reassessment was done. Frankly, I'm not sure that we can do a great deal about that at times.
[ Page 14499 ]
I want to re-emphasize one of the things that I said earlier. Let's not characterize the case managers and care providers who have done the reassessment and who are working with these clients as some sort of heartless automatons who are adding up points and saying: "You're in. You're out." Unlike members of the accounting profession, they are truly caring individuals.
The other thing I would say is that at times I suspect that the very fact that a case manager was contacting an individual and saying, "So, tell me about your life; tell me about your mobility; tell me about your impairment in vision or hearing; tell me about other health conditions that might lead you to have to go into a residential facility," unfortunately, raises anxiety. It's a lot easier if you're just dealing with new intakes, new clients. As we were looking at getting this budget into a form so that we could sustain this service, we found that we had to do the reassessment.
I know that all case managers would love to say yes all the time. The reality is that we have to ask them to do the reassessment to look at standards that are more uniform and to use these dollars wisely.
The other thing I just wanted to add is just another wrinkle on how we funded this service. One of the things that has happened with some of the Closer to Home fund of $42 million that was allocated by regions is that proposals came forward from the community side for services they saw as the top priority in their region. In some cases, the health care providers and the community health councils making decisions on those funded put increased home support, or respite care, or Meals on Wheels or a variety of other services near the top and said: "Hey, we don't have enough; this is a priority." We are trying to let local communities make those decisions, as well. My challenge as minister is to say that we think that home support is a vital budget. Until the transfer of real operational authority to community health councils and regional health boards goes ahead, it's our responsibility to make sure we're operating this sustainably. We are not going to take away housekeeping service where that would mean somebody would go into residential, institution or hospital care. But we will ask case managers to work as compassionately as they possibly can with clients to ensure they're receiving the services that are needed, and we will adjust those services where we can.
M. de Jong: I guess the function of these debates is generally twofold: one is for me to try and draw out the information I can from the minister; but I guess the corollary to that is to try to bring to the minister some information that might assist him and the ministry in doing their jobs. Though I appreciate the scenario and the description of the process that the minister has drawn about how this process would work ideally -- patients would be contacted, and careful assessment and subjective review would take place -- I have to tell him that the deluge of calls that I and other members have received, and the time that I have spent with people in my constituency in Matsqui and Abbotsford, suggest that it's just not happening that way.
All I can do is alert the minister to that fact and ask him -- plead with him, really -- that he look into this matter, because these folks aren't getting the attention that I'm sure he, at a very personal level, would wish them to get. It's not happening that way, and they're terrified; they're afraid. I can't begin to appreciate just how terrible it must be for some of these folks who are alone and dependent and who are just getting phone calls to say: "You've been reassessed."
I'm sure that if they asked the right questions, they may get some of the responses, and some of the further information that the minister indicates would be readily forthcoming. The fact of the matter is that they don't know to ask those questions, and that is leading to uncertainty and great difficulty for them. That's my plea to the minister. When these discussions began in June 1994, as he indicates, I presume that there was clearly an objective that was set within the ministry. It seems cold and callous, but we are in the business of dispensing public dollars. So I presume that if the impetus for this was the need to preserve public dollars and use those scarce resources to set priorities, there was a dollar figure or an objective attached in terms of savings that might be realized as a result of taking this decision. My question to the minister is: what was that objective in purely monetary terms, and has it been met?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to say a couple of things. First, there are a couple of purposes for estimates debate. I appreciate the member bringing the concerns of his constituents to these debates, and I recognize that there are concerns. Let me in turn say that if there is anything ministry staff can do to assist you in talking to home-care clients in your riding, explaining to them the process of filling in, allaying some of the anxieties, I would be very pleased to instruct them to work with your office to make that happen. The last thing I want is for people to feel threatened that somehow valuable supports will be taken away.
As far as targets to be set, we said to clients last year that we can't keep having 8 percent and 9 percent increases in hours. We need to look realistically at what we're dealing with in budgets and ask them to look at increases, not decreases, in hours of 2 percent to 3 percent in 1994-95 and to work within those figures.
M. de Jong: One thing that happens -- and I know this because I was present for the phone call -- is that at the time individuals are advised that they no longer qualify for the service they have been receiving, their immediate reaction is: "What am I going to do now?" I am told, and I believe, that the response they are getting from the other end of the line -- and sometimes it's worded more friendly than other times -- is in effect, "Well, you figure it out; we can't do anything," or, "We'd like to help, but there's nothing we can do." They're being told that they're on their own. That, of course, adds to the anxiety. People on fixed incomes aren't in a position to hire private care.
If this is supportive of the minister, it is meant to be, but I should say this: I don't believe that family members should be shirking their responsibility onto the shoulders of the state or government. There is clearly a role for family members to play. I do take some exception when an individual with a daughter and a son, all living within two city blocks of their home, are bemoaning the fact that their four hours or eight hours of home support has been cut off. There is a role for the family to play in this, and I will wholeheartedly support initiatives by the government to foster and promote that role.
[ Page 14500 ]
Nonetheless, there are still individuals for whom that resource does not exist. They are not being provided with any advice or assistance about existing alternatives. Can the minister explain whether that is the approach he directed his staff and bureaucrats to take? If it isn't, what would his advice to those line officers be? Is there an intent in the minister's mind to shift responsibility for the housekeeping aspect of this service to another minister -- the Social Services ministry, for example?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would suspect that we've just about canvassed this one.
It's difficult for a case manager in the ministry to recommend one private service provider over another, although I know that care managers do make clients aware that there are services and activity centres out there, and that there is other information that they can glean. I would hope that in most cases we have case managers -- and I believe we do -- who are concerned and involved in the lives of their clients, and who seek to provide them with other information while seeking not to be overly bureaucratic or officious. Being human, I'm sure that screwups occur at times.
[3:30]
My experience as a minister so far, in meeting with care providers, case managers and the like has led me to see their personalities and their commitment to the job. I would suggest that they provide what advice they can, though clearly they are not in the business of, or responsible for, arranging contracts for the provision of other services.
M. de Jong: The implication of the minister's response is that the alternative is restricted to the provision for privately funded or privately purchased housekeeping care. If there is another option that is available now, or one that the minister is working to provide through liaison with other ministries, perhaps he could take this opportunity to lay it out.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer to the member's inquiry is no, we are not working on any brand-new program. The issue here is the level of housekeeping service -- and it is housekeeping, not personal care -- required to maintain independence. It is also the issue of providing care and adjusting housekeeping hours where they can be adjusted without threatening that independence so that people won't be required to move to a residential in-hospital setting. We'll continue to work on that.
One thing that happens in this area of health care, as in so many others, is that very often we have discrete agencies or parts of ministry operations on the ground that are serving the same client with home support here, some sort of seniors support centre there and respite care or adult day care elsewhere. Too often they are parts of separate agencies or organizations and are not well integrated and focused on the individual client at the community level. That's one of the real challenges that we have as we work in terms of reinventing government: cut the tops off those stovepipes of health bureaucracy and get integration and decision-making as close to where services are delivered as we can.
M. de Jong: If we accept what the minister has said about there being, in effect, no alternative except for an individual to purchase services privately, and if we further accept that in certain circumstances that is not an option available to these individuals, then they are really left with only one alternative, which the minister has referred to earlier: to appeal the decision that has been made to deny them the services they formerly received. Lastly, if we accept that it appears that the withdrawal or removal of services is going to happen in an increasing number of cases.... I have argued about why that shouldn't occur, and the minister has given his reasons why it must. But if we accept that that's going to happen and I am reluctant to accept it in the face of reality and what the minister has said -- this appeal mechanism becomes all the more important. In my submission, it must be made user-friendly to those that are going to need to avail themselves of it.
The minister will know that in many government departments, many areas of our bureaucracy where people are dealing with the states, the courts or with land titles offices -- really, any area in our bureaucracy where decisions are made -- it is standard for that decision to be accompanied by a simply laid out description of what the litigant need do to appeal that decision. I wonder if the minister can provide me with an undertaking today, given his decision to proceed along this path, that some concrete action will be taken to assist.... The minister says the MLA's office will help, and I think that's the case, but the numbers are.... Quite frankly, I smiled a bit when the minister talked about my staff. I detected a hint of the plural, and I can assure him that that's not the case. I don't think the minister ever sat in opposition, but we're not....
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Precisely. So I don't think it's realistic, given the numbers that we're dealing with, to assume that each one of these individuals can be helped through an MLA's office.
I wonder if the minister can undertake today to take steps that will assist the people that are affected by this decision to facilitate an easy access to a review that will allow them to know instantly, once their service has been called into question, that there is a mechanism available to them which they can access easily and with minimal bureaucracy. That is going to be so important for these people, particularly those who are going to be left to their own devices.
Hon. P. Ramsey: A couple of things here. First, let's again be clear that what we are talking about is housekeeping services that are not essential for preserving independent living. We want to take all the steps we can to ensure that independent living is preserved where desired and where possible. Part of that is maintaining contact with these clients and making sure that as their needs change, care changes. Again, we are not talking about personal care, bathing, dressing and those other parts of.... I'm not sure "urgent" is the right word, but they are surely more detailed sorts of home support. We wish to work with clients to keep them independent for as long as possible.
I want to say a couple of things about the appeal process. First, I don't expect your office to become the advocate for every home support client. That's why I said very explicitly that if there are things that I can ask staff to do to work with
[ Page 14501 ]
you, I'll be glad to do that, and I mean that sincerely. I know what it's like. I may not have been in opposition, but I surely have been on the back bench. I know what it's like to spend long days in the office dealing with constituent concerns about government operations. I will provide what assistance we can.
Second, as far as a user-friendly appeal process goes, when reassessment is done and hours are adjusted, the case manager is being asked at the time they inform people of that reassessment to also indicate the appeal avenues that are available to them. The most important and immediate one is: they can simply ask for a new assessment by a new assessor. They can say: "Hey, Joan doesn't like me. Ask Alice to do it."
If the reassessment is done and they're still not satisfied, they can talk to the continuing care manager in their region. If that still doesn't satisfy, central ministry staff will review it again. We have no intention of saying that we want to treat these people callously or to make this a difficult process. Those are the instructions we have given. We hope that at times they are being followed.
The user-friendly part of it, I think, is important. The user-friendly part of it, I submit, comes from the ongoing contact between the client and the case manager and some sort of.... Heck, these people are in the relationship of patient and care provider, or client and care provider, and the care provider is concerned, I believe, with doing the best job that he or she can to assess needs and meet them.
M. de Jong: I think I have done what I can do to alert the minister to what I think is a grave situation. Certainly in the minds of those affected, it is a grave situation. I appreciate his offer of cooperation, and he has heard my comments about the manner in which this situation has unfolded and developed. I'm certain we will have further discussion as time goes on. I wonder now....
Hon. P. Ramsey: Perhaps at louder volume.
M. de Jong: Perhaps at louder volume, as the minister indicates.
I wonder if I can ask the minister now to turn his attention to another issue that is a focal point in my community, and that is the MSA hospital situation. Is the minister's staff available?
I wonder if I can begin by asking the minister a general comment, or try to put into context the nature of what my questions will be. It relates most particularly to the puzzlement that I have had over recent weeks, and the last couple of months, regarding a decision to downgrade the size of the hospital. In fairness to the minister, perhaps I can again ask that he put on the record the present position of the ministry, vis-a-vis the MSA hospital proposal.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I suspect the hon. member has been to at least as many meetings with ministry staff and the MSA hospital as I have, including a meeting between staff and the hospital board in which I think all aspects of this important project for the Fraser Valley were explored.
Let me just say a couple of things in starting. First, the Ministry of Health supports the planning and construction of the MSA hospital. We believe that incurring the debt to construct this hospital is a wise investment in health care for residents of the Fraser Valley.
I stress that the original projections a number of years ago for population and utilization -- and those two things must both be considered -- indicated a need for as many as 500 beds in the new facility. I think I saw some projections. Based on current population projections and utilization data -- and, as the member knows, utilization of hospital facilities and utilization rates are on a downward trend in this province and in other provinces across the country -- the new facility will require some 300 beds by 2006 -- and perhaps an additional 40 to 50 beds five or six years after that. So we are looking at planning and constructing a 300-bed facility with the capacity to expand by an additional 50 or 100 beds, depending on regional planning under the auspices of the regional health board.
M. de Jong: Without trying to poison the atmosphere, at this stage of the game anyway, I will tell the minister with all candour that there is a suspicion in the part of the province that I call home that this hospital has become a political football that is being kicked from one end zone to another with very little prospect of ultimate resolution. Again, in fairness to the minister, that suspicion has arisen only partly as a result of what has happened, or more particularly what hasn't happened, since his government took office. It extends back many years to when the discussions first took place regarding what was then to be an expansion of the existing physical plant and only later, after subsequent studies were completed, was determined to be more cost effective to provide an entirely new facility.
[3:45]
The minister has indicated his ministry's commitment to a 300-bed facility. The minister will know that it was originally the ministry which called upon the local officials to go to a 350- bed proposal. That entailed all manner of changes. I'm not an architect, and I'm not a designer, but I can certainly appreciate the significant changes that would have been required and the delays that would have entailed. It was at the ministry's insistence that planning was undertaken for an initial 350-bed facility with a further expansion at phase two.
My question for the minister is: at what point did he come to the realization or did he determine, based on utilization rates and all the indices regarding population growth charts and what not, that the 350-bed facility was no longer appropriate and that it should now be a 300-bed facility? When did that decision crystallize in the minister's mind?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The assessment is ongoing. We and facility planning are continually assessing what utilization is needed in hospitals and other facilities, what population growth is projected and what the care needs of the population are. The reassessment of the initial size of the MSA facility was reached last fall. Be careful about what I said though, hon. member. I said we need to plan initially for a 300-bed facility with capacity to add on or upgrade by 50 or 100 beds, and part of that upgrade will be dependent on population growth and demographics. If the member has a wonderful crystal ball that can project for -- we're working on 2011 right now -- some 16 years down the road and figure out precisely what the population of the Fraser Valley will be, we may be able to get a precise figure right now. I must say, though, that there is no intent to walk away from the necessity to build this facility. We are looking at making sure that we have a modern facility with increased ambulatory and day surgery and other services provided to the people of the area.
[ Page 14502 ]
If this is going to be a political football, let's make sure we understand who has been running with the ball and who might be the tackler. It is this government that approved the construction of the MSA facility in 1992. It is this government that has been involved in the ongoing planning process for the MSA hospital and has been carrying out the long-term work of making that happen. It is this government that is saying repeatedly in public that we believe it is necessary to incur debt to construct needed capital facilities. The capital debt incurred to construct this facility will be approximately $128.5 million in current funds. That is a substantial investment, and it is an investment that I think the province has to make. As long as we're talking about who might curtail that, though, I would be interested in hearing the member's views on how we accommodate a $128 million increase in capital funding at a time when his leader and his party seem to say that all debt is bad.
M. de Jong: Well, one of the places we begin is the $125,000 that Mr. Chilton is about to receive, but more about that later, sports fans.
The suspicion in Abbotsford and Matsqui is that there is no intention, no political will, to proceed with it. It was brought on by what are seen to be constant obstacles being placed in the way of this project proceeding. The carrot is continuously being dangled in the front of local officials, who have been working -- in one case, Mr. George Peary -- throughout the length of the project -- seven, eight, nine years. Each time he is brought to the edge and told that everything has been done, that the planning is complete, that the utilization rates are satisfactory and that everything is a go and all that is required is the nod of the political masters to get on with the job, each time that stage is reached, something else happens and there's a requirement for a further assessment or a reassessment.
The question I have for the minister is: if there was acceptance throughout the ministry in November 1994 that all the work had been done, that the planning moneys had been approved, that the facility was a go and that the 350-bed facility was acceptable, what happened between the end of November 1994 and the beginning of April 1995 to throw the whole project into disarray and call into question the completion of the project? As we understand it now, there has been no firm date for the commencement of construction. If the minister could tell us what changed in the span of three or four months and when this project is ultimately going to proceed, I'd be very interested. I know 60,000 or 75,000 people in that part of the province would be interested.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's briefly discuss some of the challenges that any government of this province faces in providing adequate capital facilities in health, as in other areas. A conservative estimate by the facilities branch of my ministry suggests that there is something like an ongoing need for $500 million of capital expenditure to replace, add and renew facilities in the province every year. That is not sustainable within the means of the taxpayers. Therefore, we have a modest budget for capital expenditure in the Ministry of Health this year, which will amount to some $287 million. It is the highest capital budget ever allocated for health facilities in this province. I'm proud to be part of a government that has said that building these sorts of facilities must be a priority.
I hear the member opposite being very eloquent about the concerns of his constituents for a particular facility. I do not hear him standing up in the Legislature and saying that we should increase debt by $128 million.
M. de Jong: No one is suggesting that there's an endless mountain of money at the minister's disposal. Quite obviously he is confronted, in this time of scarce resources, with making those decisions regarding priorities. What I think people in Abbotsford, Matsqui and across the province are saying is: play fair with us. Play straight with us. Tell us if you have the resources to proceed with this project; tell us if you don't have the resources to proceed with this project. We will be very unhappy to hear the latter, but we'll know where we stand, and we'll know that what we have to do, over the short term, is deal with the facility we have and somehow patch together a plan that will allow us to proceed. That's the other part of this equation.
The population is bursting in that part of the province. There is a facility that is presently serving that population. Everyone acknowledges that it is inadequate. Under the guise of stating that there's a new facility on the way, funding for the existing facility has all but dried up in terms of what they need in expanded OR or emergency facilities to keep up with demand, so they're feeling it both ways. "We're not going to spend money on the existing facility, because there's a new one on the way." But the new one isn't on the way, and no one will say when it's going to be built -- but "believe us, it's going to be built."
No one believes that anymore, and part of the reason they don't believe it.... I don't think the minister answered my question about what changed between the end of November '94 and the beginning of April 1995. So I'll ask that again, but I'll ask one other question.
The minister alluded to my meetings with the MSA General Hospital board. One of the things that I found most disturbing was that I was left with the very distinct impression that all decisions about the change regarding the 350-bed facility and the utilization rates were made without any consultation taking place between the ministry and the local hospital board officials. Maybe consultation isn't the correct word, because ultimately decisions have to be made. But what struck me as being particularly disturbing was that when the decision was made -- and I believe it was relayed by the Premier during one of his visits to the area -- the local hospital administrator was confronted with the data and said: "Well, the decision was made on this basis." He was provided with no opportunity, as I understand it, to rebut some of the assumptions, conclusions and premises upon which the decisions were made regarding population growth and utilization rates. They have -- and Mr. Tokarchuk, in particular -- a very compelling case to make to the ministry regarding some of the data they have provided in support of this sudden 90-degree turn on the hospital project.
I'm very disturbed when I hear that that decision was made apparently in a vacuum, without any regard for the input from the local officials. They were truly caught off-guard. In fact, throughout the spring, they had been proceeding on the basis of assurances they had received from the ministry that this project had met every single cost study test and demand that the ministry had placed in front and was now scheduled to proceed on the strength of the political will to do so. And then the rug was pulled out from under them.
[ Page 14503 ]
Where was that consultation? Where was that willingness to involve the people most affected and the people who have to look the constituents in the eye and say, "I'm sorry, your grandfather is going to be spending the night in the hallway because we just don't have any room," or "Your sister is going to go home three hours after the operation because we just don't have any room." I'll say this: I sympathize with the minister to the extent that he is working with scarce resources. I'm not terribly sympathetic to know and to hear about the lack of consultation that took place during the five months leading up to this rather significant change of plans.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The planning of facilities in Health is based on a number of assumptions, and those assumptions, as I think the member probably knows, are changing as the mechanisms for delivering health care change. What was seen as an appropriate number of beds per thousand or bed-days per thousand a decade ago would be seen as simply unsustainable and unnecessary today. As we move towards more integrated care, I suspect that some of the targets that we're setting now will seem wildly overbuilt in the future. In this province, in this country and in many western jurisdictions, the trend is the same way. It's being done for a variety of reasons, hon. member. One is, clearly, that public health systems and other health systems around the world are faced with the necessity of spending dollars more smartly.
In this province we have undertaken that same challenge, and that means to ask hospitals to look at effective utilization and not use very-high-priced, hospital-based services when other services are equally effective. Also, it responds to the desires of the population. If the member opposite knows of people who consider a trip to the hospital as a desirable feature of their lives and want to spend lots more time there, rather than have service provided to them in their own homes, let me know. I regularly meet people who say: "We need more things like hospice care, home IV and early discharge programs. We need a lot more of that initiative, because that's how I want to receive care." So as we look at what's an appropriate size for a facility in a population, I submit that we need to recognize clearly that the provision of medical care is changing and that the assumptions may change.
[4:00]
Second, to say that somehow the board of MSA is shut out of this and that the administration is unaware, I find amazing. The reality is that consultation with administration on this facility has been ongoing. I've asked staff: "Did this come as a total shock in April?" The answer is no. The administrator was well aware that assessment of the facility was taking place back in February, and my staff was informed that he would be working with the board and informing them of the assumptions on which that was based. So to say that consultation hasn't happened is simply inaccurate.
Third, I also recognize the need for making sure that we are taking appropriate measures to ensure that needed hospital services are available as planning and construction of this facility go on. I know that the mayor of Abbotsford met with the Premier and provided him with a letter suggesting that one of the things that should be looked at is more integrated planning of hospital services between Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack and MSA. I understand that is underway, so we can take a hard look at whether additional resources are needed in the neighbouring hospitals.
The work on this is ongoing. On site preparation, I understand from ministry staff that they are working with MSA to say that we need to get on with site preparation. I hope to be able to present budgets that allow that to happen in the coming year. I must say that's dependent in large part on the commitment that we have made as a government, and I have made as minister, that we will borrow to build facilities, acquire sites and provide services to people in British Columbia.
M. de Jong: I guess I'll put it point-blank to the minister: the suspicion in Abbotsford and Matsqui is that the minister and the ministry are now firm in their view that they do not anticipate committing to the commencement of this project until 1997-98. If that is the case, it is clear that patients won't be in this hospital until the year 2002, and that is based on an optimistic schedule of construction and completion. Is that the case? Is that presently the minister's position? Are there documents within the ministry which confirm the recommendation that the ministry presently has on this project?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Look, I think we've pushed this about as far as we can. The planning process with MSA is ongoing. We hope to be budgeting for site acquisition in the coming fiscal year. If there is any suspicion that the people in the member's riding ought to have, it's suspicion about what a government not committed to capital expansion and to incurring debt might do to completion of MSA and of other health facilities across the province. I have heard nothing from this member that says he's prepared to carry the torch for MSA and stand up in the Legislature and say: "We need to spend $128 million more. We need to incur that much debt to make sure that this hospital gets built quickly. If that means accelerating it and incurring more debt in the coming year, then I'm all in favour of that."
I haven't heard that. Quite frankly, so far I've heard lots of concerns about planning. As far as I know, planning is ongoing. The new regional health board needs to be involved in that as well. I've assured the member that this government is committed to proceeding with the construction of MSA and other health facilities. I must also say that I have not heard a similar commitment from the member opposite to say that capital debt is appropriate to incur and that if it requires more debt to build this hospital more quickly, then he is in favour of it.
M. de Jong: I'm afraid I'm going to be rather insistent. I put a very specific proposition to the minister. I believe the present position of the minister and the ministry is not to approve the commencement of this project until 1997 or 1998. I asked the minister whether there was documentation within his ministry confirming that; I didn't get an answer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must again repeat that we have a plan to build capital facilities in this province and a plan to make sure that occurs within the means of the taxpayers. That's why the Finance minister introduced a debt management plan with her budget. That's why we have said very clearly that we will stabilize and even reduce the amount of capital funding that occurs.
[ Page 14504 ]
My challenge as a minister is the same as other ministers: to make the case for how much capital gets spent in my particular ministry in a particular year. When I have done that work on the 1996-97 budget, I may have more definitive words for the member on the groundbreaking date for MSA. I would wonder very much what this member says to his constituents when they ask him about Liberal plans for construction of MSA.
M. de Jong: The minister knows that the option exists for me, a member of the opposition or a member of the public to request documents under the freedom-of-information legislation. I'm asking the minister a simple question today: does documentation exist within his ministry confirming its present position on the commencement of the MSA hospital facility?
I'm not looking for a grandiloquent speech about his government's intentions to commit to infrastructure around the province. I'm asking about a specific project and his ministry's position on that project. If he's unwilling to answer that question, let him say so. There are other avenues available to me. I'm giving him this opportunity to be forthcoming and honest about what the ministry's position is and whether there is documentation within the ministry supporting that position.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I suspect that if I were asked, I could find documentation within the ministry such that, based on whatever capital envelope is anticipated, MSA is next year, the year after, the year after that or the year after that. A lot of it depends on what the member seems to wish to avoid: the macrocommitment of government to actually incur debt to build capital.... I have yet to hear from this member whether he thinks it's worth incurring $128 million of additional debt. Does he propose the cancellation of, say, the expansion to the Richmond Hospital, the cancer clinic in Kelowna or the clinic in Victoria? Does he have other plans for accommodating it or does he simply wish to assert again and again that this must somehow be funded, but surely can be done without incurring debt? It can't.
M. de Jong: I can only surmise from what is, in effect, a non-answer that the minister is unwilling to provide the information that I sought to the people of Abbotsford. It's a straightforward question. It's a question that taxpayers, I think, are entitled to ask, particularly when they have been promised something from government. I've tried to be fair with the minister.
The promise was given by his predecessor, his predecessor's predecessor and his predecessor's predecessor's predecessor. All the people are asking is when that promise is going to be acted upon. They don't want to be misled. They feel like they're being misled, and the minister's unwillingness to give a straight answer to what is really a simple question suggests to me that, sadly, I will have to inform them that they are continuing to be misled by this minister.
When the MSA project was first discussed many years ago, one of the other aspects to it -- indeed, I think $600,000 of taxpayers' money was committed to the planning stage -- was for a health unit. If the hospital has been frustrating -- and on a daily basis it has been frustrating for those most closely connected to it and the patients who utilize it -- the health unit represents an absolute mystery. Six hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers' money was committed to this project, and it has disappeared off the face of the earth. Repeated requests for information regarding the status of this project have been ignored -- completely ignored.
My question to the minister....
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I hear someone say FOI. Isn't it odd that in this day and age you've got to FOI the ministry to determine what happened to $600,000 worth of planning money and the status of a health unit project? I'll again give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he can lay this issue to rest and tell us what the status of that project is.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, with the health unit, I understand there is some consideration to locating it on the same site as the MSA hospital. I must say that at this point, I'm unaware of some of the detailed plans for that. I'll be glad to get back to the member with that information.
As long as we're talking about what information we're going to take back to the taxpayers of Abbotsford, if I'm speaking to reporters out there, I'll just have to say, with regret, that the member representing that area was unwilling or unable to say that additional debt should be incurred to build the facility.
M. de Jong: Say what you will about the member for Matsqui, but leave the member for Abbotsford alone on this day. On this day, at least, leave him be.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My apologies, sir.
M. de Jong: I am inclined, out of courtesy, to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. He has indicated that he will obtain the information regarding the health unit.
I have to tell him -- again, we get back to the dual purpose of these debates -- that Mr. Peary in particular, chairman of the regional district, has been frustrated for going on two years now. I know there have been changes within the various planning departments of the ministry, but he has received assurances dating back two years not that the thing will be built, but that someone will tell him where in the ministry this project lies or whether it's even alive. Six hundred thousand dollars is no small amount of money. It was promised; I don't know if it's been spent; I don't know what's become of it. The guy on the local scene who's supposed to know the most about it can't get any information out of the ministry, and I sincerely will appreciate the minister's undertaking to provide a detailed account of what's going on with the promised health unit.
[4:15]
I would like to thank the minister for engaging me in the debate and will yield to other members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would like to say in conclusion that one of the challenges we do face is trying to put that size-13 foot of need into the size-six shoe of fiscal reality.
Interjections.
[ Page 14505 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll save jokes about shoe leather and mouths for another day. I wanted to say that I would never confuse the hon. member with your colleague from Abbotsford, and I'm sure we'll have a good opportunity to cross swords with him as well.
Just let me say in conclusion that I do recognize -- and I hope the member is left with the impression that I recognize -- the need for increased acute care facilities in the Fraser Valley. I also recognize the need to increase and continue spending on health facilities, and I will do what I can to ensure that ongoing planning occurs for both MSA and for the public health unit, I'll make sure the member gets that information on the health unit.
Finally, I just want to thank the member for his engaging in estimates. It's been an interesting process, and I thank him for representing the interests of his constituents well.
F. Gingell: I would like to, if I may, go back first of all to an issue of home care. I received today a letter from a constituent, portions of which I'd like to read, and I'll get a copy to the minister.
This letter is from a 38-year-old lady, a constituent who ten years ago was infected with HIV through a blood transfusion she got from the Red Cross prior to having an operation. On March 17 this year she was put into St. Paul's Hospital for seven days with a case of pneumonia. The damage to her lungs was so bad that the respiratory specialist, Dr. Lawson, got together with her family doctor and put in a request for home care. This request was handled through St. Paul's Hospital home-care assessor and given directly to the Boundary health unit before she left the hospital.
What has happened since is that the Boundary health unit has told her that no help is available and has suggested to her that she should get Molly Maid. But she is not talking about housework; she is talking about the needs of someone with AIDS who is trying to recover from pneumonia.
She was put in touch with the PWA Society -- Persons With AIDS. A home support worker phoned the Boundary health unit on her behalf. She was given the same story: they are six to eight months behind in being able to assign workers to these needs. She was also told that Delta was made up of so many seniors that they did not have the funding or the manpower to deal with chronic illness.
We were listening earlier to the member for Matsqui talking about the issue of home care that people had been receiving being taken away from them. In this particular case, we are talking about new patients. We are talking about people who have been moved home on the understanding that there will be home care, because it makes more sense to care for them in their homes and is a lot less expensive. But the story here is that the home-care help to enable her to live at home with her family -- she has teenagers -- is simply not there. When the minister speaks of how much additional funding has been put into this program, I wonder if he can justify how what would seem, on the face of it, to be a most serious need hasn't been able to be met.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would agree with the member that on the face of it, there is a need here that has not been met. I must repeat what I said earlier, which is that where home support is necessary, we are providing it. There has been no reduction or curtailment of home nursing hours, if that is what this individual requires. I have difficulty commenting without further investigation of the specifics. If the member will provide me with the correspondence, I'll undertake to have ministry staff investigate and get back to him and to me.
F. Gingell: I appreciate that from the minister. As I said, I just got the letter earlier today, and I'll pass it on to you right away.
Mr. Chairman, is it an appropriate time to continue our discussion about the treatment of people with speech disorders? You were going to ensure that the.... I see that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale immediately got up and left. Is the staff person here? I can come back another day.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have attempted to arrange staffing to accommodate the member opposite. I have been informed that the staff with expertise in this area should be here in ten minutes or so. If you can hold for ten minutes, let's do it, and we'll get on to those issues.
The Chair: The member for Richmond East.
An Hon. Member: Oh! We haven't heard from you.
L. Reid: I know. I'm darned accommodating, I'll tell you.
In terms of this afternoon's debate, where we left off the last day was discussion of the British Columbia Health Research Foundation. I was in the process of making a very strong case for the need for evaluation and measurement in terms of the delivery of health care. If this is all about getting to best practice, it seems to me that it's only appropriate to have an agency in place that is somewhat at arm's length from government in terms of how they choose the research projects and evaluate ongoing health practice in this province so that they can look to providing government with some reasonable guidelines and some best practice around these issues.
The minister has made many comments about the fact that he would have wished that another venue had been supported in the Legislature. I would put my support behind the B.C. Health Research Foundation, because I believe it needs to be an entity that is at arm's length from government. The goals of this organization, which are to look at health care as an emerging dynamic and to look at the demands placed upon it by different communities and different people within the province, are certainly timely in 1995. They want to bring to the table some report of what this system will look like five, ten or 15 years from now -- even over a longer term, because all of us are going to live a lot longer than ten or 15 years -- and that is where they are headed. It certainly seems to me that their mission or mandate is valid and that it has been somewhat diluted as a result of the funding decisions taken around this organization.
I am making reference to the annual report. It seems to me that if we want this organization to continue to deliver some very fine things, we have to be prepared to have some commitment to this organization. The task force report that evaluated where this agency was headed made some very fine recommendations. I believe the recommendations make sense. It's prudent to have this as a goal. Certainly there are many taxpayers out there today who believe that if you can't measure a service, perhaps you should not be providing it. I think that's food for thought for all members of the Legisla-
[ Page 14506 ]
ture, in terms of how best we return to the taxpayer some decision on whether or not there were prudent spending decisions taken.
At the end of the day, that's what the taxpayers are looking for: how best should you spend the dollars? What motivated a particular government, any government, to take the decisions that they in fact have taken? I think agencies such as this one, looking at health care.... If we were to replicate that process of evaluation across all government ministries and all government agencies, it would only be to the good. It certainly seems to me, when I read through a number of these bits and pieces of material, that it's not a consistent approach and that we have not been consistent in terms of promoting evaluation at the level of government.
Certainly the value-for-money audits being performed by the auditor general are on the right road. I would never suggest that we should not be proceeding; I think that's only useful information. It seems to me that this agency, the British Columbia Health Research Foundation, can also provide some very, very useful information for government. But to do that, there has to be some commitment on behalf of the government.
I would ask the minister for his comment on the future of this agency, because in the last three to three and a half years it has continually come to the fore -- whether or not this government believed in the B.C. Health Research Foundation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I too have a fair bit of respect for the work of the B.C. Health Research Foundation. I would say that particularly under the leadership of the member for Burnaby North, who sits on the board of the research foundation and undertook a review of its mandate for the previous minister, the foundation is indeed a very valuable part of health research in the province.
A part of that review and report was to urge the foundation to change its focus from one that concentrated almost entirely on biomedical research to more of a balance between biomedical research funding and funding for research that investigated the efficacy of various health programs, methods of delivery, prevention and community-based programs -- a wider range of health issues. That report has been endorsed by the board of the research foundation and is surely respected by this ministry.
The clearest commitment, I guess, is whether it's got money. As of April 1 of this year, the foundation has funding of approximately $7 million on hand.
L. Reid: The minister made reference to the member for Burnaby North. The task force submitted two recommendations to government that were intended to provide the basis for the B.C. Health Research Foundation to fulfil its new vision for the future of health research in British Columbia. I'll mention specifically two recommendations: to expand the foundation's board of directors to 12 members, with equal representation from the public, the research and health professional community, and government, and that board membership should also reflect the diversity of the British Columbia population. Perhaps the minister could advise whether or not that recommendation has been accepted.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The board membership has changed. As to whether it implements all details of that recommendation, I don't have the information available in my head. I'll either get the information to the member tomorrow in written form or we can get back to it when other staff arrive.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. Whenever the information is available, I will absolutely receive it.
The second recommendation is to provide stable funding for the foundation through a second five-year commitment, with an expenditure plan of $12 million in 1994-95 fiscal year. In fact, I believe the minister has already answered the question and has suggested $7 million. The recommendation from this committee was $12 million. Was there a decision...? Obviously there was a decision taken. Was there some discussion around whether or not a shortfall of $5 million will allow them to provide some useful documentation to the Ministry of Health?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's be clear about the mandate of this research foundation. It surely has a far broader mandate than simply providing evaluation materials to the Ministry of Health. It provides research results to the ministry, health providers, those who run health facilities and the general public. It is not a research arm of the ministry; it is a foundation that awards grants by peer review for research on a wide range of health activities.
[4:30]
The member asks about the funding that was allocated to it. I must say that earlier this year, prior to final decisions being made around the current budget, I was very concerned that we might not be able to provide any funding to the B.C. Health Research Foundation in the coming year. It was only through the work of a number of people who are concerned about this issue that the necessary work was done and funds were found to make sure that its good work continues.
L. Reid: Perhaps this is another defining moment for the Liberal caucus and this debate. If indeed the commitment is there to suggest that you are working towards best practice, there has to be some definitive action to follow it up. Certainly the minister knows full well that I strongly support cost-sharing around these kinds of deliveries and some kind of public partnership being put in place. In British Columbia $80 million is invested in health research each year, and last year we were looking at a $6.5 million contribution from the government. I think that's a vast, vast difference in terms of non-government picking up the majority of those costs.
I think that for this minister to stand today and suggest that he considered not making any contribution to health research sends a very, very negative message. If the commitment is there, this funding will be a priority for this government. I'm saddened that that appears not to be the case. Would the minister comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is somewhat amazing. I just said that the foundation has $7 million on hand. I'll add that there's an additional grant of $2.5 million in the budget we are currently debating. Over the years that we have been in government, we have demonstrated our commitment to make sure that research goes on. I have to say, though, that there are choices to be made. I would love to know how the member
[ Page 14507 ]
opposite, should she ever find herself juggling a budget for the Ministry of Health, would increase funding for this foundation to $12 million while dealing with more than a $300 million cut in transfer payments from the federal government and her own leader's vow to slash revenues by another billion dollars.
To say that is the direction we ought to go, that we need less government services, less taxes on business, fewer capital facilities -- and the debt required to construct them -- and yet, on the other hand, to stand up in this committee and say, "Oh, my word, $9.5 million is too little; the recommendation was $12 million," strikes me as absolutely amazing.
L. Reid: If the minister is interested in best practice and takes every opportunity to wax on about inefficiencies in the system, duplication and this and that, certainly evaluation will be a priority. There isn't any way for him to justify practice in this ministry unless he evaluates it. That's the bottom line. This individual can waft anywhere he wants on that topic. He did not answer the question, which was whether or not this was seen as a reasonable priority.
I will certainly go on record and say this will be a priority for a Liberal government. If health care is about defining best practice, you can only define it if you have some measurement and evaluation in place. I would commend the efforts of the British Columbia Health Research Foundation.
In terms of another provincial program that I wish to discuss -- and I have made mention of this topic to the minister on many occasions -- perhaps he can provide today a listing, status report or snapshot, if you will, of programs for individuals suffering from anorexia in British Columbia. We have had this debate -- I've certainly had this debate with his predecessor, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head -- in terms of whether or not this can be considered a provincial program. There is tremendous inconsistency in terms of where these services are delivered throughout the province. The minister, I know, has made a number of announcements in the last 12 to 18 months surrounding new funding for that program. If the minister could provide us with a status report, that would be most helpful.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We have had a lot of debate over anorexia and caring for people with very serious eating disorders in this province. Last June I announced that we would be adding close to $2 million in annual funding to really address some of the tertiary services at St. Paul's Hospital and Children's Hospital and to put some additional clinical and support resources into some of the regions. As the member opposite knows, the St. Paul's unit was opened last July. I'm trying to remember the exact date -- I'm afraid it escapes me. Those ten beds are now in operation. Further work on the unit to be run by Children's Hospital was undertaken at that time. I just asked staff whether it's actually open. It was slated to open in March. I guess I'll have to check. I wasn't invited to the ribbon-snipping for that one.
What is more important, I think, is to make sure that.... The member and I discussed the need for an ongoing provincial steering committee to actually undertake this work and assess both care standards and the needs of people, predominantly young women, suffering with anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders. That steering committee is in place. It's held a number of meetings.
I think the most important thing that's coming up, actually, is an event the member may be aware of. An eating disorder symposium is going be held June 8 and 9 in Vancouver. I think it will provide an excellent opportunity, under the leadership of the steering committee, to bring together folks from around the province, to make sure that we have some information and expertise being shared and to look at what the next steps are.
Another thing I've been very heartened by as I look at the whole issue of dealing effectively with eating disorders is the extent to which.... I think this is an issue that's starting to percolate in the broad health community. I was very heartened to see several of the applications for moneys from the Closer to Home fund being targeted by regions for eating disorder program enhancement -- sometimes through clinic situations, sometimes through an additional service for providing an acute facility and sometimes through mental health services, as was proposed and funded in Kamloops. It strikes me that some of that work is now starting to percolate. This is being recognized as a health need that requires some specialized attention and a clear liaison between the very specialized tertiary services that we have in place in the enhanced St. Paul's and Children's hospitals, a connection between those and community and regional hospitals and practitioners -- both physicians and the broad mental health community.
As I look around at the work that's been undertaken in the last year, we can point to a number of specific facilities, beds and program enhancements. I think the more important part of what's happened in the last 12 months has been increased awareness of the devastating impact this condition can have on, too often, very young lives.
L. Reid: The minister made mention of an eating disorder symposium in June. Is that being put on by the Ministry of Health or is this ministry participating in that? If so, I would be interested in learning if the steering committee is part and parcel of this symposium.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The staff aren't able to tell me who is funding it. I'll bet you at the bottom of it there's at least a small ministry grant to assist it. Indeed, the provincial steering committee is one of the organizations that's doing the planning for it. I'll be glad to make sure the member gets whatever conference invite is coming out. Maybe I'll see her there.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's willingness to share that information. In terms of some of the needs that are shared with both of us, typically parents of anorexic young women in the province talk a great deal about the need for residential beds in the community. A number of young women that I have met with at St. Paul's Hospital are now in the process of moving to a monitored living arrangement in the community, without actually having them reside on the floors of the hospital. They have an ability to move back and forth. I certainly welcome that level of commitment to ensure that they can have some kind of normal existence as they try to cope with the disorder.
Certainly they have been very, very supportive of that. The young women truly appreciate the opportunity to not be in hospital. I think that's a very good direction that the ministry has taken, and I would certainly commend them for that. I think the fragility around the emotions for eating disorders is
[ Page 14508 ]
something we probably have a great deal more to learn about, but I would hope that that kind of sensitivity around this issue will continue, and I trust that it will, because I commend the minister on the interest and the commitment he has taken with this particular issue.
I think that where we are headed in terms of ensuring that that level of service is available across the province.... I welcome the minister's comments about a number of different regions looking at that. My concern is with the regions who don't choose that. I hope that the eventual outcome is that it will become a core service and something that all regions would be expected to provide. The families and these young women don't need to be disconnected from their communities. They don't need to feel any more sense of not belonging because they have to travel tremendous distances to receive that service. Certainly it's a very different scenario if you happen to live on Southern Vancouver Island or in the lower mainland. Those services are readily available -- a 20- to 30-minute ride, basically. Some of the services.... We need to take a look at how best to suggest to some of these regions that they put a provincial flavour to some of these programs. You and I both know that I've come back to this topic many, many times. Some of these programs definitely need a provincial focus -- having the ministry take some responsibility to ensure that those programs are available in all parts of the province. If the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's much that the member opposite and I agree on regarding this program. I just want to assure her that it remains an enhancement to health services that I am pleased to have played a part in. I think she knows that I have staff in my office who are also very, very concerned with this issue, for very personal reasons. I would add that I also share her view that we need to have a regional and provincial perspective on it. The provincial steering committee includes not only people from the major tertiary care providers: St. Paul's Hospital and Children's Hospital. Organizations have long been active in the area -- B.C. Eating Disorders Association and others -- but it also includes regional representation from the north, Vancouver Island and the Thompson region. As we talk about how to deliver services, we're not always thinking that the whole province looks like Vancouver. There are great disparities.
The only other thing I would add to our discussion of it -- and I think this is more discussion than debate, quite frankly -- is that I continue to push on the prevention end of things. I confess....
L. Reid: So what does that look like for eating disorders?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I wish I knew. The member asked what prevention looks like for eating disorders. I don't know about her, but I keep hearing a variety of approaches being tried to inform families, young people and young women about how anorexia or bulimia might arise in their individual lives, what the warning signs are and giving assistance to physicians in dealing with those families and young women.
If I had the magic vaccine for it, I'd buy a carload. I don't think it's that simple. It seems to me that the more I read about it, the more I believe it arises from any number of personal and social conditions. I must confess I don't see a quick way of avoiding people falling into some level of this disease. It afflicts far too many.
[4:45]
With that, I think I'll just take my place. I think we share a view that we need to do more at the tertiary high-level end of care and bridge between facility and residential care and make sure that this is a health need that is identified and addressed throughout the province.
L. Reid: The question I was posing was whether or not the Ministry of Health, the provincial government, would have the ability to expect the regions to deliver that service. I'm not asking for that service in every single region; I truly support the notion of centres of excellence. But I do think if the two centres today are in Victoria and Vancouver, we've left a lot of the province unexplored. Perhaps you could give consideration to Prince George and maybe one other centre. If the expectation on behalf of the ministry is to ensure that it is indeed being referred to as a core service, or an enhancement, as the minister would put it, then indeed it should be available outside of the lower mainland. That was the question, if the minister could respond.
Hon. P. Ramsey: While tertiary care facilities are indeed located adjacent to some of the major hospitals in the province -- because at times, as the member knows, these individuals are so fragile that acute care in an institution is required -- community and regional hospitals have a clear responsibility to liaise with those facilities. While they may not be providing the tertiary care in Nanaimo and Campbell River, they are linked with those who are and know what service can be provided safely and efficaciously in a regional or community centre, as opposed to those which will require a transfer to a major urban centre.
I think that network is necessary. I think that as we look at the development of health plans for various regions, we will see this identified as an issue in many, many regions. The priorities may well differ, but surely nobody who looks at the broad field of mental health and the physical outcomes of mental conditions can ignore this.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure I have the appropriate staff to help your colleague, but maybe we can get some help.
L. Reid: To perhaps be more specific, I was asking for some consideration for folks who live outside the lower mainland. Not to take away at all from the minister's comments about a continuum of service and the network and the linking, when people today look at where the anorexic services are in British Columbia, they see them in Vancouver and in Victoria. That doesn't take away at all from what the minister said about acute care and tertiary services and the network between hospitals outside the lower mainland. I need to know whether or not some consideration has been given for future planning that will see a third centre of excellence, if you will, located somewhere else in the province.
If the minister harkens back to my earlier comments, I think that is where the majority of parents in the province are in terms of needing to know that if their child requires that level of service, there are only two choices today: Victoria and Vancouver. And the answer today is yes. Is there some plan in place to ensure that if you happen to live in Fort St. John, you
[ Page 14509 ]
don't have to come to Victoria for the service? Maybe you could come to Prince George. That's the question they have posed to me. I would welcome the service in Prince George.
I think we have to give some consideration to the fact that these families need to stand together during some of these crises. Today we're expecting that if they require that level of service, they'll travel perhaps a thousand miles. There must be -- and I'm hoping the ministry has given some thought -- a way to mediate at least part of the travel. Could the minister comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, there are no plans to add a third or fourth or fifth tertiary centre for dealing with eating disorders at this time. What is in place in all regions is an eating disorder program. Virtually everywhere you have internists and psychiatrists, you have folks who are dealing with eating disorders.
L. Reid: How many psychiatrists are in the north?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, there's a fair population, and it's growing. The member asked whether there are any psychiatrists in the north.
L. Reid: I said: "How many?"
N. Lortie: They don't need as many.
Hon. P. Ramsey: And there are a fair number; they are growing. These services are growing, as well.
I'm pleased that one of my colleagues on this side of the chamber is saying that we don't need as many psychiatrists in the north. Obviously we're more mentally healthy and robust. The disproportionate number of psychiatrists who practise in Victoria may say something about psychological health.
L. Reid: We have spent a great deal of time in the last number of days on measurement and evaluation. It seems to me that if the minister were serious in his comment about prevention, he would study this issue, put in place some baseline measures, move forward, report back on how well young women did in the program and report out on what the most effective mechanisms might be to treat this disorder.
The minister knows full well that he and I have had numerous discussions around the future of the Montreux clinic that operates here in Victoria. My position has always been: study that program, measure that program and see if it's delivering some kind of viable outcomes and if there are things that other programs in the province can learn. I would ask again for the minister to comment on whether or not he has put in place any measurement around the Montreux clinic.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have in my hand the table of contents for a document dated March '95: "Draft Standards for a Residential Program for Individuals with Eating Disorders in the Province of British Columbia." So a fair bit of work has been done since the committee was established. We are underway in at least getting some standards in place that will apply to any facility, whether they're the ones that she and I have spoken with, whether they're associated with Children's Hospital and St. Paul's Hospital or whether they're another sort of clinic. Indeed, we've exchanged numerous correspondence and numerous questions.
However, on Montreux, one of the things I committed to last summer was to get on with the job of asking: "What are the standards?" A fair bit of work has been done; there's obviously more to do.
L. Reid: I welcome the minister's comments. I would welcome a copy of that document in my office, but I would also be interested to learn the time line around that document. If it's a draft today, when will it be accepted as a final version and when will those standards be in place? Then who regulates and who monitors, and who will be sent in to evaluate the Montreux program?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would anticipate that the committee will be completing its work on standards by, let's say, summer solstice. It seems like a good day.
L. Reid: Of '95?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, this year. So we can get on with the work of talking to Montreux about their ability to meet those standards. That work would obviously be carried out both by members of the steering committee and employees of the Ministry of Health. I think the more important challenge around Montreux and perhaps other care providers here is to figure out exactly what we mean by "success." Every time I look at evaluation of these programs, I'm less assured that we really understand what we're talking about as far as what is a successful outcome for residential treatment.
L. Reid: Just to conclude this section, the majority of the research I have read suggests that outcome measurement has to be based on quality of life in terms of measuring a year, three years and five years after treatment. Again, I would make a very strong case that that is exactly the role I see the ministry taking and hopefully carrying forward, or perhaps assigning to something like the B.C. Health Research Foundation. This is information that will determine spending decisions around treatment of young women with anorexia. None of that work has been done. I certainly think that it's time.
I welcome the first step of standards. Perhaps someone in the ministry can create some kind of evaluative package that follows women who move through the programs, whether the Montreux clinic, the St. Paul's Hospital program or this other Vancouver Island program, some way to determine success. That that is the question, and I do know that today there isn't readily an answer at hand. I will take the opportunity to yield the floor to the hon. member for Delta-South, whose support person is now here.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain has been waiting patiently.
F. Gingell: Not for long; I've been here since 2:30 p.m.
T. Perry: And now for something completely different....
The Chair: I realize everyone wishes to jump into the debate.
[ Page 14510 ]
F. Gingell: It is just that it suddenly dawned on me that....
The Chair: Firstly, member, it might be nice if I recognize you.
F. Gingell: It is just that I see the time is 5 p.m. We have arranged for staff to be in for this discussion. I'm happy to yield, but I do want to get this issue dealt with before the committee rises.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments, member. I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will be the short and brief speaker that he always is.
T. Perry: I'll race to the accolades.
As I said, now for something completely different. Thanks very much for the cancer radiation therapy equipment at the B.C. Cancer Agency in Vancouver. Thanks very much for converting St. Jude's Anglican Home to multilevel care. Thanks very much for the SKIP program at St. Vincent's Hospital, which I visited this morning. Thanks very much for collaboration -- in particular, the deputy minister's -- in reaching the denominational facilities agreement with the Louis Brier Home and Hospital and others. Thanks very much for helping CHARA get set to show the way for the other Vancouver hospital cluster boards. I was just at CHARA this morning and they continue to pave the way with a very friendly, constructive approach to health reform. For Hansard, that's C-H-A-R-A all in capitals. Thanks very much for the money for the B.C. Health Research Foundation this year.
Let's hope the feds rethink their policy of dumping $800 million out of social programs in the next two years so that there's a chance to maintain the important health research that's going on -- or, alternatively, that doctors and the medical school wake up and realize that if we're going to continue to fund those things, maybe some of the really high billers will have to do a little less high rolling in their Spitfires and Jags and big Mercedes and leave a little bit to trickle down to the $30,000-a-year people at the bottom in the scientific research field. I'm sure all members here would agree with that, including the critic and the Liberal member opposite.
[5:00]
Regarding the Vancouver Hospital nurses' residence, the minister is aware that for four years I've been struggling to get the VGH -- now the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre -- and the city of Vancouver to look again at the fate of the Vancouver Hospital nurses' residence. The issue has been complicated by the position of the former mayor, now the Leader of the Official Opposition, who introduced a radical resolution at the city council just before he left his position as mayor, calling for, if possible, the immediate demolition of the building. I raised this issue at a Vancouver city caucus convened by the present mayor, which MPs, MLAs and councillors attended. The Leader of the Opposition was present, scowling at me as I argued for the salvation of this building. If the Liberal Health critic finds any merit in what I say, I'd certainly appreciate her raising this with her leader.
The residence was built in the early fifties for nursing students, who in those days lived in-house and worked and trained at Vancouver General Hospital. It has 550 rooms; a typical room is 112 square feet. When the nursing program changed and the nursing students left, students from post-secondary institutions in Vancouver, such as UBC, BCIT, SFU and VCC, and from private training institutions lived in the residence. Typically these were students from Hong Kong or Taiwan, or perhaps Japanese students attending a language school. As late as spring 1993, they were paying rents of $225 a month.
While I was Minister for Advanced Education, I commissioned a study by the architectural firm Eng and Wright, coordinated by UBC Real Estate Corp., which suggested that the building could be renovated for $8 million. It also suggested that if this was self-financed in the usual way that a university residence is self-financed -- through section 52 of the University Act and at interest rates less than or equal to 9 percent -- then the building could be restored to electrical, plumbing and earthquake codes for $8 million. This would be at rents of approximately $290 per month per room. At perhaps $360 per month, it could also serve the function it had served over the last ten to 15 years: providing housing for out-of-town, long-stay patients, patients awaiting transplantation and families of patients. That study has been published. I'd be happy to supply a copy to the Liberal critic or anyone else.
In effect, the hospital has continued to work with the city towards the demolition of the building. The hospital admits that the demolition would cost you, Mr. Minister, on behalf of us taxpayers, $2.5 million, partly because there's asbestos in the building. The hospital and the city want to tear it down. I've been attempting to persuade the city and the hospital to save and renovate it.
Recent developments include the following. The Ministry of Social Services is getting desperate for emergency housing for single women and women with kids. Many of them are literally arriving at the Vancouver bus terminal from other parts of B.C. and Canada with no place to stay and are being housed in the most inappropriate hotels in the downtown eastside of Vancouver or very expensive hotels in the West End that can cost as much as $500 per weekend.
Ministry of Social Services officials toured the building with me again, as you did, Mr. Minister, and as the Minister of Women's Equality did some years ago. They saw the building and were impressed that it could provide a potential solution. The VGH nursing department still has classrooms in there, some of which have recently been refurbished. I saw them last week; we filmed them for cable TV. They were in the basement. Some have been refurbished, and they are doing there essentially any type of orientation for any new nurse who is trained in that building.
I have said this publicly, and I have been to the VGH board to take the case to them. Now that it's constituted, I intend to present it to the Vancouver Health Board. It would be crazy to tear that building down. I represent the local neighbourhood, and there is no demand in the local neighbourhood to tear the building down.
Essentially for the record, I first want to ask the questions to which I hope I already know the answers, but I would like to see them on the public record. Does the Ministry of Health have money budgeted to demolish that building and, for that matter, other buildings on the site that would have to be demolished to create the 5.5 acres of green space agreed to with the city of Vancouver by VGH? Does the ministry have plans for the so-called ambulatory care centre at 12th and Oak, which features prominently on the official long-term develop-
[ Page 14511 ]
ment plan submitted by the hospital to the city and which was approved by the former mayor, now Leader of the Opposition, and his council in October or early November 1993? I believe this is a figment of the hospital's imagination. I have been told by ministry staff that there are no intentions to fund it or even to permit it, but the hospital has maintained to the city that this building will soon be built on that site.
If not, given that the ministry has generously committed $21.5 million to replace university academic space at the VGH site that might be destroyed by demolitions, are you urging the hospital to demolish the existing library, labs and facilities? The dean for education, Dr. David Hardwick, tells me that he has no problem with the current facilities. All he insists on is that if they are torn down, they must be replaced.
If not, what in the devil is driving this crazy process? Do you have so much money to burn that you would want to honour the Leader of the Liberal Opposition's request to throw $2.5 million into demolishing that building? Is there some hidden pot that I haven't been able to tap into for other purposes that the Liberal leader knows about?
I think that covers the questions I had alerted you to.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for his leadership on this issue. I did enjoy touring the facility with him. It struck me as a marvellous example of a piece of architecture that should be preserved, and it deserves a better fate than demolition. There is nothing budgeted in the Ministry of Health budget to buy blasting powder to take down the student residence at the VGH site, nor do I anticipate planning for such demolition. I know of no building plan in the immediate future that we have approved for Vancouver Hospital that would require demolition and redevelopment of that site. Given the constrictions of capital funding that I have been discussing with members of the committee earlier today, we're not urging demolition of lab and library space. We are urging wise use and prioritizing of capital expenditures.
The last thing I'll say is that I share the member's view that there are a variety of potential uses for this structure that should be explored, whether it is some of the ongoing work that's being done there and providing classroom space for people studying nursing, whether it's some of the community-based services that are now perched in one or another of the rooms of the facility or whether it in more of the social housing area. I think all those are worthy of exploration, and I would be interested in supporting your efforts in discussions with the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Housing to see if we can move away from what seems to me a rather hasty decision that demolition is the answer. All options should be examined for a wise use of this resource.
T. Perry: In my haste I forgot to also mention the possibility that the building might serve as temporary housing for people with chronic mental illness, for whom there is a serious housing shortage. The advantages are that it's in a safe location, it's very close to transit, it's close to Safeway and another food store and it's close to other services. It happens to be very close to the campaign headquarters of the present Liberal member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who aspires to represent that neighborhood. In the event he were successful, it might be very conveniently located near his constituency office, although I find that an unlikely probability; it's close to my office. Either way, the two main contenders would be in a position to provide good service to the constituents at the building. There are many other good reasons to consider this.
I guess I just wonder if the minister would consider the possibility that the Ministry of Health might officially support a small, informal community consultation on the future of the building. I have been thinking of organizing that as a local MLA, but one of the obstacles has been that the hospital has not exactly welcomed it.
If the ministry took the view that before demolishing public property like that, it would be worth considering the community's views -- something that was not done before the tower was planned at VGH -- then maybe we would have common ground, and we might be able to incorporate local citizens' views before one has to make a final decision on this issue.
L. Reid: I just want to take a moment to commend the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain on the very worthy proposals for housing in terms of social housing and emergency housing, whether or not we can work in concert with the Ministry of Social Services. I appreciate the member's invitation to work closely with the mayor's office, past and present, to see if we can reach consensus. I would be pleased to work with you, and I would be pleased to receive the report you mentioned earlier in terms of the architectural future of that building. I thank the member for his comments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and I should have a discussion on what assistance we can provide in facilitating discussion and decision-making about the future of this facility.
F. Gingell: The minister will remember that we had a discussion recently on issues in his ministry to do with stammering. It hadn't been planned, so staff were not available. Here is an opportunity to deal with a few specifics that I have in mind. First of all, these specifics focus around the pilot project of the 15 adults who are going to Edmonton; in fact, the first group of adults should be back from Edmonton, I think.
There are facilities for treatment of stammering and stuttering within British Columbia. As I understand it, there are residential programs. I was wondering why we would choose to go out of province rather than set up a program within British Columbia.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to introduce two staff from the ministry, Diane Johnston and Joan Danderfer, who have provided able assistance in discussion of these issues. I must inform the hon. member that whoever he's been talking to, who's returned from the Edmonton program, has not been part of the pilot project. We are right now in the process of receiving and assessing applications for individuals who will begin therapy through the pilot project in the next two to three months.
[5:15]
The reason the ISTAR program in Edmonton was chosen -- I think the member and I debated this last year -- is that the program is a step beyond what is provided in this province right now, either through individual speech therapists or through the voice clinic in Vancouver. We are doing a pilot
[ Page 14512 ]
project to both assess the efficacy of the program and develop expertise and experience that will enable us to set program standards for similar programs in this province. We see this partly as a provision of service to the individuals who will be receiving the therapy and more importantly, I think, as a way of beginning the work of assessing what components of an enhanced program in this province should be, and what is efficacious in treatment that we can learn from the Edmonton program.
F. Gingell: The reason I thought the first people would be coming back was that in the letter, which was written on behalf of the Ministry of Health by the provincial voice care resource program, they indicated that the periods we would be using were May 1 to 19, July 4 to 21 and January 8 to 26, 1996. The May 1 to 19 period is past, and I presume that they'd been. In fact, we mentioned that when we were discussing this last week. Seeing that you had originally planned to use this 19-day or three-week period, I wonder if the minister could tell us why we were not able to meet the original planned schedule.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My understanding is that the dates the member opposite had for the original bookings are indeed accurate. We undertook to inform individuals who stutter of the availability of the pilot project through various associations that are involved in treatment or representation.
I'm informed that simply receiving and assessing some of those applications took longer than we thought. We have no intention of curtailing the program. We'll use other slots to make sure that we get a good window on the efficacy of the Edmonton program.
F. Gingell: On the basis of that response, can the minister advise the committee if there's a new calendar, a new schedule?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There will be a new calendar. Those May dates will be replaced by dates later on in '95 or early '96. I'll make sure the member opposite gets a copy if he wishes to receive that.
F. Gingell: The Edmonton program, the Ottawa program and the Toronto program are not new. They've been going on for some while. It surprises me that we haven't been able to just talk to them, find out what's going on, talk to patients who have been there and set up a program in B.C. so that we could start to get the expertise here.
I feel confident that we know a lot about it. I feel confident that we have speech pathologists here who are perfectly capable of putting on these programs. My understanding -- I can't give you the location -- from the people who speak to me about this issue is that there are facilities in British Columbia. If we were to have spent this $60,000 getting a B.C. program going -- $60,000 is a mere bagatelle in the scheme of things here -- the people in B.C. who are concerned with this issue would have a feeling that there's a little bit more of a commitment than there is by sending 15 people off to Edmonton.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I suspect that the member opposite knows even better than I that there are a variety of approaches to stuttering treatment. Many approaches are less than we would wish and may actually increase the feelings of failure or frustration. We do have, as the member knows, private therapists in the province who adopt a variety of approaches to it. We felt that it would be worthwhile to look at the ISTAR program.
The information we have is that some 80 percent of graduates from that program maintain their gains with little or no relapse, and that's probably as effective a program as there is in the world. So it is definitely one of the best ones that we've been able to examine. We think it would be well worth learning more about what works there to determine whether interprovincial arrangements for treatment or other arrangements should be made. I wish I shared the member opposite's confidence that there is one answer to treatment. I'm not sure that's accurate. He may know more than I. We felt it was well to examine one of the best programs that we could access readily, do a pilot project, send some individuals for treatment, monitor and then determine its effectiveness, appropriateness and cost-efficiency.
F. Gingell: I can agree with the minister that there are many different programs. When I was nine years old and the blitz was on in London, I was sent to boarding school. The head prefect decided that he could cure my stammer by making me read from a book every night. The first time I stammered, I bent over and I got one beating; the second time I stammered, I bent over and I got beaten twice, and so on. I can assure you that that program doesn't work particularly well.
For this program to be successful, there is going to be continuation and follow-up of these adults when they return from Edmonton. In the first case, are we sending any speech pathologists to Edmonton so that we get a good grip on exactly how the program works and what's going on? Would there then be support for them here to ensure that when they come back, there are maintenance services and follow-up available? That's critically important. We don't want to send them off to Edmonton and have them come back and throw the $60,000 down the drain by not ensuring that there's a well-rounded support program for them.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member opposite for sharing his experience with the very ineffective program to deal with stuttering. Was it Thucydides who tried the stones-in-the-mouth approach to it as well? I suspect it was equally ineffective, though some classic authors adduce otherwise.
In response to your specific questions, we are not going to be sending any speech pathologists to the program. We think a lot of the information on what is done and what treatment consists of can be obtained through written material.
We will be providing follow-up, both support and assessment, for individuals participating in the pilot project when they return to British Columbia. That will be done through speech pathologists employed by the Ministry of Health.
F. Gingell: Thank you for that answer; that's encouraging.
I'm sure that you will be inundated by applications for the 15 places. What criteria are you using to determine who goes and who doesn't?
[ Page 14513 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The criteria that are going to be used for acceptance in the program are those developed by the ISTAR program itself. We'll be using their criteria for admission and selection of individuals for the pilot project. I don't have the number of applications to date for the hon. member. I'd be glad to make sure he gets a briefing note on how the pilot project is unfolding when I do.
F. Gingell: Everyone is fond of throwing out statistics. I would be most interested in what the Ministry of Health's statistics are about the number of people within the British Columbia population that suffer from speech impediments. I've heard the number of 2 percent; that's 75,000 people. That does sound like an awful lot, and I personally don't think that one in 50 people have a speech impediment that would restrict them in any way. I wonder if you have any statistics on the issue by age group. I don't know that many people learn to stammer, as it were, if they don't have a stammering problem when they are children. Certainly some children with a speech impediment grow out of it and speak immaculately so that you'd never know that they ever stammered like me. I just wondered what statistics you have.
Hon. P. Ramsey: You've now exhausted the expertise of the next level of staff that I've brought in. I think what I should actually do, hon. member, is simply arrange for you to get together with a couple of staff from the ministry to explore in depth some of the pathology around speech impediments and some of the research and expertise that they have. That might be a better venue for exploring it than this.
Unless you have any other pressing questions, I will move the appropriate motion.
F. Gingell: The reason I was asking that earlier question was that I was wondering if, in the 15 people who are going, you're going to get a cross-section of teenagers, young people in their early twenties and older people to see what happens. The information that came out indicated that it was going to be restricted to adults only. I wondered whether that was a requirement of Edmonton. If there was still time, I was hoping to suggest to you that it might be a good idea to try to get some chronological choice in there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think that is an excellent suggestion, and I will undertake to see if the pilot project is incorporating that idea. Clearly, even in a sample of 15, we want to have it as representative a sample of those who can benefit from the program as possible.
With that, I would like to move 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 ]