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)
THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 8
[ Page 14515 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to introduce a report by the provincial ombudsman, Dulcie McCallum. The report is entitled Ombudsreport 1994.
Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker -- nice to see you in the chair.
I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. And in the House today I call adjourned debate on Motion 87, which reads: "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."
Deputy Speaker: I recognize now the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
Perhaps before the member begins speaking, those members who have to go to Committee A could depart the chamber so the rest of us can give our undivided attention to the member's comments.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)
On the main motion.
G. Wilson: I enter into what has become a somewhat protracted debate. When in this chamber, I have listened carefully to the remarks made by those members, and when not, I've read the Hansard commentary on the debate. I think that what we have to do as we wind down this debate is put into perspective what we were attempting -- or what the government, I think, was attempting to do in the introduction of this motion -- and what the people of British Columbia might find to be service from the members elected here with respect to the comments that we make and how those comments might affect an eventual outcome on whatever agreement may be signed.
Let me start off by saying that there are occasions within this Legislative Assembly when the people of British Columbia have an opportunity, a good opportunity, to hear firsthand where the elected members -- but more importantly, the parties that those elected members represent -- stand on issues.
There's no question that there are partisan differences on a whole variety of philosophical and principle issues that come up from time to time. But none can be more important than sovereignty over our resources -- in particular over our most fundamental resources: our lands, our water and the cleanness of our air. That is what this debate is all about; it's all about sovereignty over Canadian water resources. I think the member for Nelson-Creston said it best in the opening statements, when he suggested that because the government of British Columbia had the temerity to stand up and say to the Americans, "We are not going to supply on demand our water to your reservoirs -- your reserves -- to produce for your electrical demand, and we are going to put in place a bill which we will be debating under a separate motion in this House, a bill that puts in place a water protection act," that was perhaps just too much for the Americans to take. They have had free access to and, indeed, covet our water resources to the extent that they have even put forward regulation in the United States that has an expectation that we will continue to supply our water from our reserves upon their demand.
I draw to your attention a memorandum that is provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region -- out of Washington -- dated February 1995. Let me suggest that this is a very powerful authority; it's one that is going to determine waterflows in the rivers south of our border and the rivers that we hold the headwaters to. This is what they say:
"The Canadian portion of the Columbia River is vital to the lives of the people in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The snow-packed mountains provide approximately 25 percent of the average spring and summer Columbia River streamflow, as measured at The Dalles, Oregon. For anadromous fish this streamflow is particularly significant because the fish migrate to the ocean during the spring and summer freshets."
That may sound like a pretty generic commentary or statement if one was to be introducing the subject in, say, an average geography class. But that is a critical statement, because that is what is at the very heart of the problem, and that is what is at the very heart of the concern that the people of the Kootenays have had to endure for so many years. It says:
"The operation of Canadian reservoirs is critical to the reshaping of the hydrograph for fish migrations in the United States. Canadian reservoirs provide almost half of the usable storage in the Columbia River above The Dalles, or about 20 million acre-feet, sufficient to capture all the natural spring and summer Canadian streamflow from the upper Columbia in an average streamflow year."
That is critical. What's more specific is when they go on to say:
"Arrow Reservoir is particularly important in the augmentation of spring and summer flows from reservoirs. With no at-site generation capability at present, it is primarily used for flood control. Its active storage of seven million acre-feet and its relatively high runoff-to-storage ratio of about 3 to 1 allow large drafts for flood control and fish flows in every year. Every ten feet of storage draft can provide approximately 1.2 million acre-feet of flow.
"If Arrow were operated to a target elevation of 20 feet below full in the summer months, the reservoir would discharge, in low water years, about 2.5 million acre-feet more water during the fish migration season than was provided in the 1995 biological options studies [that are currently operational in the United States]."
Let me tell you that that's what this debate has been about all along. Sure, the electrical power is important, and the amount of money that is owed to the province is in the billions of dollars. Yes, it would be irresponsible for us not to sit down and negotiate with an American corporation on how we're going to get back that money that's owed. But let's be very clear about this. Whether there was a deal or no deal, or whether they broke an agreement or didn't break an agreement is, in the long term, somewhat irrelevant. By the terms of the treaty, they have to provide us with either power or money. They have to give it to us. How they give it to us is what is in dispute.
[ Page 14516 ]
The original treaty would say that they have to build a power line into Oliver, British Columbia. Neither side wanted it. I think we've had a long and extensive debate on that issue. The Americans didn't want it for several good reasons: it's not sound environmentally, and it has to cross aboriginal land, and the aboriginal peoples south of the border have said that there's no way they're going to have that power line there. That puts Bonneville in an extremely difficult position.
Bonneville recently lost a huge competitive bid on an operation in The Dalles in Oregon. An aluminum smelter signed a contract to buy electricity from the Spokane investor utility, a Washington Water Power Co., which caused them financial difficulties. Similarly, Portland, Oregon-Based PacifiCorp took another three investor-owned utilities and proposed selling water into the Eugene Water and Electric Board, which Bonneville Power thought they would be able to access.
[10:15]
This is a company that is in some financial difficulty right now. It's a financial difficulty they've had some knowledge of, and that I think this government must have been aware of when the deal, if it was a deal -- or the intent, the memorandum of agreement, or whatever that document is and however we want to call it.... We could perhaps call it a signed document of intent, because I think that's what it was. They knew then, and they know now, exactly what they face with that agreement. And it's outrageous that they would suggest that somehow they would be able to simply say: "No way, not at this point at this time."
But it is not about electricity alone. Far more important is the question of our water reserves, and far more important on that level is the question of our sovereignty over it. Unfortunately, we have had successive governments that have catered to the so-called North American demand -- this concept of the North American economy and the idea that for the growth of the industrial base in the United States and the agricultural lands in the United States, we are somehow going to be a reservoir of resource that they can come and tap and utilize to their advantage.
The member for Okanagan East, the member for Nelson-Creston and other members from the Kootenays stood up and said: "Enough." No more are Canadians going to lie down and have the Americans use us as a simple supplier of their raw material unless we can extract a reasonable price or look over the overall interests with respect to what we're doing here. We aren't going to be able to provide that kind of supply to the Americans. I think the Americans take umbrage at that, because they've had a pretty free run. And the Minister of Employment and Investment mentioned that they've had an opportunity to do that for years.
But let's put it into the provincial perspective. Ultimately, the control over those water resources -- those reservoirs.... And let's be clear; they are not lakes, they are reservoirs. They are subject to reduction in water quantities at any given time of year in order to meet the projected flows the United States will require for their salmon streams -- and I've just explained why. The sovereignty over those resources is absolutely critical, not just to this generation of British Columbians but to every generation of British Columbians. If we are to be able to provide adequate power for British Columbia, we need to have a strategy with respect to electrical production in this province to service the needs of British Columbians -- of Canadians, in a larger context -- and to service the needs of the people who have invested their hard-earned money in their industries and their businesses in this province.
We cannot look at this agreement in the absence of two other major events that have happened during the tenure of this government. One was the cancellation of the Kemano completion. B.C. Hydro had a deal with Kemano completion with respect to electrical power that was to go into the United States and come into the B.C. grid. That deal has fallen through. Therefore that electricity that was projected is now not coming on stream.
The second thing is that we cannot look at this in the absence of the real need with respect to production in the Peace River, which is the primary source of electrically generated power for the lower mainland. We know that because of the Kemano completion not being put forward because of the reduction of water flows and the generation of electrical power in the Kootenays, there is a real fear that we're going to draw down the reservoirs in Williston Lake. It's said that despite the fact that fears have been expressed over and over, we hear from the minister that, in fact, that isn't going to happen.
I've got a transcript of an interview with the Minister of Employment and Investment taken on Friday, March 3, 1994, with CKMK radio station; the person interviewing was J.D. Mackenzie. Here Mr. Mackenzie asks the minister about the drawdown of Williston Lake and whether or not that's going to provide us an opportunity to offset shortfalls projected as a result of the Kemano completion project not going through. It's interesting that the minister's response -- and correctly so -- was:
"Well, Alcan is contracted and committed to provide power to B.C. Hydro. In fact, they already have surplus power at their existing operation -- some 150 megawatts -- but it is short-term power. What Alcan would have to do is, for example, firm that up and guarantee us the power that they are still short -- I think 100 megawatts. So they could get some from their existing power plant. They could buy some. But they are legally required to provide B.C. Hydro with a certain amount of power at a certain price, and so we are obviously holding them to that legally binding contract."
That's what Alcan is supposed to provide.
D. Jarvis: That's what Berry says, too.
G. Wilson: That's right. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour is quite correct. That is what Mr. Berry suggests. He's here and, I understand, listening to this debate today. It's excellent, and the reason is that Mr. Berry is about to hear that the Liberals are going to privatize B.C. Hydro, the very contracted agency that is to take Alcan and put that money together.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour says "no way." Let me say this. When the leader of the Liberal Party stood up in front of his gala $175-a-plate, muck-a-muck crowd in Vancouver -- the creme de la creme of the business community -- he had no problem telling them at that point that they were going to privatize B.C. Hydro. "B.C. Hydro is gone," says the Leader of the Opposition. What a nutty thing that is; what a crazy idea.
Interjection.
[ Page 14517 ]
G. Wilson: If the member for North Vancouver-Seymour says no, he had better come and sit with us, because I'll tell you, that's where his leader is going to lead him. Maybe he can come back to the leadership he had when he made the comments he did last year, which the member for Okanagan East talked about last day in this debate.
Let us talk about this for a moment, because the overall energy strategy is a really important one, and I have just suggested to you that the idea that we're somehow going to be able to continue the management of production of electrical power in this province is critical. If one looks at the options of the privatization plan for B.C. Hydro, one can very quickly see that this is a very, very foolish course of action. We have to know, and the people of British Columbia have to know, because I think we are getting reasonably close -- and the members opposite would know how much closer than I -- to the time when British Columbians will go to the polls and make some choices as to which political party they think should lead this province.
Let's take a look at what the options are around this debate, and at what we've heard from members opposite and opposition members in this debate. The Liberals have chosen to take Bonneville Power's position that there was no deal. They have suggested that there was no legal agreement, and to a degree, they are correct. There was no legally binding agreement -- let's be clear about that -- but there clearly was a message of intent. One has to argue, I think -- and it could be done reasonably credibly in terms of this debate -- that if the leader of the Liberal Party decides that he's going to privatize B.C. Hydro, put it out to private contract and sell it off, then I'll tell you who is going to have the capital money to come in and buy it: the Americans. B.C. Hydro will be owned by American corporate interests in a blink of an eye.
If you don't believe me, just take a look at the history of UtiliCorp. Look at what happened to UtiliCorp. West Kootenay Power.... Look at the problems we've had, trying to make sure that the production of electrical power in the Kootenays is providing cheap and affordable electricity for Canadians in that region, as a result of MOUs and UtiliCorp. The Liberal opposition have to stand up and try to defend it, or, like everything else they've done, change their mind. Either way, on a matter as important as the privatization of B.C. Hydro, the people of British Columbia have to know if that's what they intend to do.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: That's what the Leader of the Opposition says they're going to do. We have to take his word for it. I don't know if he's going to do it before or after he slashes the public service salaries, but that is certainly part of what he is going to do, along with B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries and every other Crown corporation he has suggested.
It is interesting, because when you look at the cross-referencing of remarks, you can find the same comment in the Indo-Canadian press and in the press in terms of the lower mainland. When he stands up in front of his $175-a-plate crowd in that great moneylaundering event that they do once a year, he makes the same comment. When he goes into the Kootenays, it's not quite the same story; it's a little different. At that point, perhaps they're not going to do that, because there is a political consideration.
On a matter as important as the privatization of B.C. Hydro, the Liberals better tell us how they plan to do it. And they better tell us, when they do that, how they're going to protect against the American purchase of our resources, the reservoirs and the very kind of industry that we are now trying to protect with respect to this agreement. Tell us how you are going to do it. The people of British Columbia better start to pay attention to what that party represents.
When one thinks of the policy statements that are coming out of the official opposition -- one of about four or five options that the public are going to have to make a choice on -- they have to understand that we must get beyond the political rhetoric. We must get beyond this catchphrasing of trying to say that we're going to somehow balance the budget by privatizing everything and by slashing civil service salaries. All these kinds of draconian measures, quite frankly, resemble policies written on the back of a napkin -- something I think I was accused of once. Nevertheless, I think people need to think about it. They need to think long and hard about what is meant when they hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about the privatization plan and the movement toward investments.
The best way for the public to get their head around the policies coming out of the Liberal opposition is to think Brian Mulroney when they see the Leader of the Opposition. Think Mulroney, because not only does he act like him, speak like him and think like him, but his policies are now absolutely parallel to what we heard from the former Prime Minister of Canada with respect to our sovereign status. Hon. Speaker, you have to consider it this way, because Mr. Mulroney, when he was Prime Minister, talked about how wonderful our American neighbours were. They are wonderful people; they're good neighbours and good friends. I just don't choose to be one of them. Neither do I choose to have them come forward and take our resources through either a corporate venture or gifts from the government, as we have just heard the Liberal opposition are about to do with respect to the privatization of B.C. Hydro.
So they better listen up and think Mulroney, because it's the same plan. Indeed, if you look at some of those people who are now in positions of authority and power, you'll see that either Tories or former Socreds run the shop. I don't know where the honest Liberals are. There are a few honest Liberals over there. The member for Richmond Centre is an honest Liberal. I don't know how he stays in that caucus, to be quite honest; nevertheless, that's his decision. The point is that when the people have to make a choice, they have to listen to what the political leaders say. And if we're going to go into that kind of political direction -- the Mulroneyesque style of government -- you can expect to have the Mulroneyesque legacy after it.
Let me tell you what I learned this morning by talking to members of the B.C. Hydro board. When we talk about this being about water, it's true. In having this debate, I don't know how many people recognize the irony, in that we've had an unbroken chain of sunny days in British Columbia. I don't know what it has been now -- ten or 12 sunny days. We've had lots of sunny days, and we've celebrated the weather, because it's a wonderful thing for us who want to recreate. The fact is that in this month we are 15.4 millimetres below average rainfall. As we stand here in debate, Mica is 15 feet below full and the Koocanusa is 20 feet below full, and that will be a projection. That's today. The Americans want to draw down those reserves by an additional 20 feet.
[ Page 14518 ]
That's what this debate is all about: it's about water. When the people in the Kootenays bring their little boats up and put them next to their cottage on the side of the reservoir at night, get up in the morning and have to drag it 300 yards through the mud to find the water because the Americans have drawn down the lake, that's more than an irritation; that's an insult. It's an insult when you consider what the people of the Kootenays have to pay in terms of lost land, lost revenues and loss of their homes. And it's interesting that we've got a whole generation of British Columbians that don't even know that. There's an excellent video out, by the way, that I think British Columbians ought to see, and they ought to read the history of the Columbia River.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I have tremendous respect for the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, and I think he's one of the people there that has integrity. I don't know if his heckle....
An Hon. Member: Has he had his nomination yet?
[10:30]
G. Wilson: Yes, he does have his nomination.
An Hon. Member: One of the few; one of the lucky.
G. Wilson: One of the few who manage it.
I'm not sure if that member for North Vancouver-Seymour is heckling just for the sport or if he really believes we should privatize B.C. Hydro. If he really believes that, it's a 180- degree turn from where he was when I led that party.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: It was never policy before, and it is now. So he's saying he doesn't believe it. I understand that....
J. Tyabji: Well, I hope he'll speak out against it.
G. Wilson: Then he should stand up and say that he takes issue with his leader's position on that question and that he does not believe they should be privatizing B.C. Hydro, because that would be one sane voice, at least, coming out of that caucus on this matter.
I see that the member for Surrey-White Rock is laughing. He might better laugh, because I'll tell you that the people of British Columbia and the Kootenays, when they look at the consequence of this privatization scam on Hydro, are going to be pretty upset.
It is about water; it is clearly about water. What we have to do, what my recommendation would be.... I tell you that I can offer and do offer, and sincerely offer -- both the Alliance members offer -- our assistance to this government in any way this government may feel we can contribute to a successful resolution to these negotiations. Whatever it is that we feel we can do, we would be prepared to do that.
W. Hurd: Why did you vote against the amendment? You'd have had a role.
G. Wilson: The member from White Rock asks: why did we vote against the amendment? Because the amendment was patently absurd -- that's why we voted against it.
Nevertheless, back to the main motion. On this question of water reserves, here is what I believe we need to do. British Columbia has to recognize first and foremost that we must covet our water resources, that we will no longer subject the Kootenays to massive drawdowns and that we will protect our water resources, to be able to provide for the economy of not only the Kootenays but all of British Columbia.
The second thing we must undertake to do is that we must make sure our position provides -- and guarantees to British Columbians first -- affordable, cheap electrical power.
The third thing we have to do, I believe, is take back to Bonneville Power a simple message: you signed a letter of intent, and you either agree to it or we're going to force you to deliver power back to the original position that the treaty required. I believe they cannot do that. I don't think it is physically or politically possible, or even financially feasible, for them to attempt to do that.
We do need the power back in British Columbia, because we are going to have shortfalls. We need to know that there will be guarantees that the industry -- whether the industry is dependent upon the power generated out of the Kootenay base or out of the Williston Lake base -- will be secure in being provided, in perpetuity, not only the necessary electrical power but the water for industrial uses.
Hon. Speaker, you will not find any activity in British Columbia that does not, in some way, demand water. Water is our most fundamental and most precious resource. Sovereignty over our water is absolutely critical. Our ability to command our terms on our sovereign position on water -- terms that affect British Columbians -- is something that must be first and foremost in the minds of those negotiators.
The Minister of Employment and Investment says that we're going to intervene on environmental matters south of the border if they try to construct the hydro line into Oliver. That may be one strategy; I don't know. If it is, I don't know that publicly disclosing the strategies for our negotiated position is a particularly good idea, anyway. But we have to take that message forward.
Let me say, as a final comment with respect to this, that I think the British Columbia people want to know what the long-term provincial strategy is for the management of our water resources and the production of our electrical power. They want to know, first and foremost, that we have the delivery of the power generation necessary in this province to provide for businesses located in this province. Then they want to know that there is electrical power available at a reasonably affordable price and that it will attract investment into this province. We no longer want to be the providers of cheap power to the United States.
We also have to recognize that we are moving away from the production of electrical power through water generation. Gas-fired generators are going to become the norm. Let's not forget that there are ongoing discussions with Bonneville Power and Westcoast Transmission Co. for the production of a massive gas-generating plant close to Merritt. That is clearly going to have an electrical production capacity that will come into our grid. It's an important consideration. I haven't heard people talk about those negotiations, which have been underway throughout 1994 and have continued into early 1995. We have to recognize that if Bonneville and Westcoast Transmission Co. are going to put a gas-fired generator in near Merritt,
[ Page 14519 ]
that will have an impact on our ability to successfully conclude whatever it is that we're attempting to do. We need a proper provincial strategy with respect to the delivery of electrical power, and that's something that I think the people of the province deserve.
The people of the Kootenays.... Let me say at this point that I have been impressed by the commentary from the members elected from the Kootenays, notwithstanding that I'm not from the same political party -- nor would I be. The fact is that in this instance, all elected members have to recognize that the people of the Kootenays deserve to have some return for the price they have paid for this power production. It's to the credit of the elected members of that region that they have stood up and, in large measure, forced this debate. They have allowed for this necessary and overdue debate to have taken place. The people of the Kootenays need to be aware of that. I congratulate them for their role.
The privatization of B.C. Hydro: that's what the Liberals want to do. Playing hardball with Bonneville Power: that's what the New Democratic Party wants to do. What we'd like to do is hold Bonneville Power to their committed letter of intent. We'd like to make sure that the delivery of electrical power into British Columbia remains affordable, that we never, ever relinquish sovereignty over our water resources, and that we no longer simply provide our water resources freely to the Americans.
This nation has been whittled away by Mulroney politics in Ottawa; we don't need it whittled away further by those kinds of Mulroney politics by the official opposition in this province. Neither do we need our sovereignty whittled away because we simply are not prepared to stand up and fight for what is rightfully ours. We must make sure that our position, the Canadian position, is properly and adequately protected, so that when the final negotiations occur, all British Columbians, in this and in future generations, are adequately served.
This has been a most important debate. It has been a debate that has really divided the ranks: those that would like to simply use British Columbia as some kind of small business enterprise that's open for sale -- whether it's B.C. Hydro or any other Crown corporation -- and those of us that would say: "No way. We are going to protect our Canadian sovereign position; we're going to stand up and fight hard for B.C." That's where the lines have divided in this debate, and I think the people now have a very clear choice in front of them.
L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Boone: On your behalf, hon. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Ms. Williams, who is a teacher for New Frontier Junior High School from Silverdale, Washington. I'm sure she and her 25 grade 7 to 9 students will appreciate the debate that's going on here today and will recognize some of the concerns that we have -- and maybe take some messages back to their friends in Washington. Will the House please make them welcome here today.
D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: Before I begin my introduction, I must say I very much enjoyed the comments of the leader of the Alliance. He may be interested to know that I met with a class from Stave Falls Elementary just prior to coming to the House this morning. The focus of their questions to me today were around welfare and particularly around the Bonneville Power thing. They were in here for the early comments of the leader of the Alliance, and I'm sure they enjoyed that. I will make sure that they get that clip from Hansard. Would the House please help me welcome to the precincts the class from Stave Falls Elementary, which is by the dam that we're going to increase the power production out of.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam.
An Hon. Member: Oh no!
M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. member for Okanagan West. If you thought for one minute that your comments the other day were going to go unresponded to...
Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.
M. Farnworth: ...you really should be the leader of the Social Credit Party.
I rise today to add my voice to the debate on the motion before us. It is a motion that concerns, I think, every one of us in this House, and in fact in this province, because it is a debate that deals with an issue that is of integral importance to the people of this province. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston, the leader of the Alliance Party and members of this House -- on this side of the House in particular -- have said this is a debate about water, it's a debate about power and it's a debate about our relationship with the largest and most important nation in the world south of the 49th.
The debate has to be viewed in historical context. It has to be viewed in a historical context, because only then will we truly realize the importance of the resource that we are talking about -- the resource of water. It's not just, as the opposition has said, about budgets, because budgets can be amended by the Legislature. It's not, as the opposition seems to say, just about who dropped the ball, because it wasn't this government; it was Bonneville that walked away. This government negotiated a deal that was in the interests of British Columbians. It took them a few days to cotton on to what other members of this House knew right from the moment Bonneville walked away. It's about who controls the resource that is ours, who decides what is in the best interests of the people of this province.
Water is the most fundamental resource. We cannot survive without it, biologically, and from an economic and social point of view, it is perhaps this province's greatest resource outside of its people. One only has to look at how the Americans view water to understand that they too recognize the importance of that resource. Unlike the opposition, which is taking a very shortsighted approach to B.C.'s interests, the Americans are taking a very long-sighted approach to their interests when it comes to water.
Over the last 30 years, there have been a number of agreements and proposed agreements concerning B.C. water. The earliest started in the late fifties and early sixties, culminating in the current Columbia River Treaty, which is currently being renegotiated and in which the Americans got a very good deal. It is now our turn to reclaim the downstream benefits.
[ Page 14520 ]
There have been other attempts to get control of British Columbia water. NAWAPA, for example -- the North American Water and Power Alliance -- has seen proposals to dam just about every major river, including the Fraser and the Columbia valley, to create a system of giant reservoirs to funnel water out of British Columbia down through a series of canals and into California. It has seen proposed bulk water export, by tanker, of coastal streams and rivers in British Columbia down to drought-stricken communities in California.
It has seen a free trade agreement negotiated, where this country's federal government, after incredible pressure from citizens right across our nation -- and particularly in this province -- said: "Okay. Yes, we understand your concerns about the export of water. We'll put in a clause" -- after the agreement was signed -- "that says Canadian water cannot be exported." But the Americans do not recognize that clause; it is not included in their version of the agreement. Why isn't it included? They want our water. It is in their long-term interests to have access to cheap supplies of water.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: As the hon. member for Okanagan East says, it is their only access.
[10:45]
Canada -- British Columbia -- has the world's largest resources of fresh water, even greater than the old Soviet Union. They are waters that are, by and large, uncontaminated and within easy access to the nation south of the border, which, particularly in its western half, has not only a lack of water resources but also mismanaged water resources: you see water being used to grow cotton in the middle of the desert, resulting in a wastage of water. They don't want to address that; they want to continue on the path they have taken, because they see vast abundances up here.
The American position is very clear, and it's very understandable. If we were them, we'd be trying to do the same thing. But our position up here is that this is our water, this is our birthright and this is British Columbia's greatest natural resource. We want to make sure that we have control of it, and that when we do decide to sell it and enter into agreements and sell it, we get the very best deal possible and ensure that our interest is at the top of the table.
What has happened is that Bonneville, in the best traditions of dealing with this nation -- which is to push us, because we always seem to fold -- is trying to renegotiate a better deal. They're saying: "Look, demand for power is down right now." Sure, it may be down right now, but over the next ten years it won't be down. The long-term demand for B.C. power is only going to increase. As we see demand for electrical cars in California and as we see a population shift in the United States from the northeast industrial sector into the Sun Belt in the south and into the States of California, Oregon and Washington, the long-term demand for power in the western United States is only going to increase. So we are going to get the price for our power which we expect. But if Bonneville Power thinks for one moment that we are going to roll over, it is sadly mistaken. You do not negotiate an agreement and walk away from it at the last minute, and then expect everything to be fine the next day. So we'll come back with another proposal, and it may cost.... I don't know how many hundreds of millions of dollars they think they're going to save, but they won't.
What is happening is that we are part of a much greater game, if you like -- that is, U.S. access to Canadian water. Bonneville Power is one cog in the wheel and now wants to renegotiate the deal. Bonneville Power feels that somehow they have gotten the short end of the stick. Well, for 30 years it was the Kootenays and this province that got the short end of the stick. It's now time for us, as the former Premier of this province said, "to exercise the whip hand," because the water resides here in British Columbia.
We have watched federal governments try to protect our resource, and they haven't. We have watched the Liberal Party ignore our resource and try to scramble on board when they found out that public opinion is on our side. But I have to question how strong that commitment is to protecting our resource, when the Leader of the Opposition talks -- as the leader of the Alliance Party said before -- about the need to privatize B.C. Hydro, because that too is related to the Bonneville Power renegotiations.
B.C. Hydro was a legacy of W.A.C. Bennett, a person with a different political philosophy who had a vision about this province and who recognized that the greatest natural resource of this province should remain in the control of the hands of the people of this province. It has been one of the fundamental cornerstones of economic development and resource development in this province. It's a vision that I believe will stand the test of time, but it is under threat. We have a Liberal opposition that wants to privatize B.C. Hydro. As the leader of the Alliance Party asked: who has the capital to do that? The Americans. They are wonderful business people -- they understand business immensely -- and they would not pass up an opportunity to acquire B.C. Hydro if it were privatized, just like they didn't pass up the opportunity to acquire West Kootenay Power and Light. The Liberal Party would stand by and, with their encouragement, allow the United States to acquire the crown jewel of British Columbia resource companies. I see them smiling, but the fact is that their leader has stood up and said we should look at privatizing or selling off B.C. Hydro.
An Hon. Member: Who created B.C. Hydro?
M. Farnworth: As I pointed out a minute ago, W.A.C. Bennett created B.C. Hydro. Why did W.A.C. Bennett create B.C. Hydro? Unlike the previous government -- Liberals, I might add, hon. member -- he recognized the importance of power to this province.
It brings me back to this: when the chips are down, who stands up for the province of British Columbia? Is it this government and other members in this House who have stood up from day one and said that the issue is sovereignty and control of our resources? Or is it the opposition, which has scrambled to come onside, but whose historical commitment to resources has been to say one thing, but when they've had the exercise of power...?
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: I hear the hon. member across the floor heckling. Those Liberal-doodle-dandies on the other side of the House will be Liberal-doodle-dandies until the day they
[ Page 14521 ]
die. They are just creations of Howe and Wall Street power; that's all they are.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: And I'll bet you that they live for the Fourth of July.
But the Liberal Party has never stood up for the interests of this province when they have had the opportunity. They negotiated a free trade agreement and tried to add a clause to protect our water that they knew would not stand up. They say one thing in opposition and they do another thing when they're in power. In this debate they talk about the need to protect our resources and sovereignty, yet their policy position is to privatize B.C. Hydro and to put our greatest resource in the hands of foreigners -- in the hands of Americans.
The task before us is clear. The task for this government is to let Bonneville, and through them the American government, know that British Columbia water is our water, that it is not a resource that we intend to allow to fall into the control of people from outside of this province, that we intend to hold them to getting and ensuring the best possible deal for this province, that they have to negotiate in good faith, and that anything less than that is unacceptable to this province. At the end of the day, there have been those in my constituency who have said: "Turn the taps off or open up the gates." But at the end of the day, the whip is in our hand. It is our water, it is our power, and in the long term, this government will stand up for our interests.
W. Hurd: We have now spent a total of three days in this parliament debating what I would consider to be a government damage-control motion. Fortunately, while the rhetoric has flowed thick and fast in this chamber, more thoughtful analysts have offered a realistic appraisal of what is happening in British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada.
One such appraisal comes from the Financial Post of yesterday, and I commend the members of the assembly to read what it says. They point out that suppliers of natural gas and hydro power are beginning a battle for North American markets that could last for years and profoundly change the electrical industry in North America. They point out:
"As the competitors come out of the gate, prodded by deregulation in the U.S. and now Alberta, gas seems to have a clear edge as a generation fuel that requires relatively low capital costs." Here's what else they say: "The clearest recent sign of the trend came last week, as B.C. Hydro lost a $5-billion deal to supply electricity to Bonneville Power Administration, a major electricity marketer in the Pacific Northwest."
They lost. That's the analysis that's being offered outside this chamber. It's a realistic analysis, because it reflects what's happening in a deregulated North American energy market. The sad reality is that hydroelectric energy just isn't worth what it used to be -- and won't be forever. That is the reality of North American energy markets. The members opposite just don't seem to understand. They can't seem to grasp that technological change in the twenty-first century is going to fundamentally change the way we generate power in the world, and particularly in North America.
Unfortunately, this big American company signed a memorandum, a negotiators' agreement, with this government that, in essence, bought them some time. That's what happened. They bought time, because they knew -- as the Financial Post knows, and as every major energy supplier in North America knows -- the world is changing. It is changing before our eyes. It isn't just B.C. Hydro. Hydro-Quebec recently lost a $5 billion deal to export long-term energy to New York State. The same kind of analysis was done, and the same kind of result occurred. Debt-ridden Crown corporations in the energy field are dinosaurs in Canada. They simply cannot compete. They are being forced to compete because of turbine technology and natural gas.
What else does this article say? It points out that 20 plants have been built in the Pacific Northwest -- already have been built -- and 50 more are in various stages of planning. Fifty more natural gas plants that will provide electrical energy at a fraction of the cost of hydroelectric dams. Yet we have a government and its dinosaur, B.C. Hydro, investing in more dams in the Kootenays. They want to renovate three dams when everybody else in the western hemisphere is going in the other direction. That is what this debate is all about.
Even the Green Party is ahead of this government in terms of where we should be going in energy. At their annual general meeting in Cranbrook, Green Party leader Stuart Parker has called for two major dams not to be built in the Kootenays. He's pointing out that dams built under the 30-year Columbia River Treaty flooded prime agricultural land, displaced thousands of people, and he's urging that the Keenleyside and Duncan dams be decommissioned. The Green Party has a better idea of what is happening than this government does.
[11:00]
A. Warnke: Amazing!
W. Hurd: Well, it's not amazing. The member for Richmond-Steveston says it's amazing. It's not amazing to me, because we are dealing with a motion before us in the House that is designed to turn back reality. It's unbelievable. This agreement that we've received a copy of, this negotiators' agreement, has an escape hatch that is as wide as the Grand Canyon. On the basis of this negotiators' agreement, the government set in motion -- as I said earlier in this debate -- a house of cards, a balanced budget based on revenue it didn't have. They brought forward a Columbia Basin accord in the Kootenays that the Minister of Employment and Investment, who has now rejoined the debate, acknowledges has no legal standing. It can't legally bind anyone. It isn't just Bonneville Power that signs agreements that aren't legally binding, it's also this government -- with the people of the Kootenays through the Columbia Basin Trust, the Columbia Basin accord.
Hon. G. Clark: You can rip it up.
W. Hurd: The minister says rip it up. Well, I mean, legally the government could walk away from it -- legally they could. This agreement that they signed with Bonneville Power that represents a solemn commitment.... That's what the motion says. What in business circles is a solemn commitment? I've been trying for the last week to find out what that is. I know what a contract is. I know what a legally binding agreement is -- it's one that you can sue on and get damages back if they walk away. But what is a solemn commitment? I mean, in the energy field it's just not a term that comes up.
It's obvious when you look at how this matter has evolved that in late 1994, B.C. Hydro knew that this agree-
[ Page 14522 ]
ment was in trouble; they knew it was in trouble. It was obvious when they hadn't completed the articles that had to be completed by the end of 1994 that they were in trouble. Clearly the agreement was going to run out on January 1, 1996, anyway. It's right here in the written agreement. Despite that, the government still put $250 million into their budget. They still went up to the Kootenays and signed a Columbia Basin accord. They still ignored the overwhelming evidence of what is happening in the North American energy field. It isn't water that is going to be firing the power plants in British Columbia and in Washington State, hon. member, it's natural gas from a deregulated environment in Alberta. It isn't hydroelectric energy.
Do these members opposite even know that Bonneville intends to decommission two dams in the Columbia River -- to take them right out of commission? What do they care how much water comes down the pike? Where is this leverage the minister is talking about? B.C. Hydro has lost out on a major contract, just like Hydro-Quebec did. Even Ontario Hydro is talking about having its share of the market being under 90 percent for the first time in its history. There are cogeneration opportunities; there is natural gas; there is a myriad of energy streams out there that are going to fundamentally reshape the energy industry in North America. Only this government and B.C. Hydro have failed to understand that.
G. Wilson: How does privatizing B.C. Hydro help?
W. Hurd: The member of the Alliance Party asks how privatizing B.C. Hydro would help. It would force Hydro to compete in a deregulated energy market -- something they're going to have to do anyway. This initiative of the government is taking us in the other direction.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: What's happening in North American energy markets is right here. Why is it that it's only our government and B.C. Hydro -- and Hydro-Quebec, I suppose -- that can't understand that? Technology stands still for no man, no government and no Legislature. You get the best possible price for power for the least possible production cost; that's the way the system works. The fact is that natural gas, using turbine technology, is cheaper, more energy-efficient and more environmentally sound than water diversion projects and dams. That's the reason. That's how it's being driven.
The problem that this company, Bonneville Power, has is that they have decimated the salmon runs in the Columbia River, and they are being forced to change. They're being forced to release more water; they're being forced to decommission dams. The future of electrical energy is not in dams and water diversion; it is in natural gas. That is the reason this company fooled the members of the government, who sent amateur negotiators in. They didn't get a deal....
Interjection.
W. Hurd: They got a solemn commitment. Well, in dealing with corporations, a solemn commitment just doesn't cut it. A solemn commitment is a laugh, it really is; except it's a joke on the people of the province, and on the people of the Kootenays.
All they wanted was a return of a portion of the downstream benefits so they could go out and invest in their own natural gas plants. They don't want hydroelectric dams up there; they don't want the expansion of Keenleyside, Waneta and Brilliant. They want hard currency so they can make their own investments in their own region and take advantage of some of these trends in North American markets -- trends that so many members of the assembly don't seem to understand are happening beyond the walls of this chamber.
Things are changing in the energy field. There's nothing that I, the Minister of Employment and Investment, Bonneville, B.C. Hydro or Hydro-Quebec can do about it. Things are going to change. Pretty soon hospitals and major industrial suppliers will be shopping around for the best deal, the best source of energy. If Hydro can't provide it, they're not going to provide it -- it's as simple as that.
I have no illusions that under the terms of the treaty, Bonneville Power Administration will deliver 1,500-1,600 megawatts back to British Columbia in some way. It will be energy that will be produced far more cheaply and cost-effectively than what B.C. Hydro can produce from hydroelectric facilities. That's the reality. I know there are members who will deny that, but that's just the fundamental reality of markets for power and electricity in North America. We've been down this road before during the 1980s, when we thought as a province and as a country that we could ignore those trends, that we could maintain large, monolithic Crown corporations in the energy field and they'd be immune from competition in the United States. They didn't have to compete; they didn't have to worry about what was happening with private sector competitors. Well, we've been down that road; we've debated that. And we found that it just didn't work. It just didn't work.
The sad reality is that this big American corporation decided they were going to buy some time, because they know what they're facing on the Columbia River -- environmental pressures to try and rehabilitate the salmon run. We on this side of the House have said from the beginning that the best use for water is for fish; that's the best use. We said it in the case of the Kemano completion project before the government announced it. The best use of rivers is for fish, not for power.
The dams on the Columbia River are being decommissioned -- and they will be -- as they fail to provide cost-effective electrical energy. That's just the reality that we have to face. I think it's really important that this analysis comes out before we engage in a vote on this motion, which I think is really, as I said before, a damage control motion by the government. They were taken in. They were taken in by this big American corporation, which was still touting the virtues of hydroelectric energy when they were dabbling in the natural gas field. It's obvious. They're already talking about 70 new plants being built in an area to service the California market and the western United States, which is the sun belt with the highest growth rate in North America. They know what's coming, and the sad reality is that our guys at B.C. Hydro apparently don't, because they're still pushing dams, they're still pushing hydroelectric energy. There can be no other explanation than that.
It has taken this government three years of its mandate to finally start considering cogeneration and independent power production in the province. Three and a half years before, they were dragged kicking and screaming down the road towards deregulation in the energy field. They should have been doing
[ Page 14523 ]
it in year one, if they'd had any vision, if they'd had any understanding of what was happening in energy markets. But no, they were locked into this same view of B.C. Hydro as an instrument of wealth redistribution in the province. The Minister of Employment and Investment has talked about it often: to take money and redistribute it around the province -- this monolithic view of a paternal energy organization like B.C. Hydro. It simply doesn't fit in the North American context anymore.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: The minister says it's incredible.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Well, that may well be, but I can tell the minister that B.C. Hydro will not compete in the direction that it's going. There's no question about that. I think that it needs to be able to compete, be forced to compete, which I don't believe it's doing now. Who does it compete against -- West Kootenay Power and Light? When B.C. Hydro goes before the B.C. Utilities Commission for a rate increase application, who do they compete against? The rules say they're forced to compare their rates to other utilities in the province: Westcoast Energy and West Kootenay Power and Light. How do you compare a company the size of B.C. Hydro with those two energy giants?
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Well, that may well be.
I think that what we're seeing with this motion is an admission by the government that they blew it. They blew it. This company bought time; they decided they were going to buy some time. They signed an agreement which bought them another year; and on the basis of that flimsy agreement, the government went forward with an initiative, an election announcement in the Kootenays, with a so-called balanced budget -- which we now know wasn't balanced at all -- and they signed a Columbia Basin accord with the people of the Kootenays that doesn't have any legal standing, either -- it's not legally binding on anyone. The people of the Kootenays can walk away from it and so can the government. That's the reality of the situation we're in.
It's sad. It really is sad that we are here today, taking what I would consider to be a totally unprofessional attitude toward dealing with what should be a business decision. We have a solemn commitment, a memorandum of negotiators' agreement, which the Minister of Employment and Investment has suggested is standard fare in the energy field. I'd like to see how many other.... Maybe Hydro-Quebec had a negotiators' agreement with the state of New York. Who knows? Maybe they had the same kind of deal, and the state of New York decided they could buy power more cheaply somewhere else. The energy field is undergoing a dramatic change in North America. B.C. Hydro is either going to be positioned to take advantage of that, or it will be unable to compete.
This motion we're debating today, which blames the customer for the realities of the North American market, which talks about solemn commitments -- whatever that means in legal terms.... It just seems to me that when you are pursuing a business arrangement, you have a deal or you don't. You take a down payment; you buy a piece of real estate; you take some money; you get something for the year and a half you've put in; you get some kind of guarantee. But we didn't get anything; we got nothing, because the government didn't get anything. Obviously they didn't get anything, because I don't see them hiring a phalanx of lawyers to take this to court.
[11:15]
We have to realize that the energy market -- the energy industry -- is changing and that B.C. Hydro has to change. I have no doubt that under the Columbia River downstream benefits agreement, in 1998 we'll get all the power back, which we can then, I suppose, try to sell ourselves in a deregulated market for whatever we can get for it. Or it may be used in British Columbia -- I don't know. Certainly the idea that a portion of the sale should go to the people of the Kootenays in hard cash is not one that this side of the House has ever opposed. When I was up there, that's all I heard from people. They wanted some money to be able to invest, perhaps in their own co-gen plants and their own natural gas plants. They didn't want to be a captive of B.C. Hydro and this new Crown entity called the Columbia Basin Trust -- or whatever the Crown is going to be that will operate the three dams; we don't know that yet. It's going to be a new corporation, and they'll be a captive of B.C. Hydro again.
It's obvious that changes are required by this government's approach. I'll just say in closing that there are some fundamental realities that the Canadian utilities -- not only hydro but also others -- have got to come to understand: the energy field is in fact changing; there are more cost-effective alternatives. That's what is driving the debate here today and what is driving this government's motion, because they've been caught off the bag in these changing times. B.C. Hydro has negotiated an agreement which apparently allowed the corporation to walk away without any repercussions other than this motion that's before us in the House. It's impossible to endorse the strategy the government has taken. If they want to play hardball with Bonneville Power, that's fine. But why give us the other trappings: the balanced budget, the Columbia Basin accord, this house of cards that was built up on the basis of this agreement, which we now know isn't legally binding, apparently?
It's obvious why it was done: it was done because 1995 is an election year in the province. That's why it was done. The members say that soon the people will have to make a decision. Well, they can look at this fiasco, and they can make a decision. They can see a government take an agreement -- a so-called negotiators' agreement -- and build up this web of apparatus, this web of deceit, and they can say: "Is that the way I would conduct business in the province? Would I go out and borrow $250 million on the basis of an agreement like this?" This government would, and they did. Would I go out and sign a Columbia Basin accord with the people of the Kootenays, in a massive ceremony in Castlegar, on the basis of this agreement?
An Hon. Member: Do you want to sell Hydro?
W. Hurd: Let's talk about selling B.C. Hydro. Can anybody tell me why B.C. Hydro is in the transmission business?
An Hon. Member: Yes. They make power; they sell power; you have to get it from them.
[ Page 14524 ]
W. Hurd: Absolutely. So why...?
Interjections.
W. Hurd: It has some value. Absolutely. Hydro doesn't need to be in the transmission business. I mean, there are many businesses that B.C. Hydro is involved in but that they don't need to be in.
Interjections.
W. Hurd: The members are finally asking questions, after four years, about the future of B.C. Hydro. It's amazing. It really is amazing that after three and a half years, they are finally beginning to understand what's happening in the energy markets. That's all I can assume. They still have this view of B.C. Hydro as this massive corporation, owned by the people of the province and redistributing wealth for the benefit of all. It's an anachronism; it's as simple as that. I still maintain that the energy field is deregulating. Any independent analysis that I've seen points in the direction of turbine technology and natural gas as the best alternatives, and I'm sure it will happen.
No corporation is an island, and if we can't sell power in international markets.... What is the future of a corporation like B.C. Hydro if we're forced to compete only within British Columbia against West Kootenay Power and Light and Westcoast Energy as a means of establishing rates in the province? The major industrial consumers in the province have grieved the latest rate increase from B.C. Hydro. They're even going to court for the same reasons: they don't feel that the structure is competitive. That's reality, and that's what's happening in the province.
Back to the motion, hon. Speaker. I know you're anxious to see me return to the motion in some way, and I will. This is a damage control motion. It seeks to condemn a customer of B.C. Hydro; it seeks to condemn the Yanks. It's Yankee-bashing. It has worked well for many governments over the years, and I'm confident that it will probably work well for the Minister of Employment and Investment. But reality says otherwise.
As I say, this motion is one that really speaks of the unprofessional way that we have dealt with this entire issue from day one. The smoke and mirrors and deception that have gone on from the very beginning are all related. It's a web of deception, a denial of reality. There's no question in my mind that this motion will certainly receive the derision that it deserves when it goes forth. I would rather have seen the amendment to the motion pass. It would have given the Legislative Assembly a role. Clearly, the government's role was to blow the agreement.
I just have to say that this has gone on for three sitting days now. It's a motion that was obviously drafted by the government's spin-control and damage-control experts, designed to.... Obviously they didn't expect the agreement to collapse before the end of 1995, which would have got us through an election year. The timing was bad. Hey, we understand that. Hopefully, if it had gone toward the end of 1995, the government would have had an election. The centrepiece in the Kootenays would have been in place, the Columbia River downstream benefits would have been returned -- they don't have to be returned now until 1998 -- the so-called balanced budget would have withstood the initial scrutiny that was applied to it in this House, and they could have gone to the polls on the basis of a balanced budget. Hey, the political strategy failed. It happens to governments.
But they didn't let well enough alone. They brought forward a motion that says: "Hey, despite all that political planning, none of this was our fault. It's a solemn commitment we had that the other guys walked away from, and we're totally blameless." Well, I take my seat, saying that regardless of the outcome of the vote, it just isn't going to wash. It's just not going to fool anyone.
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments and recognize now the Minister of Employment and Investment, whose remarks will close debate.
Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to rise briefly just to close debate on it. I have to say that I rarely get frustrated in this House, because I understand the game we're in. I understand the rules of debate. I've been here for nine and a half years. But the last speaker and other Liberal members speaking were so profound in their ignorance of a whole range of things in British Columbia, including the current state of play in electricity and including the history of B.C. Hydro, that it is frightening to me as a citizen of British Columbia that these individuals across the way feel they somehow deserve to hold public office or be elected to government.
The leader of the Reform Party made, I think, an excellent speech. I didn't agree with all of it, obviously, but it had some substance behind it. The leader of the Alliance Party made an excellent speech. Even the member from the Social Credit Party, who I disagree with, has at least some understanding of what we're talking about.
The last speaker's comments, not just about privatizing B.C. Hydro, which one could have a debate about, but just their profound lack of understanding, really should give everybody some cause for concern. I just want to touch on some of it briefly, because I have to. He says first of all that we have a problem being competitive in British Columbia on power. We have the lowest electricity rates in the world in British Columbia.
We have assets like the Williston reservoir, which is wider than the distance between Victoria and Vancouver. Terrible environmental damage at the time, damage done some time ago, wouldn't be done today. Partly, it wouldn't be done today because of this huge asset, this legacy that the people of British Columbia now own. The devastation in the Kootenays brought about by the Columbia River Treaty was serious. It would not be done today, I hope. I am positive of that in the current environment, except maybe with some privatized B.C. Hydro or with an irresponsible corporation. But I don't believe it could be allowed today. Now we have these reservoirs which have incredible value -- billions of dollars of net value owned by the people of British Columbia. This is not a problem in British Columbia, in terms of being competitive. We have this enormous legacy -- this enormous wealth -- which we want to try to maximize for the people of B.C.
We in British Columbia have the only utility in Canada that has opened up to competition with the Americans. Unlike Ontario, which has environmentally and economically expensive and outrageous nuclear plants, we have this abundance of the clean, environmentally friendly, renewable resource of
[ Page 14525 ]
hydroelectricity. We also have the ability, with no increased environmental damage, to add enormously cheap capacity. The fifth unit at the already built Revelstoke Dam creates 450 megawatts of capacity, which is worth.... It's like gold on the marketplace. If the member knew anything about the industry, even in a deregulated environment we are well positioned to compete in British Columbia, first and foremost.
Second, the unique properties of hydroelectricity....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: If I could make this point for the Liberal members, just so they know, the unique properties of hydroelectricity, the ability to store power through raising reservoir levels and then drawing them down for peak periods -- that peaking capacity, to put it simply -- is going to become increasingly valuable as more of the deregulated American marketplace moves to thermal-generated power. Nobody uses their stoves at 2 o'clock in the morning. Just with a passing reference, stepping back for a minute about how we live our lives, people should know that we use more electricity between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock at night when everybody is home, watching TV, turning the microwave on, cooking dinner and washing dishes, etc., than we do at two, three or four in the morning. They should know that all the factories tend to run during the day and all the businesses are open during the day, all the lights are on during the day for businesses, and all of the computers are on during the day. But at four in the morning very few businesses are open, and we use less power.
An Hon. Member: Tell us something we don't know.
Hon. G. Clark: It's obvious from your remarks, members of the Liberal Party, that you don't appreciate this, because if you did.... It has profound consequences. I just want to explain it briefly.
If you build a thermal plant, you have to run it 24 hours a day. You have to for economic purposes. You have no ability when you have natural gas to store that power; you have to run it full-bore all the time. With hydro power, if you want to, you can raise reservoir levels and store power that exists in the water. That means, in this new deregulated environment, if we have access to the United States, that the capacity -- the short-term bursts of power that we can generate with these huge reservoirs we own -- will become extremely valuable for peaking purposes. That is what we sold for $250 million up front: some of the capacity, which allows us to take advantage of the unique properties of hydroelectricity.
[11:30]
Hydroelectricity, if you listen to the Liberal Party, is somehow some kind of dinosaur that is going to be displaced by this new environment. Clearly, it's a dinosaur in this respect only: people aren't flooding any more valleys, so they're not likely to have new dams -- nor would I necessarily support any. Clearly as well, these assets are enormously and increasingly valuable. The thought of privatizing them now for short-term political gain or something -- to give up that legacy of something that is going to become increasingly valuable in the future -- is frankly shocking. It either portrays tremendous ignorance on the part of the Liberal Party or something worse than that, in terms of giving up a legacy that we have in British Columbia.
I just want to make a couple of other comments on what he said. Here's his quote again -- I wrote it down: "Hydro is still pushing hydroelectric power." We're still pushing hydroelectric power, as if somehow this was some kind of a problem -- that we should be pushing natural gas power or something, instead of dealing with this huge asset of these reservoirs.
He said we want to keep B.C. Hydro immune from competition, when in fact we're the ones who have joined the American grid to open it up. We're the ones who have deregulated in terms of wholesale wheeling. We're the ones who are saying we have this competitive advantage in British Columbia, this comparative advantage in hydro power, that we should be exploiting for the benefit of the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia and not giving up.
In addition, he says -- and I like this -- that somehow we have this.... I know this is horrifying to members of the Liberal Party. He says we think it's an instrument of wealth creation in British Columbia. Shame on us! Shame on us that we think this legacy, this asset, should somehow generate wealth. Of course it can; of course it is. We're generating about $700 million or $800 million right now for the taxpayers of B.C. Hydro -- $700 million or $800 million -- and this deal will generate some billions more. It would be outrageous to give that away, to sell it to Jimmy Pattison or somebody else who bought a ticket to the Liberal leader's fundraiser. I think it's shameful that they stand up in the House and suggest that we not use B.C. Hydro as an instrument of economic development and wealth creation, which it is, albeit in a new, deregulated market environment where we're well positioned to compete.
Lastly, just to make the point further, adding the fifth unit at Revelstoke, building the new generating facility at Stave Falls, adding another unit to Seven Mile and building the expansion projects at Waneta, Brilliant and Keenleyside create thousands and thousands of good union jobs, number one; number two, they generate cheap electricity, which we can then exploit and market either for ourselves to keep our power rates the lowest in the world -- which I think we should -- or export it to the United States for a profit for our taxpayers.
For the Liberals to say we shouldn't be doing that.... What the last speaker said was that we should not be building Keenleyside; we should not be expanding Waneta; we should not be expanding Brilliant; we should not build Stave Falls; we should not do the fifth unit at Revelstoke. We shouldn't do that. We should rely on private thermal-generated power -- that's what he said -- and sell B.C. Hydro so that they can get on and do the business, instead of exploiting B.C. Hydro's assets as the competitive advantage that it is for the people of British Columbia. I think it's shameful.
My last point on this remark -- I just want to make this clear -- is that B.C. Hydro has issued a request for proposals internationally. I want to make sure Liberals know this so that they know what we're giving up when they pursue selling it. We've said: "All of this hydroelectric work that we have, all the turbine retrofitting, which is another area of very cheap power because we can increase the efficiency of the existing plant by some 2 percent just by retrofitting with new technology...." We're doing that right now in the Kootenays at the Kootenay Canal power station.
Interjection.
[ Page 14526 ]
Hon. G. Clark: It's generating power at about 2 cents a kilowatt-hour, Mr. Member, just so people know. And we have that opportunity at the Bennett Dam. We have that opportunity throughout British Columbia to retrofit and create cheap power.
So we said to the world.... Rather than just buying new turbines internationally, for the first time we're going to say that B.C. Hydro is going to put ten years' worth of power work up for bid -- ten years' worth of turbine work -- and we want to know from the international community how many jobs it's going to create in British Columbia.
Kvaerner, a big international company, has come to the table and made a very interesting offer, saying: "If you give us Hydro's work for ten years on turbines" -- which is good for us and creates cheap power and creates jobs in B.C. -- "we'll create jobs in British Columbia, building manufacturing capacity to compete internationally in this business." General Electric came in and said: "If you give us that work, we'll create jobs in British Columbia through a variety of other means." GEC came in and said they would create jobs in British Columbia. Voith International came in and said.... These are international, competitive firms who say: "If you give us this base of B.C. Hydro work, we'll do some of the work here and we'll build on an international business to compete in this vast new international environment of power projects and we'll create hundreds of good-paying jobs in British Columbia."
I ask members of the Liberal Party and all people in British Columbia: does anybody seriously think that a private company would put out a request for proposals explicitly designed to create jobs in British Columbia, or would they build it in Alabama, China or Vietnam where it's the cheapest? Would they care about economic development creating jobs in British Columbia? Of course not. Everybody in British Columbia knows that a private company cares about their bottom line. If they create jobs, which they do, it's good, but they care most about the bottom line. They don't care about economic development in British Columbia, and that is not their mandate.
We have a Crown corporation -- a legacy in this province -- which has enormously valuable assets which we can build upon to create more wealth in British Columbia, more jobs, to export power to the United States and generate more revenue to the people of B.C. so we can keep the taxes the second-lowest in the country. Further, we have this Crown corporation which -- through smart business practices, by putting an RFP out internationally -- can lever other secondary manufacturing jobs in British Columbia, which are desperately needed. We can use these Crowns to lever, for the first time, real jobs in British Columbia.
We're doing that at B.C. Hydro, and these Liberal Party members are so ignorant of these kinds of opportunities that they stand up here in a kind of pseudo-intellectual manner and pretend that they know something about this industry, about our history, about our legacy and about the opportunities for wealth creation in British Columbia through power. They just don't get it. The Social Credit Party member says they just don't get it, and it frightens me. It frightens me as a citizen of British Columbia to hear them stand up and pretend to have knowledge of this industry.
I listened to the Reform Party leader's thoughtful remarks; he understands. I listened to the Alliance Party leader, who understands these questions. We don't agree on anything.... There are obviously legitimate areas of public debate. But it's hard for me to sit in my seat and listen to the drivel coming out of the Liberal Party, and to the lack of even any comprehension on the part of the Liberal Party members in the House. They should be ashamed of themselves that they would stand up in this House and pretend to be knowledgable on the area of energy policy in British Columbia, and to have any understanding of this enormous legacy and the opportunities for British Columbia. I do say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it frightening....
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: Listen to them, Mr. Speaker. They have stood up in this House and betrayed their ignorance of B.C. Hydro, of the legacy of British Columbia, and of what's going on in the world in terms of the marketplace. But worse than that, they have consistently taken the side of Bonneville Power Administration against this administration when dealing with that question. They stand there....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, could we wrap up this debate with a little less enthusiasm on the part of the back benches.
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was in opposition for five years, and I know that it's always tempting to play cheap politics on issues of the day. If there's a problem between this government and Bonneville Power Administration, then it's tempting to automatically assume that we are the problem and Bonneville Power Administration is somehow superior, that they know what they're doing and that they must know more than we do in British Columbia. That's the attitude of the Liberal Party on everything; they stand up here, uninformed, and oppose what the government is doing on everything. But on this one, they should step back just for a second and ask themselves which side they're on. Are they on the side of cheap opportunistic politics? Are they going to stand up there and attack the government and assume that we made a bad deal? Or are they going to listen to their allies -- the Bonneville Power Administration -- who have said: "We're cancelling this deal because it's too good for British Columbia"? That's what Bonneville Power says. They simply dropped down to a low-level debate, to stand up and hurl insults at the government and say: "You guys are incompetent; you don't know what you're doing. Bonneville is smarter than you, and that's the problem."
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I know you agree with that, but look at the facts. We have a memorandum of negotiators' agreement with Bonneville Power, which committed to a small, upfront sale of some of the power benefits for $250 million and then the right to either bring the power back at Blaine at no charge, for our use, if we want, or free access to the United States to export power for profit for British Columbia, which all the analysts suggest is worth between $5 billion and $6 billion over the life of the agreement.
We negotiated that. Randy Hardy, the chief administrator of Bonneville Power, came up to British Columbia and signed
[ Page 14527 ]
his name on the line. There's a picture, which I'll show to all members, of me holding hands with the Premier and Bonneville Power and signing the deal. He stood up and said: "This is a win-win for both Bonneville and B.C. We've come to an agreement." He's committed, on behalf of BPA, to negotiate, in good faith, an agreement. If the Liberals knew anything about it -- and they don't.... In the energy field, these deals take years to put together. Every private power-generating opportunity in the United States and in British Columbia takes years to put together.
As we speak.... I was in Seattle this morning. In the newspaper there was a story about BPA ripping up a contract with Tenaska Power, a partners' agreement -- a power generation project half-built. Tens of millions of dollars were invested in that project, and Bonneville ripped up the contract they had with that private company. If the members opposite think that we're incompetent and Bonneville is smart, then they must also believe that Tenaska Power is incompetent and that the other power projects that they've ripped up in the last little while.... They must believe that everybody who has had agreements broken by Bonneville Power is incompetent and that Bonneville Power is the competent one. Instead of looking at the objective fact, which is that in the last six months Bonneville has ripped up contracts and agreements not only with British Columbia but with other private power interests as well.... Bonneville Power is acting unscrupulously, scurrilously, unprofessionally, and in an unbusinesslike manner in this industry. Every informed player in the energy field in both the United States and Canada knows that British Columbia negotiated a good deal in good faith, that we did a good job, and that Bonneville Power Administration is the problem here. Everybody knows that except the Liberal Party, which wants to side with Bonneville Power.
It's shameful, and as a citizen I have to confess to being frightened about the prospect of this uninformed, ignorant crowd ever pretending to form government in British Columbia on these matters of critical importance to the future of British Columbia. For the record, I again say that it doesn't matter to me, personally, if we lose an election on this issue. It doesn't matter to me whether we have to forgo $250 million this fiscal year, because we're not going to play politics with the future of British Columbia or our legacy. We're going to take on this company. We're going to win this deal. We may not win it this year, but we'll win it in the years to come. The people of B.C. will be the winners, and we're not going to play cheap politics with it.
[11:45]
All members should support this resolution unanimously, because British Columbians deserve all parties working in concert in the future interests of the legacy of British Columbia, and for once, stop playing cheap politics with this kind of motion, and stand united against an unscrupulous, American company which, frankly.... We have the leverage, we have the deal and we have the capacity. If we're tough and stick to our guns, if we're not worried about short-term gain but worried about the future of British Columbia, we will win this debate, and British Columbia will be better off for it. I ask members to support the motion.
Deputy Speaker: The motion before us reads as follows: "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."
Motion 87 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 51 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
|
Cashore |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Cull |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
|
Barlee |
Pullinger |
Sihota |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Beattie |
|
Farnworth |
Conroy |
Doyle |
|
Janssen |
Streifel |
Sawicki |
|
Jackson |
Tyabji |
Wilson |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Gingell |
|
Reid |
Warnke |
Dalton |
|
Tanner |
Anderson |
Symons |
|
K. Jones |
de Jong |
Fox |
|
Neufeld |
Chisholm |
Boone |
|
Lali |
Schreck |
Copping |
|
NAYS -- 1 | ||
| Serwa | ||
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.
The committee met at 10:17 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
L. Reid: I'd like to begin this morning's discussion with an examination of hospice and the status of a number of different programs throughout the province. Perhaps we could start with the Prince George Hospice Society, because I understand its funding has recently been approved. If I could ask the minister to comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Prince George Hospice Society has been doing active work for a number of years, delivering services in a community-based model. In the last year and a half they've been working on establishing a freestanding hospice.
[ Page 14528 ]
The actual capital facility, as the member may know -- I think she's actually toured it, as I have a number of times -- was a result of community donations and work by the Rotary Club and other service clubs in Prince George to acquire this facility. They were obviously seeking operating expenses. I had to tell them quite explicitly that there was no independent hospice program funded directly by the ministry.
I think they made a very good presentation to the steering committee that was allocating Closer To Home funds in the Prince George region. The committee made funding of operational expenses for the hospice a priority for spending.... Well, the total Closer To Home budget for the region, I think, was in the neighbourhood of $1.3 million. They made a decision that this was exactly the sort of program that they wanted to see. They felt it would take pressure off acute facilities, provide a more appropriate site for palliative and terminal care and would be more cost-effective. They recommended that it be funded. It met the criteria of the program and was funded through the Closer To Home fund. I believe the actual operating expenses, if memory serves, were something in the order of $250,000 to $260,000 on an annual basis.
L. Reid: Certainly I concur with the minister's comments in terms of what I believe has been the provincial mandate around hospice: to provide a continuum of care and to hopefully have individuals make some choices around palliative care and different opportunities within the community.
I would submit to the minister that not just cost-effectiveness -- which is absolutely important -- but some quality-of-life issues need to be addressed for a number of these individuals. Some of the most poignant statements in hospices have been the individuals who have said to me on a number of occasions: "I may be dying, but I'm not sick. Why am I hospitalized?" That's the message that comes through loud and clear in a number of different palliation documents that try to address the continuum of care and the range of choices which members in the community may avail themselves of.
I applaud the individuals in Prince George in terms of the Rotary involvement in setting up that hospice. I think that's an absolutely outstanding community activity. I think individuals who reside in that region of the province having the choice of whether or not they wish to die at home, in a community setting -- i.e., the freestanding hospice -- or in hospital, will hopefully provide the range of choices that will accommodate the majority of individuals who live in that region.
Certainly we don't have those same choices in all parts of the province. Perhaps the minister could comment on the status of freestanding hospices and if indeed there are plans to put them in place in any other regions of the province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with much the member has said about a hospice providing part of a range of alternative services for people who are facing the ends of their lives, dealing with a terminal condition. I think it is accurately said that different individuals are seeking different arrangements for that, whether it's palliative care in an acute situation or a hospice or, as an increasing number of British Columbians are choosing, at home. We need to respond to that range of desires through service delivery.
To my understanding, there are four freestanding facilities in the province that are either planned or operational. The May Gutteridge house, which I imagine the member is familiar with, opened in 1990 with six beds and operates through continuing care funds. It's primarily a downtown -- east side, west side -- Vancouver residence. It is a community-based facility which serves that area well. The Normandy Hospital special unit for AIDS clients opened in 1992. It is licensed as a private hospital, actually, with ten beds. The client population is focused on AIDS clients.
One very exciting initiative in conjunction with B.C. Children's Hospital is Canuck Place, scheduled to open this spring. This is an initiative where the capital costs have been raised by the generosity of the community and tradespeople who are doing the renovations themselves. It's a real community effort that recognizes the need for a very important service, which focuses on children who are dying. In those tragic cases where we have a child who will not reach adulthood, we are looking at how we can have an atmosphere that is not an acute hospital, where the family and the child can be as comfortable and as supported as possible during a very, very difficult time.
There are requests for others. I mentioned the Prince George Hospice Society, which obtained funding through the Closer to Home fund. I understand there are other hospice proposals coming. I am aware of the one from Richmond, in the member's area. I understand there is also one in Langley. I think there is a desire for these facilities in Vancouver as well.
As we get going on this, we need to recognize, as the member said, that there is a diversity of need and a diversity of things that must be considered. I've mentioned the freestanding ones. Let's be clear that there are also hospice-designated units within hospitals themselves. The line where palliative care ends and hospice begins isn't a sharp one. Where institutional care ends and community care begins for people facing a terminal condition is not a sharp line, either; there's a merging of services around that. There are many, many hospitals that don't have a freestanding facility. We may not be able to identify sufficient need within our community to justify one, but we need to attend to those needs within the hospital. They provide care based very much on a hospice philosophy, if I can call it that.
The determination of whether a freestanding hospice is needed obviously depends on a number of things. First, it depends on the number of palliative care clients in a community. It depends on the capacity of the community to manage the palliative clients in home or current residential situations. Finally, I would suggest that it depends on priorities within a region for what they see as the most important add-on or shift of service in that way.
In some regions they may feel that the current palliative care arrangements and current hospice work within hospitals or residential units suffice. In other communities there are initiatives ongoing, where I think societies and hospice societies are working very hard for freestanding hospices, and they need to make their case with their regional health boards and with other care providers that this is both a more respectful way of delivering care for some folks and, in most cases, a more cost-effective way of providing care than some acute centres.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. However, three of those centres are in the lower mainland. The fourth is in Prince George, so we're moving toward the centre of the
[ Page 14529 ]
province. I appreciate the minister's comments about that service: a palliative unit or bed attached to many hospitals in this province. My understanding is that it's not in all hospitals today. Could the minister comment on whether there is a breakdown of hospital-based hospice or palliative care across this province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have firm numbers for the member in terms of out of a given number of long term or acute care facilities, X have hospice programs. Staff have confirmed my impression that in most cases a regional centre or community facility of substantial size will indeed have a program that is based in the institution, that brings in the hospice society and that provides hospice philosophy -- hospice-centred care, if I can use that phrase. That's true of long term care facilities, hospital facilities and, obviously, acute facilities. Quite frankly, I've never asked the ministry to do a survey and determine the exact number.
[10:30]
There are clearly gaps. I think this is an area of increasing citizen awareness and activity in many communities. They are forming groups and advocating for a wider range of facilities and services at a regional or community level. I think that regional health boards and the ministry are looking at that and responding when they come forward.
L. Reid: I hope that information is available at some point; I would ask the minister to share it with my office. If those people in different regions who are looking to establish a free standing hospice or beginning to discuss its necessity had a clear picture of hospices across the province -- where there are definite needs and where the beds currently are -- that would, hopefully, allow us to have a more detailed discussion. That information was certainly very difficult for individuals in Richmond to bring together in terms of the broader picture, if you will, of where other facilities might be located in the province. If that is available from ministry staff, I would certainly appreciate it.
Like the minister, I have had many phone calls from different folks in the province concerning the choices around palliative care, death and dying that are available to members of different ethnic communities. There are a lot of complex community issues in today's discussion. Some do not wish to have their family member die at home, and for fairly complex reasons. Some of the same reasons extend to institutional settings. Specific sites or facilities for different ethnic communities may be sought through regional health boards or the ministry. Has the minister received correspondence on that? Could he comment on the status of discussions around creating separate facilities?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll ensure that the member gets a survey to find out exactly how many hospitals have hospice wards or designated hospice facilities. I will be interested in it, too.
Let me back up a little bit on this whole issue. Hospice, I would suggest, is as much a model of care as a place. As the member says, I think we need to respect the wishes of individuals and communities on how they want to locate that type of care. I am unaware of any proposals that have reached a very advanced stage as far as the provision of hospice care for specific ethnic populations. Most hospice societies that I am aware of clearly see this as a need. I know of several that are working hard to have the multicultural nature of our province reflected in their organizations and communities. This is also reflected in the volunteer services they provide for family members facing the end of life in a hospice, hospital or home situation.
There are indeed a number of cultural values. I think that the end of life is one thing that different cultures may approach differently. We share a common mortality, but we may not share common approaches to the end of our lives. We have to have a health system that increasingly respects that.
I wouldn't say we're all the way there. I don't think we do very well, for example, with first nations people. That's surely something that I've heard repeatedly from my part of the province where, very often, for somebody who's from Tache or Fort Ware, even a hospice situation in Prince George is not a very homelike situation or a close-to-home situation. On the other hand, to provide the proper kind of care, management of pain and supports may be very, very difficult in a community as small and as isolated as Fort Ware, for example. It is very difficult, dealing with smaller populations, to be respectful of those cultural differences. It's something that I know hospice societies, hospitals and long term care organizations work daily at.
The one other thing the ministry is working on that I wanted to share with the member is that the community care facilities branch is conducting a comprehensive review of the Community Care Facilities Act and its regulations, looking at needed changes in those regulations, including regulations that could reflect the special nature of a freestanding hospice facility. When I read some of the earlier information for you on existing hospitals, they were licensed as a family care home or under the Hospital Act. What the ministry is working on is a set of regulations and standards that would be tailored to a freestanding hospice.
L. Reid: I welcome the minister's comments about new standards and regulations coming into place. Certainly there have been a lot of constraints placed, probably unnecessarily, on the type of facility and the actual physical presence. Could I ask the minister to comment on the time line of that? When will those regulations be in place? When can individuals have an opportunity to examine those upcoming regulations?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The notes I have before me don't provide an end point for this study. If the member wishes to go onto another aspect of this question, I'll get that answer for her.
L. Reid: Certainly my reason in asking the question was specifically for Richmond. As you stated earlier in your comments, Richmond has a proposal that is before the minister today -- I guess, before ministry staff. Copies have been shared with the regional board that's been designated for Richmond. I'd like to take a moment to commend the folks in Richmond, because every single provider group has been represented at the table. This committee has probably been sitting for just over two years -- a longstanding effort on behalf of the community to come together and attempt to get a handle on what is required in terms of hospice care. Richmond General Hospital does some very, very fine deliveries around that. The hospice association in Richmond, which works and supports individuals in their homes, takes responsibility for providing some continuum.
[ Page 14530 ]
The issue came to the table a little over two years ago through the committed work of a very fine Richmond resident, Nancy Yurkovich, who talks about quality-of-care issues, always with a recognition of the funding issues, but also a sense that it's appropriate to try and bring together members of the community to put on the table what kind of choices we want to be able to offer in a reasonable fashion. I've been delighted to participate in the process with her, because I think she's done an outstanding job. Our committee, having met many, many times over the last two years, is now looking at how best to provide the service.
One of the groups that we have met with has been the Salvation Army. There have been different facilities across Canada -- particularly in Ontario, and there's one in Alberta -- funded by the province and operated by the Salvation Army in a cost-sharing arrangement. Sometimes they're simply operated by the province and administered by something like the Salvation Army. They have done some very, very fine work. The minister and I have had discussion in the past regarding British Columbia's Women's Hospital, previously Grace Hospital, which was administered by the Salvation Army. Their work was commendable. My question to the minister on that topic is: would the ministry look favourably upon funding arrangements if there were administrators such as the Salvation Army in place to operate the facility in some kind of very high-calibre, consistent manner?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, just let me add my voice to that of the member opposite in thanking not just residents in Richmond for their work on the hospice there but the groups across the province who have provided endless hours of volunteer help, counselling and hospice care for families who have members facing the end of life and have helped them deal with that situation in a caring and respectful manner.
As far as the specific question the member asks, I have nothing but the highest respect for the work of the Salvation Army and its commitment to delivering a very high quality of care in many of the facilities we have contracted with them over the years.
Surely their decision to withdraw from Grace Hospital was done with grace and was respectful of the ongoing role of that institution. In my comments on their withdrawal, I think I indicated very clearly the high regard this ministry held for the Salvation Army in its delivery of care over the years. Surely the difficulty with that sort of arrangement is that there are obviously various standards of care, capital funding and operational funding that I know the hospice society, the Richmond Health Board and the ministry will be engaging.
L. Reid: When those standards and regulations are ready, will there be an opportunity for members in the community who currently deliver hospice services to respond?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The B.C. Hospice-Palliative Care Association is actively involved right now in providing input into the review. They are one of the groups we are working closely with as we develop the regulations. As far as the date, I do not have that information available for you; I'll get it to you.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the B.C. Hospice-Palliative Care Association looking at those regulations. My question specifically is on other care providers, people who currently work in palliative care in hospitals and across the continuum. Will they also have the opportunity to reflect on those regulations, because it is indeed a package?
I often think we are dealing with the same patient; the patient may be in a community facility and need to go into an acute care facility for pain control, and then perhaps back into a community facility. My contention is that there may be some movement of the same people. I hope the regulations will be addressed by all providers.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The review that's going on is consulting widely with care providers. I mentioned the hospice association specifically because I thought it was important to say that we are reaching out not just to current care providers in long term care institutions, acute care facilities or home care, but the association is very concerned about freestanding hospices and care based on the hospice philosophy in other institutions.
L. Reid: In terms of the proposal before you from Richmond, could the minister kindly comment in terms of a possible time line, on when an answer may be forthcoming or how many other pins need to be put in place? Again, I would submit that I think the Richmond-based folks have put all the pins in place. They simply need some guidance as to when they might receive a response.
[10:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll seek the answer as to where a response to the Richmond proposal is. I would also mention to the member, though, that organizations across the province that have been concerned with care based on the hospice philosophy have been seeking funds, and successfully so, through the Closer To Home allocations for their regions. We've mentioned Prince George, which was looking at a freestanding hospice. Another example is the Upper Fraser Valley Health Board for Chilliwack, Agassiz and Harrison, where $140,000 was allocated for enhanced palliative care in a community setting for that region.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. Order, please, hon. members. Would the minister please continue his comments.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In the northwest region, the Terrace Hospice Society got $20,000 -- and I could go on. Actually, I think the majority of the 20-some health regions have allocated some part of Closer To Home funds to palliative care, and very often to hospice societies, whether they are looking at freestanding institutions, enhanced home care or respite and palliative care affiliated with an acute or long term facility.
L. Reid: I certainly won't ask the minister to read that list into the record, but I would be very pleased to receive that list in terms of how it breaks down across the province, because when we talk about the cost of an acute care bed -- and we had that discussion -- in the order of $800 or $900 per day, it certainly seems that across the province, in terms of the folks who are providing palliative care, they're looking at doing it for approximately a third of that -- $200, $250 or $300 a day. I think that kind of consideration, in terms of recognizing quality-of-life issues and allowing people to make some of those choices in a community, residential or homelike setting while also getting the added benefit of it being roughly a third
[ Page 14531 ]
of the cost, is all to the good. People are certainly happier. They have some ability and mobility, and they also have a sense of privacy and an ability to have their family and friends come and oftentimes stay over the evenings and wake up with those folks in the morning and be there to offer some support.
When I come back to my first question, in terms of where those facilities were placed throughout the province, a number of folks who write very poignant articles in different journals and the like talk about the loneliness and oftentimes having to travel thousands of miles to receive an acute care service around palliative care. Their families, for reasons of funding and a whole myriad of reasons, are not able to accompany them and not able to visit daily and provide all those other supports that some of us may take for granted at other times in our lives.
So in terms of the cost factor, I welcomed the fact that the minister has said that the Closer to Home funds will provide those kinds of services in the majority -- hopefully all -- of the regions of this province. But in terms of the cost, is the ministry looking at palliative care as a core service? I understand that they are; I hope they are. And because of the actual cost savings to the system, is there any encouragement on behalf of ministry programs to encourage that service in the regions of this province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I will be pleased to provide the list of projects in the palliative/hospice care field that have been funded through Closer to Home allocations in the last fiscal year. That funding, as you know, is ongoing. These are permanent, increased community-based services in regions throughout the province. I would only caution the member that we will need to look at that in conjunction with the other survey that she asked for, which shows exactly what facilities already exist. My sense -- and hers, I'm sure -- that different communities have responded in different ways. Some are well on the way to getting what I think we would agree would be an ideal situation: a diversity of sites for care. Some need to do some more work and are doing some more work, as in the member's own community.
Finally, the answer to the question about whether palliative care is a core service is yes. This is a service that we expect regional health boards to deliver and provide to British Columbians regardless of where in the province they live. It is, of course, the regional health boards' mandate to do the work on how the service is delivered. We will be looking for their plans on delivery of palliative care as we sign administrative arrangements with regions.
L. Reid: The minister made mention of Closer to Home dollars. It is my understanding that $42 million was allocated in fiscal 1994-95 for Closer to Home initiatives and projects -- how the regions were wanting to bring proposals forward. Could the minister tell me what portion of that $42 million is currently unallocated or, indeed, if all of those dollars have found their way into communities?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Of the actual $41.7 million that was allocated for the Closer to Home fund, $1.8 million remains to be allocated. As the member knows, in many cases actual proposals for funding were received halfway through the fiscal year or later, so the actual expenditures last year were lower than the $42 million allocated. This year the projects, of course, will be ongoing and will be funded.
L. Reid: It's also my understanding that a second $42 million allotment was brought on line April 1 of this year for Closer to Home funding.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The $42 million that last year was the fund for special projects has now been allocated to base funding. There is no new $42 million for Closer to Home initiatives this year. The ministry is working now to look at community allocations to see if a second call for Closer to Home proposals and funding allocations can be made.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. I'm determining by his comment to me that there is basically $1.8 million remaining in the Closer to Home fund, but that is the life of the Closer to Home fund.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll see if I can do this without confusing the issue here. Because there were some startup costs for some of these projects which were one-time, the annualized value of perceived and approved projects to date is $36.9 million. If you top that up to $42 million, you've got about $5.1 million of space in the existing fund for new projects to be considered.
Those within funding allocations have already been given to regions. Some regions have allocated their funds fully and have no space left right now. Others have considerable space left and, I know, are reviewing second-round proposals that have come in.
I'm asking the ministry to work now to see if we are going to be able to enhance that fund above the $42 million base funding that we have in the coming fiscal year.
L. Reid: There is $42 million in base funding and the ministry has communicated to the regions that individuals who wish to make new proposals have access to a continuation of $42 million. If the minister is not comfortable with my referring to it as a second $42 million, indeed I believe it is; I believe that's just a semantical discussion. There is still going to be $42 million in the fund this fiscal year.
Hon. P. Ramsey: What I was afraid the member was referring to was that somehow it was going to be the $42 million continuing and another $42 million on top of it. If I had to explain that to the Minister of Finance, I might have some difficulty.
There is $42 million in ongoing community-based services in base funding. Those programs approved and planned last year are ongoing services in regions around the province. Some became fully operational; some are still in the process of becoming fully operational.
L. Reid: Many, many, proposals came forward, probably countless thousands. I don't have any issue at this particular time with the decisions taken to fund those projects or not; I know we'll come back to that under regional programs and the like.
My question is: is the same energy, the same enthusiasm, going to be evident from the ministry in terms of having folks in the regions believe that there will be funds available for new projects? I understand what the minister has said about base funding to continue the projects that were approved last year. Is there room to manoeuvre into new projects for next year and the year following? Is that part of the overall plan?
[ Page 14532 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I just ran through these figures.... There is about $5.1 million of unallocated funds in the Closer to Home program. Regions will be working to design and allocate those funds. I've also said that I've asked the ministry to see if we could enhance the Closer to Home fund above the $42 million figure.
I would also suggest that now is the time when many regional health boards and community health councils are looking at how they enhance services in their regions by reallocating funds that they now have. Whether they can start doing the work they've been planning for a year or so in amalgamating administration support and reallocating some of the service delivery funds within their communities and their regions....
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments and look forward to receiving that documentation.
The next area I wanted to touch on this morning was the Comox Valley Nursing Centre. The minister is aware that there have been a number of discussions around the province in terms of how that program has come together. It's my understanding that the program has now been operational for a year. The debate we've had in the chamber, in terms of what product that program would deliver and how best to measure success, frankly, I've found to be lacking. There hasn't been any evaluative framework that's been shared. Certainly I've done my absolute best to receive an annual report to get some sense of which patients have been seen, how many patients and for what kind of service delivery. None of that information has been forthcoming. So I am going to call on this minister in his kindness to share as much information as he possibly can regarding the current status of the Comox Valley Nursing Centre.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member, I think, characterizes the current status of the evaluation of the centre accurately. I recently met with the representatives of the centre and urged them of the necessity for evaluation of the work they had done, not just the number of people who have walked through the door but other measures of how this centre has contributed to overall health delivery in the Comox Valley and what the views of other health providers have been and, indeed, what the views of the community health council and regional health board in the area are. The initial findings that I have seen -- the member may have seen the same -- reflect that the people at the centre have done an excellent job of building some collaborative relationships with other health providers in the valley, seeking not to duplicate services but to provide a point of access and a coordination of access to services.
Clearly from the letters I have received, there is high client satisfaction with the work of the centre. I have seen and met with a number of folks who have used the centre and who speak very highly of what it has been able to do for them. The clients report decreased use of hospital emergency services, decreased physician visits and decreased medication use. I think what both I and the member are looking for is some quantification of that so that we can have a base for actually evaluating its impact on health services in Comox, as we look at continuation of the centre or evaluation of it.
[11:00]
The only other thing I would say is that it's been operational for a touch over a year now, I think. I would say that it has been "fully operational" maybe half that time. Start ups are difficult: hiring staff and orienting them to the community and the centre. So when I met with them, there was some concern that we allow sufficient time for work to be demonstrated before we say: "Here is the evaluation." Funding for the centre is currently set to expire at the end of September.
L. Reid: When this issue came up for debate in the chamber, I believe the amount of money designated at the time was approximately $400,000. Could the minister comment on the budgeted amount and the actual costs to date of operating that facility.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The amount funded through the office of the provincial nurse adviser was $385,000. That was from opening through to September 1995, so it's about a fiscal year and a bit -- yeah, parts of two fiscal years in that amount. As far as I know, they have operated within that budget successfully; they have not overspent. They know that this has been the allocation to them.
L. Reid: Can the minister indicate the number of patients that were seen in that facility?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Information I have as of March -- so this is a couple of months out of date now -- says they have logged about 600 drop-by visits by individual clients, another 270 that they would call individual clients of the centre who use it with some regularity and 100 or so that have also been involved with programs the centre has put on.
Now those are actually at the centre. One of the centre's real initiatives, though, has been to do outreach with the food bank, the seniors' wellness societies, the health fair and at the mall. Those activities are not included in those figures. There are clearly a wide range of other contacts with the community, with people seeking access to the health system outside the centre itself.
In addition, the staff has been working with developing and facilitating groups to deal with issues such as chronic pain, eating disorders, seniors' wellness and the like. Those again are outside the clients.
One of the difficulties we identified when I was discussing these issues with staff and the board of the centre is how to measure non-conventional access to health care in other than conventional ways. We can quantify numbers of clients, but what is that telling us? We can quantify so many people. We may be able to quantify decreased use of other health resources and demonstrate effectiveness and efficiency that way. I think one of our real challenges is to determine what the appropriate measures of effectiveness of the centre are.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's predicament, but I think it's always useful to structure some kind of evaluation before you start. Trying to do this as a retrofit often does not work because you don't have a baseline from which to proceed. Again, we're left with comparing apples and oranges around health care. We want some ability, I want some ability, to have some consistency in measurement and an evaluative framework.
It disappoints me that this was not considered when the Comox Valley Nursing Centre was brought forward, and it disappoints me even further that a year later we're no further
[ Page 14533 ]
toward that goal. It seems to me, from the minister's comments, that a great deal of activity for the Comox Valley Nursing Centre occurs outside the centre. I believe that is what the minister has stated. If indeed that's the case, what will be the criteria for looking at future funding? I understand the minister said that this issue will come up again this September.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say as clearly as I can that evaluation has been a concern from the initial proposal. I think the member does the RNABC and others who brought forward this proposal a disservice. They recognized the importance of this from the start and established a team of researchers external to the government, external to the project and external to the RNABC, who proposed the project. It's composed of seven researchers from the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and the Okanagan.
The member may know Dr. Carolyn Attridge from UVic, who's the principal researcher. I met with Carolyn -- excuse me, Dr. Attridge -- earlier this month to discuss some of the ongoing evaluation. I want to go one step further. The evaluation proposal which the team put together has been reviewed and accepted by the B.C. Health Research Foundation. Therefore we have some external criteria that I believe have been well vetted, both by academics and by the foundation that this member adduced yesterday should be involved in evaluation of health effectiveness across the province. Much of the work to put those in place has been done.
I regret that the member has taken my speculations on the difficulty of measuring non-conventional services as evidence that no evaluation was in place. Such is not the case. This project will be evaluated, and decisions on further funding will be based on evaluation.
L. Reid: I welcome the minister's comments. Is there an evaluation available that I may receive today?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd be glad to share with the member opposite the proposal the evaluation team has put forward and that has been accepted by the B.C. Health Research Foundation.
L. Reid: What I heard the minister say was that the proposal has been accepted. My question specifically is: when will there be a report? What is their working time line?
Hon. P. Ramsey: When I met with the folks who are doing some of the work at the centre on evaluation, I indicated to them that if they wished to have the ministry seriously consider an extension of funding beyond September 30, we needed at least an interim evaluation in the next month or so.
Obviously the original proposal was to run this project to September 30, then complete the evaluation. So the actual detailed work of measuring the activity of the centre was scheduled to be completed in the fall of this year. I've asked for at least an interim evaluation so I can look at that as well as funding in the next month or so.
L. Reid: For clarification, my understanding was that the program was to run for a year, and then the evaluation would be complete. That is not what the minister has said. He has said it is somehow now September 30 and that the evaluation will follow at some point. That's certainly very different than the discussion in the Legislature, which was one year of operation evaluation.
If we're looking at the fall, we're looking at 18 to 20 months and perhaps two years before we see something in terms of an evaluation of this project. Is that indeed the case?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say it again. If we're going to measure the evaluation or the effectiveness of the centre over the life of a project, which was slated to run until September 30, surely we have to have data to the end of that project.
L. Reid: If indeed the time line has changed for the project, I will accept that. But the original debate in the Legislature was one year of operation, and you have indeed confirmed earlier in debate that we are well past one year of operation for the centre. So I think my point is valid, and I certainly hope it is well taken. Indeed, there is a delay on an evaluation report coming, and we will look to six or eight months from now in terms of receiving that.
If it's September 30 -- we're both aware of how long it takes to get these materials out -- we're probably looking at four, five or six months following that. So my contention is that it will be close to two years, as opposed to the one year and the reporting out, which was the debate in the Legislature. I can assure the minister that it was a very thoughtful debate in the chamber regarding this proposal.
But to go into two funding years without even an interim report -- and the minister assures me that at some point we will see an interim report -- I have some serious concerns surrounding that, not to take away at all from the people who have now submitted the proposal and will do some work on outcome measurement. That was never the discussion in the Legislature. It was when the report would be ready, and what I am hearing is that it's many, many months down the road.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a project that opened its doors in May 1994. It is scheduled to run for approximately 16 months, until the end of September 1995 -- about a year and a third. As I said earlier, the centre experienced the usual gearing up and ramping up of activities as it opened its doors. I would characterize it as having been fully operational for half a year at this point.
I would suggest that asking for some interim work to be done at this point is appropriate. I would suggest that seeking to have a report and total evaluation of the activities of the centre over the entire 16 months available on September 30 ignores the reality of data-gathering and analysis.
I must also say that one of the things I have become aware of -- and I wonder if the member opposite has as well -- is that an initiative such as the centre that says, "Let's listen more to nurses who deliver care; let's listen to their concern about broadening their scope of practice and practising their profession more widely," will inevitably face some hostility and some questioning. I would suggest that the people who are doing the evaluation are well aware of the necessity to produce results that will withstand scrutiny by other health professionals who have been suspicious -- at times, antagonistic -- to the idea of exploring other access points to primary care and to health services.
They are aware of that and intend to make sure that the evaluation which is done will withstand that sort of scrutiny.
[ Page 14534 ]
As I said earlier, let us not buy into a view that says: "We must do traditional measurements, and that's the only way," or "Because we don't have an evaluation after six months of full operation of the centre, obviously it hasn't proven its worth." I believe that this is a very important initiative. I wish that we were able to fund several such initiatives to try different ways of providing access to health services across the province, and I look forward to the work of this evaluation team and its report on the Comox project.
L. Reid: My comments continue on the Comox Valley. The minister has suggested that it is very important work. I will come back to the minister and suggest: "Based on what?" It is an interesting contention, but for $400,000, or $350,000, there has to be an opportunity to be accountable to the taxpayer. I am not suggesting one form of measurement over another, so your comments about traditional or not is not the issue; it's whether there is anything in place. However they choose best to define practice and whether or not it has been a useful service, there has to be some measurement, and if they were responsive at all to the taxpayer, that measurement would have been the number one priority. The length of the program concerns me, first off; we share different views on that. It was 12 months. If it is now 16 months, I can accept that. The debate was a report at the conclusion of 12 months, which would likely put it in the hands of the public 16 months following. If it's now 16 months, it puts it in the hands of the public 20 to 24 months following. There's no question about that.
So not to respond to some kind of reporting.... Again, I am not going to stand here and suggest that one reporting mechanism is more useful than another. I think the fact that those individuals are in place is useful, and they will hopefully define what the best reporting mechanism may be. But it concerns me that $400,000 has no accountability around it at the present time. Certainly the minister's comments -- I believe it was 600 walk-by patrons and 270 clients.... Any way you look at that, that's not a large number of folks utilizing that service. I believe that demands some kind of measurement; under 1,000 people for $400,000 is a huge cost item, if we are going to look at costs. And I think that because this is the estimates debate for the Ministry of Health, the discussion is costs -- not to take away from some of the other values of the program, but simply to say that at the present time we don't know what those are. Frankly, with all due respect, nor does the minister.
[11:15]
We can speculate that it's going to have a positive impact on health care, but we have no way of knowing that. I appreciate the speculation; I trust it will be useful. But I think that it demands some kind of fact on the table. Where to next? The minister has mentioned the interim report. Could he provide some guidance as to when that interim report might be ready?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must confess to being somewhat puzzled by this line of questioning and this apparent attack on the work the Comox Nursing Centre is doing and the services they are providing to the people of the Comox Valley. This project did not spring from somebody's mind in a vacuum. As I think the member knows, similar centres are operational in other provinces and other countries. While this sort of expansion is perhaps new to this province, I would suggest that it is surely not a radical proposal for health care delivery in this country or in other jurisdictions. Finally, to deduce that somehow the evaluation process has been neglected by those who put the proposal forward or by those who are involved in running the centre is simply contrary to what I've already explained. The proposal included an evaluation mechanism and would not have been approved without it.
The evaluation team has put together an evaluation proposal that has been accepted by the B.C. Health Research Foundation. It is the external proposal part of it that I think is important. This is not being done by the proponents of the centre itself. The team members can invite anybody -- physicians or care providers -- to review the proposal or generate research questions so that you can have as wide a diversity of opinions and questions as possible.
We have a methodology in place. I believe the work will be done. I think the researchers who are being funded through the Health Research Foundation are reputable; the work that they will do will be reputable. I would again urge the member not to fall into what I would call the BCMA trap of measuring service by the number of visits. Quite frankly, if we do that we are saying that the only measure here is the routine and mechanical measure of the number of visits.
Here we have an organization that is attempting to be proactive and to reach out to the community, rather than to wait for visits to come by. That is the essence of what they're about, yet the member opposite rises to talk about the number of clients up to the early part of March of this year. That is surely one thing that must be measured, but saying that the $380,000 being spent has been misspent does a grave disservice to the people who put this proposal together. It misrepresents the quality of services they've delivered to the people of the Comox Valley.
L. Reid: The question to the minister was: when will the interim report be ready?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've asked for the report to be ready in a month or two. As we consider whether funding should be extended for the centre, we need to see some of the work that has been done.
L. Reid: I appreciate the fact that the report should, I understand, be in our hands by the end of June. I will take that two months to mean June, hopefully, or the end of July.
I think the points raised here are very valuable. I think the interest in this information is simply an interest in this information. For the minister to construe anything else from this is, frankly, simply not worthy of the minister. It is somewhat disappointing, because any expenditure of funds on behalf of the taxpayer deserves accountability. The minister knows that I clearly made no commitment to any one measurement tool over any other. I simply asked that there be some in place and that we be made aware of what they might be. That is a very reasonable request.
In terms of evaluation, I would only hope that this is not a brand-new task to the ministry and that what the minister says is true regarding this type of program operating in other jurisdictions. Hopefully, we're not starting from ground zero. Hopefully, some kind of consultation has transpired so that this new evaluative team has something to go on. I think the question is very valid. I think that the sooner we have the information the better.
I will move now to a consideration of wait-lists in the province of British Columbia. I want to start with a number of
[ Page 14535 ]
the press releases that have come out in the last number of months. It certainly seems to me that this minister has announced onetime funding more than once, and it seems to me that there are some issues around a strategy for addressing wait-lists that is perhaps lacking. Perhaps I'll start with the corneal tissue transplant list. It seems to me that we're at that point because of disorganization in addressing wait-lists and disorganization in terms of harvesting tissue. We have canvassed that very, very thoroughly under the B.C. Transplant Society.
But the contention around wait-lists, where I will go in the next 15 or 20 minutes, is certainly around the necessity to hear from this minister what the strategy is. We have received the press releases around the number of dollars that have gone to address wait-lists. Perhaps we can start with the cardiac surgery wait-list. It is my understanding that there are approximately 414 patients on the wait-list today. Perhaps I might learn how best their needs will be addressed by this ministry.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As I think the member opposite knows, and as I'm sure we'll explore in some detail, there is not a wait-list issue in the province; there are a whole variety of them. As the ministry has worked on issues to address wait-lists, we need to say some things very clearly.
First of all, by international standards, waiting times in British Columbia are quite favourable. In B.C. the sample hospitals on which wait-list data have been collected for ten years indicate that approximately 85 percent of elective cases receive their surgery within three months. I would ask the member opposite to recognize that this does not include emergency surgery, which is dealt with quickly and for which there is no wait time. This compares, I think, very favourably with figures such as 60 percent receiving services within three months in places like the United Kingdom that have a two-tier health system. Clearly there is pressure by the public and at times by the media to address wait-list issues. We believe that it is important to monitor wait-lists carefully and to make sure that where there is a need, we're responding to it.
The member asked specifically about cardiac surgery. In February of this year -- and that was three months ago -- there were about 414 people on the wait-list for cardiac surgery. In the early part of this decade -- the late eighties and early nineties -- the wait-list was around 750 to 800. As the member may know, there are about 2,500 cardiac operations performed a year; that's all of them. About 50 percent of cardiac operations are done on an emergency basis, immediately. The remaining 50 percent are done through monitoring and wait-lists.
Last fall we announced a onetime funding of about $3 million to provide for an additional 175 cases. At that time wait-lists for cardiac surgery had grown from levels that we thought were trending down into the low 300s and had risen to about 400. We said: "Hey, let's get some more procedures and make sure that the appropriate number of procedures are being performed."
Our goal is to get the wait-list for cardiac surgery in numbers down to the 300 level. We want to show that since 1991 we've cut the wait-list approximately in half.
L. Reid: The press release that came out talked about the additional $4 million and about bringing the number of people on a wait-list to under 300 didn't give a time line. When is that result likely to be obtained?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Our target for that is December 1995.
L. Reid: The reason I pose the questions surrounding wait-lists, hon. minister, is that we basically need to look at the attendant costs experienced by these patients while they are on the wait-list. There certainly seems to be -- and I'm sure I'm not the only MLA in this province to receive correspondence -- people who are waiting three, six, seven, eight months and those scenarios exist, particularly around cardiac care. Oftentimes they are in a position where they are not able to work or to have an income. When we talked about cardiac surgery costs earlier on in this debate around the B.C. Transplant Society, we talked about having made some tremendous inroads in terms of reducing the cost of surgery. My contention today is if that is the case, we are simply spending the money in another area by keeping these people on wait-lists.
[11:30]
Certainly I have constituents who now have income benefits as a result of the Social Services ministry becoming involved and a number of different government funds attempting to maintain them in their own homes while they wait for surgery. It seems to me that there has to be some discussion around: are we simply moving the columns in the ledger? Perhaps if we provided the surgery in a more expeditious fashion, we could indeed save some money, not just for the health system but perhaps for the social services system as well. Would the minister kindly comment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me say that I have received similar correspondence. I have indicated clearly our targets in getting the number of people on wait-lists and the waiting time down, and we've backed that commitment with action. The other thing I would say to the member is that, in some cases, we need to recognize that there is a large element of patient choice in how long waits occur. There is a great variation in waiting times among individual surgeons who provide cardiac surgery. I think there are some -- I'm trying to remember -- 14 cardiac surgeons, and wait times for them range from an average wait of 33 weeks to an average wait of six for elective surgery -- this is in the last 12 months. So, at times, consultation can be done. A patient can indeed choose to receive care more promptly if other arrangements are made, and there is an element of that.
The other thing that needs to be recognized is that the decisions on where a person is on a waiting list is made on medical evaluation. If somebody moves to an emergency situation, surgery happens -- I think the member knows that, as well. As we work with the public on the issue of wait-lists, I think the challenge here is to say clearly to the general public that wait-lists exist in any health system. If the member knows of one where they don't, I'd appreciate her informing me. Sometimes people point south of the border and say: "Well, there's no wait there." The reality is there's huge wait if you don't have the financial resources to pay for a service. The difference in our province, in our country and in Canadian medicare, is that we ask people to wait based on medical assessment of urgency rather than the size of their wallet. I think it is a principle most British Columbians accept. Our challenge as a ministry is to make sure we're managing care that's provided in a timely manner, an effective manner, so
[ Page 14536 ]
that we maintain, I think, on the whole an improving record on wait-lists and waiting times.
The Chair: The Chair would draw the attention of members to the clock; we are slightly past the customary time of morning rising. Hon. minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We were just getting warmed up. I will take your advice and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The committee rose at 11:32 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]