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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 9
[ Page 14537 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
G. Campbell: I'd like to introduce to the House representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, who are here in Victoria today to meet with elected officials on all sides of the House. I hope the House will make them all welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to welcome two people to the gallery who have served well in their communities. We have with us today Sam Rizvi, who is the coordinator of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, and Mr. W.G. Fraser, who is the president and CEO of B.C. Rehab. They have served all people with disabilities well and effectively, and I ask the House to make them both welcome.
F. Garden: In the precincts today were 14 grade 6 students from Barlow Creek Elementary School in Quesnel. They were accompanied by their teacher Marguerite Hall. There were also several adults with them: Terri Blair, Jodi Baxter, Mike Gutfriend, Sandy Gutfriend, Mike Merrick, Cindy Zilmer, Charlene Lawrence, Darla Madland and Donna Hoemberg. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: My daughter-in-law Donna, wife of my son Ben, is in the gallery. She's accompanied by a very good friend from France, Vincent Bonnot. And in my office is my grandson Walter, who is just over a year old; he's being cared for well there. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.
Hon. B. Barlee: We have five students, actually, from W.E. Kinvig School in Surrey. They are as follows, because I think their names should be in Hansard: Nano Hawa, grade 7; Erica Wilson, grade 7; Paul Young, grade 7; Niki Beck, grade 6; and Kelly Clark, grade 6. The principal is Ken Cooper -- and there's the grade 3 teacher, Rosie Brinkert.
As well, I should introduce the following exchange students from South Africa: Bradley Putzier, Darren Korte, Delia Adams and Bronwyn Brown. The teacher is Miss Heather McCracken, and the principal is Mr. Norman Prentis. Please afford them all a very warm welcome.
G. Janssen: Visiting us today from the beautiful city of Port Alberni is Christa Schiffelers, who is also from near my hometown in Holland. She is accompanied by my mother, Maria Janssen. I ask the House to make them welcome.
J. Dalton: Tomorrow the Canadian rugby team will be kicking off its first game of the third World Cup, against Romania. But in reality, it's a British Columbia team, captained by Gareth Rees of Victoria. I want all members to know that this morning, I got up at 6:30 to watch the first game, in which the host country of South Africa defeated the defending champions, Australia, 27 to 18 in an outstanding game of rugby. I had the good fortune to be at the first World Cup in '87 in New Zealand, and I quite frankly would like to be in South Africa today to watch the Canadian team, hopefully, do well. I would ask the House to join me in wishing the Canadian team all the best in its endeavours tomorrow.
Deputy Speaker: Happily, we have our own scrum.
The Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm pleased to introduce representatives from the Housing Council of Upper Bavaria, who are here from Germany to explore housing issues in British Columbia. Leading the group are Hermann Schuster, president of the regional council of Upper Bavaria, and Kurt Weishausl, manager of the housing board. Would the House please make all of these gentlemen welcome.
G. Wilson: I'd like to have the House welcome today -- and I know that the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke would join me in welcoming him -- Rod Drown, who is the director of electoral area A, from the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District. He is someone who is down today and who listened to the debate with dismay, or at least in part with some dismay, I think. But would the House please make him welcome.
L. Fox: This afternoon, sitting with the Coalition of B.C. Businesses up in the gallery, is an individual, Mr. Tom Toynbee, who is a longtime friend of mine. The reason I introduce him to the House is that he served as the chairman of BCBC from its inception until two years ago and in that capacity served British Columbians well. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Records Review Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. This bill is one of several strong measures being taken by this government to help prevent the physical and sexual abuse of children. Under this legislation, criminal record checks will be mandatory for anyone who works with children or who may have unsupervised access to children in the ordinary course of their employment, and who is employed or licensed by or receives operating funds from the provincial government. The legislation will apply to applicants as well as to people currently working in these positions.
[2:15]
Criminal record checks will help to screen out those people whose criminal records indicate that they may present a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children. However, criminal record checks should not be regarded as a substitute for vigilance and good hiring practices. This is why the government is placing a strong emphasis on education in helping to prevent child abuse.
[ Page 14538 ]
This legislation has been developed with the assistance and support of many individuals and organizations who will be covered by the act. I would like to thank all of these people for their efforts in helping to create this legislation, which has achieved a successful balance between the protection of individual privacy and the protection of children.
Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that Bill 35, the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, be introduced and read for the first time.
This bill is being introduced to facilitate collective bargaining for firefighters and police officers and their employers. The bill will permit unions representing firefighters and police officers, or an employer of fire and police services, to have access to arbitration for the purposes of obtaining a final and binding resolution of a collective bargaining dispute.
Access to arbitration is defined in a rather unique way, which will become apparent when members study the bill. The legislation is intended to support rather than replace collective bargaining. The act contains provisions to ensure a balanced decision that reflects the concerns of both unions and employers. This act guarantees a process for addressing issues in a bargaining dispute without compromising the continuation of services critical to the protection of human life and property.
Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize any members, members will find on their desks a memorandum from me concerning question period guidelines. This is a re-issue of a document distributed by our Speaker in April 1994. I would ask and encourage members to review these guidelines. For the present, let me refer members to two very brief statements from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition. On page 337, May says:
"The purpose of a question is to obtain information or press for action; it should not be limited to giving information, or framed so as to suggest its own answer or convey a particular point of view, and it should not be in effect a short speech."
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order!
On the subject of answers to questions, Erskine May has the following to say, on page 345 of the twentieth edition: "An answer should be confined to the points...in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible...." I hope all members will be guided by these words.
PHYSICIAN SUPPLY IN FORT ST. JOHN
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the minister is aware, there is a critical physician-supply shortage in Fort St. John. Fort St. John has four times the number of patients per doctor as the provincial average, and eight times the number of patients per doctor as the lower mainland. Fort St. John is in a physician-supply crisis. Can this minister tell the people of Fort St. John when their community's critically low doctor-patient ratio will end?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Officials in the ministry have been working with the physician community and the hospital in Fort St. John for some time now to recruit new physicians. Initiatives to date have resulted in some leads. I regret to say that I think the needed number of additional general practitioners has not yet been attracted to the community. We will be continuing to work with the community and with the BCMA to make sure that we can attract physicians to that community.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond East on a supplemental.
L. Reid: When the question was posed to this minister on March 28, he was working on it, and he promised to come back to the table with a strategy. The fact that this minister continues to work on it does not warm the hearts of patients in Fort St. John.
Deputy Speaker: The member has a question?
L. Reid: Stand up, hon. minister, and provide the patients in Fort St. John with a strategy.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm sure the patients in Fort St. John will be warmed by this member's feigned outrage. The reality is that this government has been dealing with the question of physician supply and distribution, in cooperation with the BCMA, for the last year. That is why we put in place a supply measure that says that if you're a new physician practising in this province -- and over 100 additional physicians have located in this province in the last year -- and you want to practise in an over-serviced area, you only get paid 50 percent of normal fees. If you want to practise in an area where you're needed, we'll pay you 100 percent. If it's a remote area such as Fort St. John, we'll provide 115 percent. That's the sort of initiative that's needed, hon. member, not this feigned outrage.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order!
[ Page 14539 ]
NEW DIRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE
C. Tanner: In keeping with your pronouncement at the beginning of the question period, hon. Speaker, I've been asked to ask a question. [Applause.] Since it has been so well received before I have even given it, I'm sure everybody's going to pay a lot of attention to it.
My question is to the Minister of Health. On May 17 the Capital Regional District health department issued a report which finds serious flaws with the NDP's New Directions strategy. The report states: "Funding has not followed the health reform theme of shifting emphasis from treatment to prevention." An example the report notes is that the waiting time for HIV testing has increased from 7 to 39 days since 1993.
Deputy Speaker: The question.
C. Tanner: Can the minister explain -- here comes the question -- how these decreases in patient service adhere to the NDP health reform plan?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that I'm quite surprised by the member's statement. Had he reviewed funding for the Capital Regional District, he would know that funding to the Capital Regional District has gone up every year under this administration. He would know that last year, over $5 million in funds were allocated for new community-based services from the Closer to Home fund for the Capital Regional District. He would know that the decisions on how those funds should be spent were made by the new Capital Health Board, and that they are continuing the work of enhancing services for folks in Victoria.
The folks on the Capital Health Board ought to know, though, that far from increasing health spending by a quarter of a billion dollars, as we are doing this year, their services are threatened by the federal Liberal budget, which will reduce funding for health in post-secondary education by $800 million.
Deputy Speaker: Supplemental for Saanich North.
C. Tanner: Thank you. I think the Minister of Health should take note of what the Speaker said at the beginning of this question period, when he asked members from the government's side to give pertinent answers. Please, Mr. Speaker, you might also ask them not to be repetitious. We're getting awfully tired of those sorts of answers.
Deputy Speaker: Or engaging in overly long preambles, member.
C. Tanner: I'm just helping the Speaker with the work he has to do.
The CRD will have to cut preventive services in 1995 in order to meet budget shortfalls. According to the report's authors, this reduction of preventive program funding causes deterioration to patient services and does not -- repeat, not -- support least-cost community health care. Will the minister admit that something is seriously wrong with this new direction strategy when community health departments report that patients are the ones who are suffering from NDP health reforms?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Like other health care providers, the Capital Regional District will have to take the funding increase that has been provided this year and deliver services effectively and efficiently. They can do that. If they wish to scare the citizens of Victoria by admitting that they can't do that, then I suggest they should turn the responsibility over promptly to someone who can -- like the new Capital Health Board.
Finally, the member might want to share with his constituents the fact that we have rectified a historical injustice that has seen residents of the capital region fund health services, 30 percent of the budget for Capital Regional District health budgets, for years and years. This spring, the members from the Victoria area and I announced that we are rectifying that historical injustice by taking the load off local taxpayers, and that the province will assume 100 percent funding for health services delivered in the capital region.
B.C. HYDRO CHAIR'S TRAVEL EXPENSES
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Last Friday, in response to an FOI request, the chair of B.C. Hydro hastily released a summary of his expenses. He failed to include supporting documents with them. Over the last 17 months, John Laxton has racked up $78,000 in travel expenses. The minister has had a week to review that material. Is he satisfied that those claims are legitimate and acceptable under government standards?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes. Actually I just happen, coincidentally, to have the information here before me, hastily provided to me, no doubt, by B.C. Hydro. I do think that.... I appreciate that in the House, members of the opposition want to use material selectively. But let me just fill in the rest of the information, which the member was provided by B.C. Hydro.
Mr. Laxton has worked 260 days as chair since January 1994. He's entitled, by the order-in-council, to both a $4,000 honorarium and $500 per day, which would work out to $137,500. Mr. Laxton has not billed nor received one penny from B.C. Hydro during that period, because he doesn't want to allow the opposition to engage in scurrilous attacks on this question. He's worked 260 days for free on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I think it is a significant contribution made by an individual, which I believe we should not malign, Mr. Speaker. In addition to that, Mr. Laxton has been travelling -- although not charging for services -- on behalf of B.C. Hydro International, and of any bills associated with B.C. Hydro International, $61,000 are capitalized and included in the actual capital costs of any successful deals that might be struck with respect to that.
[2:30]
Deputy Speaker: The Third Party leader has a supplemental?
[ Page 14540 ]
J. Weisgerber: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers, I believe, will be shocked to learn that of the $77,523 in travel expenses, among them are first-class tickets to every corner of the globe, hundreds of dollars in billings for in-room movies and many bar services, and posh hotel rooms costing as much as $2,300. Thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars have been billed....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members, order. Question, please, member.
J. Weisgerber: Obviously, members opposite think thousands are not worthy of mention. These have been billed without supporting documents, without supporting invoices, without any indication other than a cover sheet from American Express.
Deputy Speaker: Member, the question, please.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister now initiate an internal audit to examine the expenses of the chair of B.C. Hydro, which appear to be extraordinary, to say the least?
Hon. G. Clark: I know that the FOI legislation has given a wealth of material for the member opposite to raise, but I want to remind members and the people of B.C. that when that member was Minister of Energy and responsible for B.C. Hydro, there was a full-time, paid chairperson for B.C. Hydro at some $200,000. B.C. Hydro International Ltd. was engaged in precisely the same kind of travel and expenses internationally to pursue jobs and investment here in British Columbia. These travel arrangements by Mr. Laxton -- at his own expense with respect to his time, which is very valuable -- on behalf of the people of British Columbia are securing significant work and opportunities internationally, and jobs and revenue here in British Columbia. I think it's unfortunate that the member opposite would malign Mr. Laxton's reputation and attempt to raise questions about his expenses, when his own salary.... He is working for free and is saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars on his own appointment, and he's generating revenue for British Columbia with these international agreements.
RESIGNATION OF CRANBROOK HOSPITAL BOARD CHAIR
L. Stephens: On April 25, a 17-year veteran and chair of the Cranbrook Regional Hospital board, Mr. Gene McDonald, resigned from his position. Mr. McDonald criticized the NDP government for giving major decision-making powers to regional health boards before their voting procedures or their community and regional health plans had been developed. Will the Minister of Health tell this House how many more community leaders will leave the system in frustration before the minister takes seriously the many concerns that people around this province have about the state of health care in this province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Regional health boards have now been established in all 20 regions of British Columbia...
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: All 20 regions.
...including the East Kootenays. Far from having a major governance authority at this time, they are in the process of preparing health plans and management structures which need to be approved before operational authority is transferred to them. The major decision-making they have made to date has been over allocation of Closer to Home funds. Since some 320 projects through that $42 million fund have now been allocated -- $42 million of new community-based services have been put in place around the province -- I would say the process is working pretty well right now.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.
L. Stephens: The regional transition teams that are established are without a clear role of the regional health board being clearly defined, and that is causing most of the difficulties that members of these councils are concerned about. This Cranbrook hospital board chair also expressed his frustration at the NDP government, which "forces collective agreements upon hospitals but does not provide the funds to pay for the increase in costs."
Deputy Speaker: Your question.
L. Stephens: Will the minister commit to listen to the people of British Columbia and put patients first in health care, in funding hospitals and services, not in fat-cat union contracts?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The way to put patient care first in British Columbia, hon. member, is to take the welter of conflicting boards and agencies that now deliver care, streamline them, get the administrative efficiencies that regional boards and community health councils can provide, and put that saving into patient care. That is precisely what we are doing. I would ask the hon. member if she and her party are prepared to stand up and tell the 20 regional health boards of the province which 15 of them the Liberal government is prepared to fire and which five they are going to preserve as pilot projects. I would ask you to stand up and say that....
Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period. The minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONES
Hon. B. Barlee: I think it's rather appropriate -- we're talking about thousands of dollars -- that I reply to a question I took on notice last week from the Leader of the Third Party, the Reform Party of British Columbia. I should quote, perhaps, what he said. I think this is quite important. He was "appalled to learn that the members of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation had, in fact, made calls to Coast-to-Coast Dating Services...." He went on to say that this practice was an abuse of taxpayers' money.
Well, essentially, I do agree with that statement from the member for Peace River South. I think it would be an abuse of taxpayers' money if it had been a significant amount. I shud-
[ Page 14541 ]
dered for a moment, because I thought he really was on to something. B.C. Pavco governs about five agencies right across the province; they have about seven million clients. This was a four-year study. So I thought, heavens, we will probably have thousands and thousands of phone calls that maybe have slipped through the line. And I thought for a fleeting moment we had a new Sam Spade or maybe another Sherlock Holmes or someone in sight, but after some due diligence, and after studying the situation very closely, I found we had an Inspector Clouseau. We run quite a tight ship, and with seven million people I thought, heavens, there must be a lot of calls. I have the list of calls in front of me, and of those seven million people, in four years -- 48 months -- we had ten calls per agency. That's one call every two years...
An Hon. Member: Oh, what a shame.
Hon. B. Barlee: ...which I think is really almost shameful. I don't know how we could track that. Those calls came to a total of $51.72 over four years, which is barely a dollar a month -- I know that's extravagant, I quite admit.
We looked at it very, very closely, and we looked at a couple of other things closely, as well. We found that about $2,000 worth of taxpayers' money had been spent researching that. It took $40 per month to find the $50. We could have actually put in a system that would have required $10,000 plus PST and GST. It would have required $1,000 a month, but I think I'd rather lose a dollar a month than $1,000 a month. Our system is really quite safe, so I would suggest, hon. Speaker, that there was definitely an abuse of taxpayers' money, but it was not on this side of the House.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In Section B, in the House, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
A. Warnke: Basically, there are still a number of questions that a number of members want to raise. What I would like to pursue in the next little while are a couple of concerns that have come up, and they essentially revolve around a document that has been circulating for a number of days. Actually, there are two documents: one has been circulating for a few weeks now, and another one for a few days.
This is in regard to a comment, first of all, that was made about a report. The British Columbia government has made it very clear that it would not surrender more than 5 percent of the province's land mass to aboriginals in land claim settlements. Considering the impact that this potentially has on how the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs addresses this in the next year and, especially, maybe even as soon as in the next few weeks.... I've received quite a few reactions and responses to that statement, which I would like to pursue with the minister briefly. I'm not going to go all afternoon on it.
The one concern with regard to the British Columbia government saying that it would not surrender more than 5 percent of the province's land mass has led to one kind of reaction: that aboriginal leaders were led to believe.... I suppose that they had higher expectations and were led to believe that the terms of the quantity and the quality of the land claims settlement would be much greater than what was supposedly stated as the government's position.
The one argument that I've heard.... I've heard the arguments from one extreme to the other, one suggesting that if the provincial government has given away 12 percent of the land dedicated to parks, why should an equivalent not be given to aboriginals? The other view is that 5 percent is too high. The argument that I've heard quite frequently for the past week is that 5 percent is too high because, first of all, the population of aboriginals in British Columbia is 3 percent, and half of that -- or 1.5 percent of the population of aboriginals -- are on-reserve. Therefore why 5 percent?
[2:45]
Then it invites.... I suppose I will fill the minister in on some of the other reactions. What form does this 5 percent take? It is still unclear. Is the government going to give 5 percent of the land in British Columbia that is sovereign? At least I was able to respond to that a little bit, because I know that in our last discussions, I did pose the question of whether any sort of land settlement would mean that the land owned and managed by aboriginals would be subordinate to provincial and federal jurisdiction -- that there would really not be anything equivalent to a provincial jurisdiction and what not. The minister reassured this House that at least the idea of aboriginal territory being sovereign is just not on. And, in fact, the documents make it pretty clear that any notion of sovereign territory to aboriginals is simply not on.
On the other hand, I guess the key word that triggered this was the term "surrender." It's not the aboriginals now surrendering land; in the context that it was put in, it was the government surrendering 5 percent to the aboriginals. If they are surrendering that, then I guess many members of the public took that as meaning that this is setting up some sort of a sovereign state. Despite the fact that we've actually explored this in earlier debate, the fact is that it illustrates once again the confusion that appears to be out there.
Part of it maybe even stems from the so-called 5 percent threshold. Where did this number, 5 percent, come from? Why was 5 percent chosen? From the public's point of view, there are some other disturbing concerns about what has been issued in the press. Those are just some opening remarks on this subject, and I would like the minister to clarify the numerical value of 5 percent. Where does this pop up from? Is this even accurate? Is there any percent out there? If it is 5 percent, maybe the minister could address the two wide variations of concern here, but still address the question of terms such as "sovereign" and "surrender" -- the meaning and implications of using those terms.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to acknowledge that the hon. member has moved up to the front bench. He's a little more difficult to see with my fading eyes, but I'm glad to see him
[ Page 14542 ]
there. I'd also like to take this opportunity to welcome the new member for Abbotsford to the House, who occupies the august chair that this member formerly occupied.
Before I proceed with my answer, I wonder if I could get clarification on the use of the word "surrender." I am not clear on what document or reference the hon. member is referring to.
A. Warnke: I believe that particular concern was expressed in the first document of April 19, 1995. The minister is raising an interesting point, because actually as I went through it, I did not see the term "surrender" appear. But where I did hear it and have seen it is in reports in response to the April document, which suggests that....
Perhaps I can quote here from the Vancouver Sun, and I believe this has been quoted not only once but twice in different reports. I'll try to find it specifically here. "This paper on treaties follows a similar report leaked last week that said the British Columbia government would surrender no more than 5 percent of the province's land mass to natives." That refers specifically to the April document.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the hon. member's question he made reference to the term "surrender" as though it was a term that existed in a provincial document. Or at least it gave me that impression, in the way in which he stated it. I'm not clear that that is the case. So I would like to read for the record the document that is the provincial document, which is what I think we should deal with. I don't intend to defend or criticize the phrases and terms used by the media in their reinterpretation of what is contained in a document.
With regard to B.C.'s approach to treaty settlements on the issue of land -- as I've said before -- as in other treaties, the province believes that most treaty agreements will include an area of land that will be owned and managed by the first nation. This area of treaty settlement land will be the subject of negotiation and will vary, depending on the interests and needs of individual first nations and non-aboriginal communities, as well as on local circumstances. It is the province's objective to ensure that existing Indian reserves are incorporated within treaty settlement lands. Overall, the total land held by first nations after treaty settlements are completed in British Columbia will be less than 5 percent of the province's land base.
Now, with regard to this question, if we go back to the words used by the hon. member when he was phrasing the initial part of the question, he referred to -- and he used the same phraseology, I think, that existed in the news report -- the province surrendering or giving up 5 percent of the land. I would say that in that phrase is a need for caution, because I'm sure if the hon. member thinks about it, he will find an inaccuracy in that statement itself. The statement implies something which is clearly incorrect, because currently more than 1 percent of the land base is held in trust by the federal government on behalf of first nations. We have included that number within the 5 percent.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that I have just attended a meeting of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. At that committee meeting this morning I heard a lot of positive comment about the province having put that figure out there, based generally on the proportional recognition of it being less than 5 percent, which is an approximation of the aboriginal population of the province. At that table I heard different views about whether it's too much or too little. But what everybody there was agreed on was that it was really valuable to have that target figure out there, for two reasons. It puts focus onto the question, because we did have reports that were quite outrageous -- that 111 percent of the land of the province is under claim, therefore somebody is going to give it all away, which was never said by anybody and which has never even been a glimmer of a gleam of anybody's idea of what was going to happen. Being able to put that out there means that we have parameters. Now we know that on the one hand, first nations are putting out their opening positions based on their understanding of traditional territory. We, as a province, have been able to put out that target figure in a draft document, because we want to hear what the people of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the regional advisory committee, the members of this House and other members of the general public have to say about that.
As the hon. member has pointed out, we are now receiving some very valuable comment from the public that will inform the eventual target that will be the basis of the provincial mandates on this issue. So we have performed a very valuable public service in being able to get the specificity into that. It's subject to what we hear from the general public, but I want the hon. member to know that with what I have heard so far it's very positive, by and large. I think that is reassuring. If some concern is being expressed by first nations, I understand that. But I think that first nations would respect the fact that we, as a province, have a right and a responsibility to put out our parameters, just as they have theirs. That's part of how negotiations work. So the public dialogue is very, very valuable, and I am receiving affirming comments about that as I go around to these various advisory processes.
The hon. member raised the point about comparing this to the 12 percent protected areas in parks. It's not even apples and oranges in a comparison like that; it's more like apples and elephants. There is no comparison whatsoever. When we are talking about protected areas in parks, it is something that is to be a benefit to all British Columbians and to all future generations, regardless of whether they are first nations or not. We recognize that in some parks we are working on joint management processes that would honour such things as traditional aboriginal food gathering and ceremonial gathering activities within those parks. So there is a very real compatibility within that process, and the idea that 12 percent of the province's representative ecosystems would be there for people of all backgrounds to enjoy is certainly important. And it's valuable to have representations that were there at the time of contact when what we're dealing with now is about what has happened since the time of contact.
The question also included the question: what form does it take? I believe what I just read into the record has clarified that point, and we've clarified that point in this debate on three or four previous occasions. The form is that it would be equivalent to fee simple land. It would be land that first nations could use for collateral in establishing businesses or in entering into economic partnerships. It would certainly be a departure from the paternalism of their land being held in trust by the federal government. That simply has to go. The fact that we have been able to get some specificity into a target figure has been very helpful.
[ Page 14543 ]
A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's remarks. When terms such as "surrender" are being used and more or less conveying an impression to the public, it's always really necessary to qualify whether it is appropriate to use the term "surrender" or something like that. Since it has been out in the media forum, I believe some sort of clarification is essential. The minister has provided that, which I appreciate.
I also appreciate the minister's response with regard to the 5 percent choice, insofar as the minister seemed to be very explicit about linking that to the population size of the aboriginal community in British Columbia. We had an earlier discussion, and we canvassed this a bit. It's not necessary to repeat it, but I believe I noted -- and I think the minister also responded positively -- that there is a wide variety of interpretation as to what constitutes the population of the aboriginal community in British Columbia.
My own reflection, when one begins to talk about a 74,000 or 150,000 population, is that this is where there is a great variation in those percentages. This is the first time I've actually heard that the percentage chosen is relative to the population size in the province, percentage-wise. That's how I'm interpreting the minister's remarks, and I appreciate that. If I'm still off the mark, I would appreciate any further clarification, but that's how I understand it, and I appreciate those remarks.
In line with these concerns related to the 5 percent maximum threshold, the following problem was also expressed to me. Is that more or less final now, or is that just a negotiating position? Somewhere along the line, might we actually see some changes of the use of that 5 percent maximum threshold? It has been expressed to me by using the following example, and I think it really helps us here in flushing out this problem.
[3:00]
This is with regard to the Nisga'a. In the context of any ceding of land to the Nisga'a in settlement, in whatever form, is it possible that an escalation clause could be a part of the settlement in the Nisga'a? This is a very critical question for some people, because if there is an escalation clause saying we have a settlement, but it's a settlement only for the time being, then what we may want is to explore another change of circumstances.
I know we've explored this before, and the minister is quite right. One thing you don't want is an ironclad agreement that's carved in stone and cannot be altered. Yet, at some time in the future, one might want to revisit some aspect that might be changed, and so on. Both of us have used the example of the Musqueam case on Southwest Marine Drive in Vancouver as a good example of why you may want to revisit a change of some sort.
There is another problem here. Using the Nisga'a as an example, this is something that could be carved in stone, in some cases, because somehow it has to be incorporated into the constitution of Canada. Indeed, all treaties that are eventually finalized throughout British Columbia have to be in some form that meets the requirements of the constitution of Canada. Hence, what could occur....
There is a fear in the case of the Nisga'a, I suppose, that you are incorporating an escalation clause that not only allows you to revisit some fine tuning from time to time but could reopen the whole negotiations again. Where more negotiations can follow, then we have a very difficult situation indeed. We do not have an agreement. We have the appearance of an agreement, but we don't have an agreement.
The minister doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want to, but a cynic may even go so far as to say that if it were to occur, there may be the appearance of an agreement with the Nisga'a before the end of June -- or at any time, I suppose -- but after an election, all of a sudden we may end up revisiting the whole Nisga'a case all over again. Rather than having something with some degree of finality that establishes some sort of certainty and confidence, we've got something that's on very rapidly shifting ground. This is a concern that I want to express.
A number of people have said: "What does that 5 percent mean in the long term if there is an escalation clause?" I suppose it's really relevant to ask questions with regard to the Nisga'a, as an example. Is there such thing as an escalation clause that may appear in which we could revisit the whole negotiations all over again? Is this likely to occur in a number of treaties? Is there some sort of finality with this 5 percent threshold?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I wanted to make sure that I introduced the students just arriving in the gallery today. We have dozens and dozens of my constituents: students from Thunderbird Elementary School, in my riding of Vancouver-Hastings, in grades 5 and 6. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Duncan. I expect that they will very much enjoy the debate today in the Legislature. Many of the students are first nations students, and it will be particularly relevant to them. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: I too would like to welcome those students and say that they have a very fine cabinet minister here in their MLA.
Unless the hon. member can identify some kind of a document that uses the term "escalator clause," the fact is that there is no escalator clause.
A. Warnke: No, so far as I see it.... Of course, the Nisga'a agreement is not published, simply because we're nowhere near there. What I'm expressing is really the concern that when we're toying around with the idea of establishing a treaty, and when we start using terms such as the 5 percent threshold and what not, is there the prospect of an escalation clause? That's essentially the concern that I'm raising. If it is final.... Maybe one supplementary question to that is: when the minister says that there is no escalation clause, is that because there is no escalation clause in any of the treaties, which we've not finalized yet? Really, the supplementary to that is: nonetheless, is there the prospect of an escalation clause? If the minister says no, I'm willing to accept that. Believe me, that goes a long way to alleviating a lot of fears in British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, there's no prospect of the province supporting an escalator clause. I'm glad to be able to put that on the record.
[ Page 14544 ]
While I have the floor, I'd like to take a moment to respond to a couple of questions that were taken on May 17 from members of the Liberal opposition. Perhaps I should ask the Aboriginal Affairs critic of the Liberal opposition if it's okay with him if I respond to these questions now, or if he would prefer to send a note so that they are in the House when I respond to them.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: No, these were questions that were asked during estimates.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: I will proceed.
The first is a question from the member for Saanich North and the Islands regarding service agreements between municipalities and first nations. The member's understanding of the number of service agreements was not correct. To date, five first nations with taxing authority have service agreements with municipalities providing services to their on-reserve, non-native lessees. To date, seven first nations are in service agreement negotiations with municipalities providing service to their lessees. This is a total of 12, not 40 as cited by the member in his question.
The second response is to the member for Delta South, whose question on May 17 was with regard to school taxes on property on reserve lands. The provincial Indian Self Government Enabling Act of 1990 was enacted after the federal Indian Act was amended in 1988, granting first nations a jurisdiction to tax lessees on designated reserve lands. The federal amendment was made with little consultation with the province. By enacting the legislation, B.C. wanted to ensure that on-reserve lessees would not be paying both first-nations and provincial taxation. B.C. knew that provincial revenues would be forgone, but this step was necessary to avoid double taxation for on-reserve lessees. In 1994 the amount of forgone revenue is estimated at between $6 million and $7 million.
A. Warnke: I will alert both members about the statements given by the minister. I believe the member for Delta South may actually have one other question as well, but I thank the minister for those responses.
I also want to pursue a second document that I made reference to, entitled "B.C.'s Approach to Treaty Settlements," put out by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on May 12, 1995. Once again, this has got some celebrated press, I suppose -- newspapers and others have picked it up. In it, again, there were some concerns being expressed. But essentially, I want to pursue with the minister.... Perhaps this is a way of clarifying the government's position -- not that I'm going to work for the government, it's up to the minister to do that -- and the notion of developing treaties that really focus on future needs rather than past injustices. I've actually got before me not only the May 12 document but also the previous April document that I referred to.
I must admit that my antenna also picked up on this notion that if treaties were to focus on future needs rather than on past injustices, then that really takes us right back to almost the very beginning of the debate this year, beginning with the point I have raised about discussing the nature and implications of Delgamuukw and getting that clarified for the future.
The reason is that a number of people, once again.... I was really surprised in the last 24 hours. If I recall, the original report talking about this particular problem, expressed in the Vancouver Sun, stimulated a sort of response questioning what this is all about. I guess there is a perception out there: "What about it? Isn't that really getting us away from something in terms of a land claims settlement? After all, if the land claims settlement is based on future needs, how are we to address that?" People have some obvious concerns, and I guess this was expressed in the Vancouver Sun as well. I know that the minister and most of us do not like to read the newspapers. I always say that if you don't like what you see in the newspapers, don't read them, but you have to pay some attention to them, because they reflect a certain opinion that's out among the public.
Upon reflection -- I started thinking about this as well -- there are a number of questions associated with this reference to future needs. It opens up the prospect for a whole host of issues to be dealt with, now and in the future, without really settling anything in the present. Unfortunately, perhaps future generations will have to deal with something that may be constitutionally entrenched. First, there are a number of concerns. I'll just give out some bullets of what some members of the public have said to me: "Who else is entitled to be addressed according to future needs?"; "Does this mean, then, that non-aboriginals are left out?"; and "This will be seen as unfair, if that's the case."
I would really like to explore this as well and get it clarified, because maybe the newspapers are entirely wrong. Maybe we're headed in an entirely.... There's a perception that's leading us in an entirely misleading direction that the ministry does not intend to head us down. But just in case there is some accuracy to the reference to developing treaties along the lines of future needs rather than past injustices, it does open up all these court cases again, stemming from Delgamuukw and actually going back to Calder, but we need not explore that any further.
[3:15]
With Delgamuukw and other key court cases, the courts have advised us what is needed. What is needed is some sort of remedy for an aboriginal interest that has been lost in the past, a loss of aboriginal, precolonial traditional activities. In that kind of context, the courts have sort of guided us that what is needed is some sort of fair compensation for what has existed in the past, and to somehow rectify that. The courts have never said -- and this is my view of the courts, and I actually have been reading through the cases -- go beyond that and try to anticipate something in terms of doing something in the future to rectify injustices of the past. If anything, the courts have suggested that the aboriginal rights activities have taken place on the land and that should be addressed, that aboriginal rights inherent in their distinct cultures should be addressed and that this is part of the compensation package. With that sort of sentiment attached to it, I would like the minister to put on the record the meaning behind the reference, if in fact it is valid, to future needs rather than past injustices as the basis for negotiating treaties.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, when we review the 11 points that this hon. member read into the record at the opening of estimates.... It was an affirmation of the B.C. provincial government's position in entering into the Treaty Commission process as it ensued from the task force report,
[ Page 14545 ]
which was in part commissioned by the former administration's Minister of Native Affairs. Therefore I think we have validation in this House on the part of existing members. The current Aboriginal Affairs critic has espoused B.C.'s action in entering into the Treaty Commission process, pursuant to the recommendations in the report that the present leader of the Reform Party had a major role in enabling, when they commissioned the task force to come up with the terms of reference that led to the setting up of the Treaty Commission. So I think we should make it very, very clear for the record that the three major parties in this House -- the government and the two opposition parties -- have, I would say, both implicitly and explicitly supported the position that this present government is taking in entering into that process.
When you enter into that process, there are certain approaches which I think are fundamental to that. One is that you recognize that the underlying position is a future-oriented negotiation which seeks, through a relationship based on recognition and respect, to come up with honourable treaties. The recognition here is that that's a better way to resolve existing problems than going through the courts. The hon. member is referring to court decisions, but I would remind him that the courts make judgments -- usually inadequate judgments. They usually don't solve our problems for us. They may give a few indicators, but they usually don't solve our problems for us. But those decisions are based on their understanding of the law and their understanding of the law in its historical context. Therefore the courts are not prospective in the sense of giving us a blueprint, a map or a guideline for the future; they give us a decision based on a set of circumstances at a point in time. It remains the responsibility of those of us who do our work in this chamber to be creating the kind of future that serves future points in time. That is why we believe it's very consistent with our role and our responsibility to be involved in this treaty-making process.
Let's remember, too, that treaty-making, contract-making and negotiating agreements are carried out by government with a wide range of those who make up our province. There is a great deal of focus, understandably, on the first nations at this time because of the unfinished business that is involved here.
When we're talking about future needs, it's kind of an interesting question. There's the question: do we base what we do on future needs? I think that one sort of silent part of that question is: if you do that, you might really be giving away the farm. On the other hand, do you base it on past injustices? I think that there is an attempt to create some kind of trap in that question. The best way to respond to it is to say that I'll just take those two questions and answer them both, and I'll assume there's no trap there. I'd like to hear the hon. member also say what his position is on that, because it would be interesting to find out to what extent his declaration on the opening day of estimates is consistent with the principles that are implicit and explicit in entering into the Treaty Commission process, which he espouses. I would point out that we do not base modern treaties on past injustices. It is important that we understand our history and that we do not repeat the mistakes of history. That's important; that's something that every member of this House would agree with. But we do not base the decision on past injustices; we do not base them on guilt or shame. That is not useful. That is not a creative kind of emotional state to be in when making these kinds of decisions that affect the future.
Just to give you another example, we understand that some first nations have paid to have companies such as Price Waterhouse do reviews of the amount of area taken out of their version of a traditional territory -- the amount of resources taken out -- and then they've reported on the value of that. We don't base treaty negotiations on their assessment of that value, and we don't base treaty negotiations on those arguments that say we should add up all of the money that's gone into education and health services, etc., since the time of the Indian Act and base it on that. We don't base it on either one of those factors. We base it on entering into an honourable and respectful relationship in which we seek to achieve honourable and lasting treaties that serve the purpose of the future.
Those treaties, first of all, should be workable, affordable and fair. Fairness means that we affirm the basic position of British Columbians: that they want to be fair, that they want to see this issue settled. I don't think they want to see it settled in a way that perpetuates the cycle of poverty, poor health and high infant mortality rates that we see in the aboriginal community. I don't think the average British Columbian wants to see that happen.
I think the average British Columbian wants to see treaties that enable a process that will kick-start a new approach to economic development, which bodes well for the economic future of the first nations and also for the economic future of all other British Columbians because of a more harmonious relationship. This is a relationship in which we can see more enterprises such as the Babine forest company, which is a native-owned company that employs over 400 persons, most of them non-aboriginal, and which was enabled to become successful because of a partnership with very good business partners from the non-aboriginal community.
That's the type of thing we want to see resulting from the kinds of possibilities that will be enabled by treaties. Indeed, that's one of the real values of having groups such as the regional advisory committees and the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. Because we have people sitting right there in that advisory process -- people like Marlie Beets of COFI and other people who know how those businesses operate and can sit down and work with first nations in seeking to evolve those kinds of partnerships. That is happening in the pre-treaty era, and we think that can happen to an even greater extent in the post-treaty era.
When questions come up that say, "Really, we suggest that treaties should be absolutely limited to whatever is defined in the courts" -- as is stated by certain interests -- we have to ask: is that going to produce the kind of benefit for non-aboriginals, such as certainty, such as economic opportunity, that we really want to see there at the end of the day when the treaties are completed? Therefore, if the answer is yes, we do want to see it create that kind of benefit for non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people as well, then in the context of negotiations, we sit down and talk about what can work for everybody's needs for the future. A negotiation that talks only about what can work in terms of the needs of only one of those parties isn't going to be a successful negotiation. It has to relate to the needs of all.
When we talk about future needs, the answer is yes, we base treaties on future needs, and we do so proudly. But it's the future needs of all British Columbians, recognizing the special nature of first nations as has been recognized in the courts and in the constitution of Canada.
[ Page 14546 ]
A. Warnke: One of the ironies is that a lot of what the minister has said is still consistent with the comments I made on the opening day. Especially when we get into the broad, general aspirations of trying to develop a treaty that does establish some certainty, and that treaties are done in terms of honour, recognition and respect, this is still consistent with my opening position.
But I think there is a bit of a problem when it is stated that, well, the courts have actually been vague on this. That's one view of court decisions. The fact is that the court decisions.... Gosh, sometimes when you reread them you are not so bamboozled after all about the language.
Delgamuukw is an example. It's a 394-page document. It's not a light document that says in just a few pages, well, you know, it's really all up in the air. It's rather specific. There is a decision at the end of it. The justices appropriately went to great lengths to explain their position, and 394 pages in a document is no light matter.
Indeed, Delgamuukw isn't the only one. You can go back to Sparrow, and it's pretty specific. It's pretty specific in terms of what Sparrow won in that particular case and as to what the plaintiff did not get. It's pretty explicit as to what was denied, where the plaintiff lost. There's even an impression in Delgamuukw that somehow, well, this is a draw or something like that.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: No, really -- take it in its core. There is a decision that comes out of Delgamuukw, and other cases as well....
[3:30]
In another perspective, just taking a prima facie look at the decisions, the courts have actually been pretty explicit that this is the law -- this is where we do see perhaps further clarification or whatever, and this is perhaps desirable in terms of exploring through negotiations, but nonetheless this is the law. It's in this kind of context that I think people are really concerned.
If we're interested in developing a viable aboriginal community in the future, once the territory has been established by various first nations throughout British Columbia -- and it's very clear what the boundaries are, how they are to be organized and managed, and what ownership is and all the rest of it -- is it not possible then to have other kinds of negotiations that really deal with some of the concerns which have been phrased, let's say, in the context of social policy and socioeconomic concerns? Is this not better outside the parameters of a treaty? After all, the treaty does take on some status of a constitutionalized nature. That's the concern I've had expressed to me, and I must admit that so far I've found that pretty darn convincing.
So I would like to hear a counterargument. I'm open; I've got an open mind on this discussion. I certainly do not question the direction the minister is headed in, in terms of what we have to do to get aboriginal communities on some sound socioeconomic footing in the future. I guess it's still a concern by what means, and should that means be expressed in something that takes on a constitutionalized form -- which, after all, is pretty close to having something carved in stone. In order to change that, this means the involvement of both the federal and provincial governments. This involves the first nations, and it is a very cumbersome process to undo something that the courts had intended for us to explore but didn't really encourage us. By way of an example.... Maybe the minister would like to respond to that as well.
From some of the court decisions, it's been very clear that after conservation and ecological concerns have been met -- let's say of the fishing industry -- then aboriginal rights, especially with regard to food, social and ceremonial uses, have to be respected foremost and commercial and sports fishing afterwards. If the reference to future needs is the primary focus of these negotiations rather than compensation, I suppose what some people are concerned about is whether it is possible that commercial activity would become part of the future needs, and all of a sudden you're incorporating in a constitutional and legal context some activity the court didn't have any intention for us to address, something that is really.... I think it's very fair to say that some people have a concern that it will give an advantage to one particular group in society at the expense of another group.
I understand where the minister is coming from and where he's going, and it's commendable and all the rest of it. But there is that other concern among Canadians: are we really doing something when we're institutionalizing and putting into some sort of quasi-constitutional context something where one group in society has some sort of an advantage over another? We have explored some of these ideas before, and I think that both the minister and I have heard the arguments from the first nations.
While we haven't experienced as aboriginals, we haven't experienced any advantages.... They have experienced disadvantages up to now, and everybody recognizes that. On the other hand, there is a concern that we are going to institutionalize something that, at the heart of it, may still provide an advantage to one group of Canadians over another which the courts did not intend us to do and which would be better addressed outside the treaty context. It may be for awhile or it may be for some sort of perpetuity, however that's defined, that we want to give a perceived disadvantaged group of the past some advantages in society. Indeed, that's the nature of affirmative action programs incorporated in the United States. And in this country and in other democratic countries, that's the purpose. But those could be met outside the parameters of the treaty process. It's that which I really want to explore with the minister.
G. Wilson: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: In the gallery this afternoon we have three people I consider good friends, and who are constituents from Powell River: Mr. George Fulcher, his wife, Rose Fulcher, and Richard McDonald. The three are attending the B.C. Association for Community Living conference. They are self-advocates who have really taken a leadership role in the province in moving forward self-advocacy for those people who formerly were institutionalized and now have been moved back into the communities and lead productive lives.
I would also point out that in this spring's edition of Guardianship News, Richard McDonald has the lead article entitled "Banishing the Ghost of Incapability." It's an out-
[ Page 14547 ]
standing article to let all British Columbians know what can happen when self-advocates stand up and take their lives into their own hands. I wish the House would make them all welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would also like to join in welcoming the individuals whom the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has just introduced, and to say that I certainly do agree with the comments he made. It's very inspiring for us to have these people present. I think anything that brings into our jaded atmosphere that which is also the stuff of hope is very ennobling and encouraging.
With regard to the points that the hon. member just made, he referred to the courts as not being vague, and I think that's right. The courts aren't vague; in fact, I think they're very clear. But they're also very inadequate in terms of resolving issues that we need to be resolving in a proactive way among ourselves. The courts recognize that in their decisions, and they state in their decisions that they are not able to provide those definitions of rights that are undefined at the present time. When the hon. member is referring to what issue is inside the treaty and what is outside the treaty, I really do believe that if he took a careful look at the documents that have recently been released to the regional advisory committee tables he would recognize that that is absolutely right and recognized within those documents of the provincial positions.
It's difficult sometimes to talk about this in the abstract, so let's talk about it in a concrete situation, that being the Nisga'a. As I've read into the record before -- I believe this hon. member was in the House -- with regard to the salmon issue, which I do recognize is a controversial issue, any of the province's support for the federal position regarding commercial entitlement outside the treaty would only be provided if there were effective measures for monitoring and enforcement. So we're talking right there about a commercial activity outside a treaty. Another activity outside a treaty that we're talking about with the Nisga'a is the forest tenure concept. Negotiations will be required to ensure that provincial policies on fibre and on jobs are protected for British Columbians in general within the context of that, and that would not be an entrenched provision within a treaty. So we're not talking here -- and I don't think it should be implied -- about entrenching everything that is part of that which is the outcome of treaty negotiations. I would hope that that would clarify that point.
I would also point out to the hon. member, when he refers to the courts and what the courts have told us to do or not to do, that this government has come into some considerable criticism for the fact that we have an interim measures policy. Yet we have a recent court decision where a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had been stopping logging for seven years because there was no interim measures policy and no treaty-making policy. I think what we have coming from the courts is an affirmation of provincial policy.
It raises an interesting point. Hon. Chair, I know I'm not in a position to ask questions of the Liberal critic, but he may want to advise the House with regard to how he explains what I say and what many others say is an inconsistent position, when he calls for a moratorium on interim measures. Here we have a judge opening up an area for logging because we do have interim measures, and he's saying that his party takes a position that is opposed to interim measures. Also, his party, in taking that position, is, I believe, fundamentally inconsistent with the very first point of his platform, which is that they support the Treaty Commission process. It would be interesting to know how the hon. member would explain what I see as a direct contradiction.
Notwithstanding everything I've said, I do want to say that I do appreciate the hon. member affirming and upholding the position this government is taking, and that is the spirit in which I take his position. I believe he's affirming and upholding what this government is doing, because he has said that they support the B.C. Treaty Commission process and that they would continue that process that we've entered into in the unlikely event that they ever have the opportunity to make that decision.
But there is one thing that I do want to say, hon. member. I do believe that the leader of the Liberal Party -- the Leader of the Official Opposition -- has been remarkably silent in coming forward to support this hon. member in what he has said. I find that confusing and concerning. I'm concerned for this hon. member, because I would hate to think that he is taking a leadership role in these issues and not being supported by his leader. I would hope that between the two of us, the hon. member and I might encourage the Leader of the Official Opposition to come into the chamber and advise the House to what extent he affirms and supports the platform that the hon. member put forward during the opening day of the Aboriginal Affairs estimates.
[3:45]
I think that the public is interested in knowing where the leader of the Liberal opposition stands on these issues. We've heard different things said in different venues, and it sounds like he's developing that ability to bend over backwards in two directions at the same time. I think that those of us who are in positions such as that of the critic know how important it is to have the support of the leader with regard to the policy positions we are taking forward. I know that when I was in opposition, I always had that support; I always knew I could count on it; it was always up front. On behalf of this member, I would expect that there would be nothing less than that.
L. Fox: I'm almost hesitant to enter into this debate. Perhaps I could enlighten the minister that if and when the Leader of the Official Opposition gets to really understand the Reform policies on the native issues, then you'll see him come forward with the Liberal position. Because if you look at much of the policy they've developed over the last couple of years, it's come out of the Reform Party policy book.
But with that said, I want to ask a few questions around this leaked information out of Smithers, which has been the topic of discussion here for a good part of this afternoon. While I don't want to accuse the minister or this government of going through a new process of public announcements, it seems more and more that we have policy that comes forward from supposed leaks or undisclosed sources, rather than the routine press release and the public announcement which we used to see coming out on major policy issues such as this. Perhaps it's because it seems like it gets more notice in the press if it appears to be something which isn't supposed to be public, rather than if it's the government trying to announce a particular initiative.
[ Page 14548 ]
The first question I have, though, around the 5 percent is: how was that figure or that percentage picked? If you use the geographical base of the province and take 5 percent of that -- divide that by the aboriginal population -- it would appear that it's very close to the Treaty 8 settlements. Was that the formula, or was there some other formula for picking the 5 percent?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, it's not based on a formula such as the hon. member refers to with regard to the Treaty 8 issue.
Before I get into answering his question about the 5 percent, I just want to comment on the issue of leaks. I want to make it very, very clear that this government, this ministry and this minister in no way have had any involvement in arranging leaks. I have said, and I'm completely transparent and honest on this issue....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, as I am on every issue. I want to make it very clear that on this issue there's no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I appreciate those who have, for whatever reason -- and I think often it was for the wrong reasons -- released this information, because it has really helped. It really has.
But we believe that a commitment to an agreement is a commitment to an agreement -- what I sometimes refer to as the Weisgerber agreement, in the Nisga'a phrase. I have been told that I can't refer to a member in the House, but I believe when you use that as an adjective it is all right. I may hear from the Chair about that. There is an agreement within the Nisga'a's protocol that was signed by the former Minister of Native Affairs, who is currently the Leader of the Third Party, which has a very stringent confidentiality clause in it. We've learned from that how important it is to have openness protocols attendant at the treaties so that it can be as open as it possibly can.
But we do agree that the information that has come out through the documents that were lost by the federal minister and released by the federal Reform Party, and also documents that were referred to as leaked the other day -- which really was quite remarkable because in no way was that a leak.... It was at a public meeting of the Smithers regional advisory committee, and the media were invited. It really escapes me why Stewart Bell has persisted in referring to that as a leak. But anyway, that's not important.
The fact is, hon. member, that in putting out the figure 5 percent.... You know, I suppose I could say: "Well, we spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a study that came up with this figure, and therefore we put it up." The fact is that we didn't. It's an unsophisticated target that is put out there, based, generally speaking, on the aboriginal population of the province.
It has served to focus the kind of comment that I received from the members of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee this morning. There was some comment that said it was too much. I would say that more comment said it was actually pretty close to what they thought should be right on. But the fact of putting the figure out there has enabled the public dialogue around that to be heard, which we need to hear because it's a draft document and a draft figure. It is something that allows people to be very specific with regard to how that's viewed. The other thing is that it deals with the fact that there are these estimates out there of 111 percent of the province, based on what people have filed as their concept for their traditional territory. So you need those parameters, because when people start negotiations they start wide apart and they work together.
In putting that out there, we think it's provided a very real service. We don't think it requires some kind of rocket scientist to do a study to come up with a figure like that. We have no apologies whatsoever for putting that figure out there. I am very pleased with the positive comments that I'm receiving from the general public and that I received this morning at the TNAC meeting about the fact that we have put that figure out there.
I want to make it very clear -- and I meant to make this clear earlier in responding to a similar question from the official opposition critic -- that this figure is an end-of-the-day figure; it's a general figure. We do know that the demographics of this great province are so varied that in some areas it might be a bit higher than that, and in some areas it might be lower than that. We're talking about an averaged-out figure at the end of the day.
The last thing I want to say is that I've answered all of these questions about eight times in the estimates so far.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sorry, hon. member. It wasn't always this hon. member that asked the question, but if one were to read the Hansard, one would find that these questions have been abundantly answered.
L. Fox: I appreciate the fact that the minister has had very long estimates, not only because of the length of the debate but because they've been strung out. Other items have come onto the agenda, such as that of the last three days. I believe it would have been a lot more valuable to spend time on the aboriginal estimates rather than debating the resolution that was put forward. However, I want to go on.
The minister alluded to this 5 percent, at the end of the day, as the global figure for the province, but it will be larger in some cases and smaller in others. I'm going to reserve my judgment on whether or not that's a fair number until I see what the package contains at the end of the day. Whether or not this 5 percent is in the valleys or just where this five percent is.... Is it a fair allocation, or is it the most productive forest lands that are being acquired? Those are all questions that I know the minister can't answer today, and I don't expect him to. The question of 5 percent and whether or not that's something that I as a member can support is going to be held in reserve until we see what the total package is at the end of the day.
Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the hon. member letting me comment on that. When the hon. member says that he reserves judgment on this figure, that is exactly what I want to hear. I want to hear the judgments and the considered opinions of members of the opposition on that figure, based on their knowledge of their areas and their understanding of the issues. I know that this hon. member does very careful research, and he has provided us with much of that research. That's probably another question that is coming up a little later.
[ Page 14549 ]
The regional advisory committees, the treaty advisory committees, the treaty negotiation advisory committees, the public forums that are happening out there, the people who are watching the negotiations on cable, the official opposition, the Third Party and the other opposition parties all need to be heard from with regard to the positions that this province is putting out there. That's why these are draft documents, and that's why the feedback that we receive from members opposite and from government MLAs is valuable. I appreciate this hon. member entering into that dialogue. I hope he will enter into it with constituents and keep me informed with regard to how that is going out there.
What I am saying is that what I've been hearing since that figure came out has been, for the most part, very positive. So we need to hear the public dialogue on that; we need to hear what the balance of opinion is on that. We need to think of it in the context of what it is that enables a people, which we want to see overcome the poverty and some of the dysfunction that has beset their lives because of an old relationship that doesn't work well... What is going to work, and what can we work together to build that will kick-start a new approach that will lead to an economically interdependent economy?
Before the hon. member came into the House, I referred to something that I think he's familiar with: Babine Forest Products, an aboriginal company that was assisted by some very responsible and well-qualified companies that have become part of that joint venture. It employs over 400 people, and most of them are non-aboriginal people. I think that those kinds of opportunities are what we want to see this process lead to.
It's also true that whatever the land base is at the end of the day -- whatever the percentage on a provincewide basis, whatever it is in a particular area -- that is only one part of a totality, and all those things have to be considered in that relationship. But there is no set formula that would lead to land quantum or money in any particular negotiation. It has to be something that relates to demographics, to the needs of existing leaseholders and licence holders, to the needs of the first nations, having identified their traditional uses, etc. We also know that there are significant claims in areas where there is virtually no Crown land, and therefore, obviously, in those areas it's going to be a much lower land category. In areas such as the Nass, where it's.... I believe that there are fewer than 200 non-aboriginal persons living within the Nass claim area. When we consider that, we're considering an area where we might see the figure go somewhat higher.
[4:00]
So those demographics have to be a factor, and the geographical variations have to be a factor. That's one of the reasons that it's very important to be hearing feedback on these issues from all members of this House as well as members of the public. But we believe it serves a purpose to put those kinds of figures out there.
And, hon. member, I think that if you have not received copies of the documents we have been referring to, which were at the regional advisory committee table in Smithers and have been released at other regional advisory committees, we would like you to have an opportunity to look at them. I believe they respond to your point that you want to know how this fits into a number of other issues that also need to be considered. Those issues are included within those documents.
L. Fox: At the end of the line of questioning on this subject, I was going to request a copy of those documents, seeing as they are public, because I haven't seen them. Unfortunately, the negotiators met in Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake over the course of last Thursday and Friday morning -- Wednesday and Thursday, I think it was. But as the minister will be well aware, it's not often easy to attend those when you have an obligation to be here, so I wasn't able to go to those particular meetings.
But I have had some feedback, and some of it concerns me a little bit. I'd like to throw this out to the minister. It appears -- well, without saying -- that the government has come a long way over the course of the last year with respect to land claims in terms of its position, in my view and now in the view of the natives. You've seen some of the headlines, as I have, where it's been perceived by some of the native leaders that the government is coming too far right on this issue. Some of this came out in the public meetings, particularly in Fort St. James. I guess if I have one concern it is that the expectations of the native people were so high that we could see some reaction to that that may not be in the best interests of British Columbians. I'm not suggesting that you should go back on anything; I certainly support the direction that the government is moving toward. But I'm concerned about once again seeing more roadblocks and those kinds of issues becoming front and centre. Certainly in my part of the country there are a lot of individual loggers who depend very heavily on access to wood products, and roadblocks do nothing but hurt the economy of the community as well as cause a further divide among the residents of the community, namely the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Maybe the minister might want to comment on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a continuum of work that needs to be done in getting up to speed on a treaty-making process when this is historically very, very new. First of all, I want to point out that in British Columbia we have the most open treaty-making process in the modern history of Canada. I believe that a little bit of research that I've been looking into would also affirm that it's the most open treaty-making process in modern treaty-making history on the entire planet.
In order to be able to do our work with treaty-making, first we have to do what the Leader of the Third Party did -- the former Minister of Native Affairs in the Social Credit government -- which was to participate in commissioning a task force to advise governments and first nations on what would be involved in setting up a treaty commission process to resolve the land issue and other related issues. That was the first step: setting up the task force.
[B. Copping in the chair.]
The next step was to receive the report of the task force and then to decide whether or not to accept their recommendations. When this government came into power, it accepted the recommendations of that task force report that was, in part, commissioned by the Leader of the Third Party in his previous responsibilities. That involved the federal government, the provincial government and the First Nations Summit going through a great deal of work and negotiations in getting that process up and running and functioning. It then involved setting up the B.C. Treaty Commission. It then involved setting up the cost-sharing formula between the provincial and federal governments.
[ Page 14550 ]
It also involved the issue of mandate development. Mandate development simply means that when the negotiators go to the table, they go with that which reflects the needs of the people of British Columbia in this developing new relationship. Mandate development is a lot of work, and it takes time. It's not something that you can just pull off the shelf, because it's all brand-new. Mandate development work has been ongoing ever since the Treaty Commission was set up. But first there had to be background research; there had to be the development of documents; there had to be the review at the various stages of decision-making. When those documents get to the stage where they are ready for release to the public, they have been and are being released to the public for comment.
When we talk about expectations being created, the fact is that you can't report to the public with regard to positions when you have not yet done that basic and fundamental work. It is true that there are expectations out there. A lot of those expectations have to do with a lot of things that different parties have said -- no question about that. There are a lot of different parties saying different things, depending on different agendas. So a number of statements have been made; that is quite true. Expectations have been created and there have been concomitant reactions to those expectations.
The fact is that this government has diligently followed a step-by-step process towards putting this process in place so that it can be handled well. We are on track with releasing these documents publicly at a time when we are ready. There is no question that in part of this process first nations are going to be making statements that represent their point of view. That is going to have an impact on expectations. But when we in government talk about developing a new and honourable relationship with first nations, that cannot be seen as creating an expectation that is unreasonable. Nobody would consider a new and honourable relationship to be unreasonable. We need to bring this into context, bring it into a workable format and move from there. The feedback I was receiving from the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee was that there is a much greater degree of comfort with the fact that we're able to get these positions out the door, get the public comment, and to make it very clear that that is the process whereby the mandates are being developed, so that when those mandates go to the table they represent the people of the region and of the province.
L. Fox: Just one quick question, and it's not related to the topic. Earlier the minister didn't refer to the fact that I had supplied him with a number of letters from constituents and people in the central region of the province who were having difficulties, to varying degrees, in acquiring their recreational lease lots. Has the minister had a chance to peruse those letters, and is he prepared to give the writers of those letters some comfort in terms of what action this government is going to take in order to resolve the issues around the referrals necessary to the local bands?
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I want to commend the hon. member for the research he has done in pulling this sampling of referrals together. He advises me that this is only a sampling, that there are more. This is a very comprehensive dossier, including a wide variety of circumstances, and this is going to be helpful to us in understanding how to ensure that line ministries are in a position to deal with these very practical considerations. We have assigned this to our assistant deputy minister, Mr. Brant. He is going to be researching each and every one of the cases the hon. member has provided. He is going to be reporting to the deputy and through to me, and I will be sharing that with the hon. member.
I see two things here. One is that we need to address the on-site issues that this hon. member is raising on behalf of his constituents. Second, we need to learn from this data how to make the system work better. I would reiterate what I've said before, that we need to ensure that all line ministries are setting clear time lines and are not taking positions that would suggest that if a first nation is refusing to respond to the consultation that that is a virtual veto. That is simply not on; it's not acceptable and it won't be tolerated. We need to find a way to ascertain those issues that need the time and the focus, and the resources of government, and the other ones that we can get out the door and say: "Look we've done our due diligence. Get on with it." We have to make that very clear. So I do appreciate that we have that information.
L. Fox: Just one short follow-up. What kind of time frame are we looking at in terms of response back to the minister? As the minister is well aware, a number of the issues contained in the correspondence that he received from my constituents are issues that I should take up with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. It would be very, very helpful if I could have some information back from this minister prior to the conclusion of the Ministry of Lands estimates.
Hon. J. Cashore: Our target to conclude that is one month, but I have asked Mr. Brant to meet with the hon. member to have a face-to-face discussion about how to get at this and also to discuss that issue about the part that deals with Environment, Lands and Parks, or any other line ministries, so that we can, hopefully, find a creative way to resolve this -- also recognizing that the Environment, Lands and Parks estimates are yet to come as well. We do recognize that it will be canvassed there. But we want to get those two aspects in sync, and they are now. I met with officials from Lands just the other day and got an update on the situation, and I think we're making headway.
F. Gingell: Just one quick question, which I believe can be answered with one word. I don't think anyone has asked it before. It's just the issue of the certainty that your ministry is not considering in any way that lands owned in fee simple by the municipalities in their own names could possibly be used as lands subject to land claims settlements and be part of settlement agreements.
Hon. J. Cashore: I will be speaking to the UBCM tomorrow. I'll be making that a very clear note in my speech tomorrow, so it will be on the record here and in the presence of representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities from all over the province.
[4:15]
V. Anderson: I understand there has been no discussion yet on the First Citizens' Fund in here, so I'd like to ask some questions about the First Citizens' Fund. Perhaps the minister might like to say a little about its present situation. When I was doing Aboriginal Affairs for awhile, I did some travel with the study that was being done about the First Citizens' Fund, so I'd like an update. I think it would be useful to have that on the record.
[ Page 14551 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I do recognize the work of the select standing committee of which this hon. member has been a member. It did a review early on in our term in government, and I think that work was very, very useful. I know that there was the issue, which I believe came out of those recommendations, about transferring the First Citizens' Fund and those economic development initiatives and cultural heritage initiatives into the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. We have decided that we are not going to do that, at least not in the foreseeable future. We're going to maintain the status quo and continue to manage that program within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
With regard to the Aboriginal Affairs initiatives fund, if that's what the hon. member was referring to.... I believe I have the wrong document here. Hon. member, we're going to find the right document so I can give you an update that is based on the proper one.
We had the wrong document there, but with regard to the First Citizens' Fund, it is a fund which goes back quite some time. I believe it was initially based on an amount of $25 million; the funds come out of the interest. It's being used in a variety of ways, but one major component is that it provides small loans to aboriginal people who seek to get into business and who would not have an opportunity to do so otherwise. It's handled by an outside agency; in that sense, it is arm's length from government. The loans are 50 percent forgivable if the recipient is up to date with regard to the payback to the fund. It provides an opportunity....
Within that fund we have the friendship centre program, where the estimated expenditure is $845,000. It provides assistance with the operating expenses of friendship centres and the student bursary program, which again, is another program -- other than the one I just outlined -- involving small business development. The estimated expenditure for that, for the student bursaries, would be $116,244. There's also the elders' transportation fund program, which is $29,339. I don't know if the hon. member had the opportunity during the B.C. Summer Games to attend the remarkable event the day before the official opening, when there were delegations arriving from all over the province and from the United States in dugout canoes. They arrived in the harbour, and they were received by many officials from various places in the world. There were a number of elders present at that time, on that very important and historic occasion, who were assisted by this fund.
I think that's about it for now.
V. Anderson: Regarding the suggestion, as I remember it, out of the study group, there were divided opinions about whether the fund should be maintained as it was or whether it should go out into another body, strictly outside the government, for economic and cultural development.
I appreciate the comment about the elders' travel fund, because as far as I am aware, that's a new development that wasn't there at the time we were dealing with it, because I didn't hear about it -- I don't remember hearing about it. So that is a new part of the fund that wasn't in the original mandate and apparently has been added somewhere. I know there was an outside advisory body, representative from across the province. Is that outside advisory body still functioning and advising the minister on the activities and the use of that fund? That was also a part of that previous discussion.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the last question is yes. I have met with that advisory group on a number of occasions.
I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara and I share a very similar background. We're good friends. We're also ministers of the United Church of Canada, and because of that, we've both had the opportunity to be in contact with a number of first nations people who have had a traditional contact with the church that we come from. We know a lot of the same people. He was commenting on the elders, and I know the respect that the member has for elders within aboriginal communities here in B.C. and also in Saskatchewan.
I will just mention mutual friends: Rev. Fred Anderson, who works at the Friendship House Association of Prince Rupert; and Gerry Sampson, who's a member of the Lax Kw'alaams village and is in charge of the elders program there. They have also been able to access that fund. It's not as large as I would like it to be, but one of the things that is very important and very useful right now in the context of the ferment and change that's taking place is the wisdom of the elders. That's something that I think all of us honour and respect. I would just point out that in the 1994-95 fiscal year, we provided 29 elders' organizations with assistance to attend cultural or educational gatherings.
V. Anderson: I can't resist saying that while we have the same background, we argued in the church as much as we argue in politics. It's a common theme: we don't always agree no matter where we are, although we have a common background and a common concern. I do appreciate the hon. minister's comment about appreciating the elders. That's extremely true, because of the leadership that they give and will continue to give.
Perhaps I can take some of the phrases one by one. The student bursary fund. Could you indicate how many students have used that or are expected to use it in the current year? What educational program has been set up to let people know that that's available? I know that when we were travelling the province, we found almost minimal awareness of that fund being available, and we discovered that many people who might make use of it just didn't know it existed. As we went from band to band and group to group, and as I talked to aboriginal young people in other situations, I discovered that there was very little knowledge of this opportunity. I'm wondering if anything is being done to make that more available. Have the number of students using that increased over the last two or three years?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that it has increased. We are providing that information to our regional coordinators to help to make that available. During '94-95, in answer to the hon. member's question, it provided 140 bursaries totalling $126,000 to aboriginal students attending post-secondary institutions.
I want to take this opportunity, while the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara is engaging in the debate, to say that I think I speak on behalf of both of us in recognizing the very important work taking place in the province, of investigating the abuses in residential schools, with which the church that we come from has a history. There's some remarkable work being done among first nations in the context of healing. We in government and we with a background in such an institution as the church that bears part of the historical responsibil-
[ Page 14552 ]
ity.... That is something -- I know this member and I have discussed this -- that we must take very, very seriously, in seeking to recognize the importance of that healing. I put that also in the context that I see this as a recognition of a historical fact, which indeed has a very real element that is shameful.
I also want to say, having recognized that, that this is not the basis upon which we achieve new treaties, because I don't think that's the kind of emotional state we want people to be in when developing new and effective treaties for the future. But we must acknowledge history and recognize the lessons of history. Now that we have this new opportunity to create something that is honourable and new, we must ensure in doing so that we do it in a way that ends the ravages of paternalism and begins a relationship in which people can walk side by side, so that we never see those kinds of horrendous experiences again.
V. Anderson: Since the minister has opened up that line of conversation, I must say I appreciate it and must respond somewhat to it, supporting what he has said but also supporting one of the lessons that I think the non-aboriginal people have learned. Because of the attempt, well-meaning or not, to educate aboriginal children outside their own families and communities, taking them off to residential schools, they in effect deprived them of an understanding, appreciation and experience of what family is in their own context. We had a whole generation of students, young people who became adults, who did not learn or have the experience of learning from their families -- from fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts -- and who did not have the experience of living on the land, trapping, fishing or doing all of these things which are so fundamental. So these young people were not only deprived of a very important heritage but also of an identity of themselves in relationship to their families, which has made it very difficult for them to settle back into their own communities -- or to adapt to the other because they knew who they were.
[4:30]
I remember travelling one day with a young aboriginal girl. She commented that somebody one day had asked her when she discovered she was aboriginal, because she was not brought up in an aboriginal setting. She replied, after she thought for a few minutes, and said: "I always knew I was aboriginal." The problem was to know what that meant or what was involved in being aboriginal or in being who she was or in being able to relate that to others who were with her in her lifestyle. So there are many lessons that we have to learn.
Also, I can't resist saying that in our negotiations, in our meeting with aboriginal people, we need to understand -- what I've had to learn -- that the process by which they relate is quite different than the process we often relate with. That was pointed out to me by an aboriginal person from Africa, who was an editor who came here to Canada to study mission work in the churches in this part of the world. I asked him about his relationships as he met with the aboriginal people, and he said: "We have a great deal in common, and we're quite different from you." His way of explaining it was that when two non-aboriginal people meet they are likely to describe who they are by what makes them different from the person they are talking to. When two aboriginal people meet or when they meet with non-aboriginal people, they understand themselves in relationship to that person, not in separation from them. That makes a great deal of distinction in the kind of relationship....
Another thing which I think is relevant when we talk about land claims talks is the illustration of an aboriginal person who is saying that he had gone to visit his close friend: he went in, he visited for two hours and he went home again, and not one word was spoken in the two hours they were together. But they had communicated with depth and with meaning and with purpose. So I'm sure that a great deal of the conversation that goes on in "land claims talks" is in the area where there is silence -- in what's not being said.
I've had the opportunity to work with a Japanese community within the church where they spoke mostly in Japanese. I was delighted to discover that I could generally get the feeling of what was happening without understanding the language. Every once in awhile they would tell me what the topic was, and I could follow it. At that point I was no longer listening to the language, I was listening to the other methods of communication. So in developing this relationship, I would affirm, along with the minister, that we have a great deal to learn. That was also part of the experience as I travelled in that commission.
I was really concerned that more aboriginal people did not know about the bursaries and have the opportunity to make use of them, and that the funds were therefore not being used in the same category.
I want to ask about the native friendship centres, because, if I remember, at one point there was about $30,000 available to each friendship centre, and there was some discussion about increasing that. There was also some discussion of whether others "not strictly friendship centres but bodies who presented the same kind of activity" would also be able to apply. There was some indication that that could be broadened out. I am wondering how many centres are now receiving funds, and if others of a similar nature, but not necessarily under that title, are now also being supported through that fund.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. There are just the 21 centres that are being supported by the fund. The $30,000 figure the hon. member referred to is correct; it hasn't been increased. I think that answers the question.
V. Anderson: Perhaps I could follow that one up. Has there been any discussion with the friendship centres and the advisory committee about some of these cost-of-living increases? I know the cost of operation continues, and if it remains the same, in effect it becomes a decrease year by year. Is this, like student bursaries, under active review, or does it become a formality that happens without a review each year?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's always under active review. Through a president's council we also have work proceeding towards establishing an off-reserve policy table. The B.C. Association of Indian Friendship Centres, with Wally Samuel as president, is on that president's council that's working towards establishing a joint policy table with government.
The point, though, that I think we need to recognize here is that when we talk about reviewing the amounts going into these programs, the provincial government is caught between a rock and hard place because of federal off-loading. And if we go down that road, we facilitate what I consider in this instance to be an irresponsible off-load. It places burdens on the very people who are a big part of the solution. And we
[ Page 14553 ]
know through the federal secretary of state that the off-loading of their responsibility in this area is just simply unacceptable. I would hope that the hon. member would join me in seeking to continue to make that point with the federal authorities -- that it's penny wise and pound foolish for them to off-load in this area and not recognize the social benefit of the work that organizations such as friendship centres do.
V. Anderson: I appreciate your comments. I'll come back to the off-reserve policy table in a few moments, but first of all I'll continue with the discussion that we've been on.
In the economic and cultural area that the minister mentioned, in the earlier days of this fund -- as I was aware of it before I came into government -- the funds in this third section were almost entirely used for cultural development. And there were a great many cultural organizations and aboriginal programs that were developed around the province with that cultural focus of the fund. There was a shift, partly I think because of the advisory council or partly because of government -- I was never able to figure out where that shift came from or who did it. Everybody said it had taken place, but nobody was willing to either take credit or blame for it. So at the time we were doing the study, very little money was going into cultural, apart from a language program -- there's another program, but I forget the exact name of it at the moment. But most of the funds, almost 80 percent of this section, were going into economic development. Part of the study was to raise the issue of whether it should continue in economic development, because there were other places and other forms that that money could partner with, but there were very few places where the cultural work could be undertaken with the same validity of bringing together the community in understanding their basic cultural selves. So there was a question about shifting back at least part of the funds to the cultural side. I'm wondering where it stands now and whether the economic and cultural are in balance, or whether there's still a balance one way or the other.
Hon. J. Cashore: The language program funding has been increased, and last year we provided $1.9 million to the first peoples' cultural foundation to fund capital and cultural projects, as recommended by the advisory council.
V. Anderson: I appreciate knowing that. I'm glad that the cultural area has been put back into the equation again, because I personally felt it was very important that it should be there, as well as the financial help.
In discussing, then, the economic end of the program, there were a number of discussions that took place. One was the supporting of funds through the aboriginal lending agencies, of which there were one major one and some minor ones throughout the province. Perhaps the minister might indicate to me at this point what the main areas are and through what lending agencies these economic funds are being made available. Are there still one or two major agencies? Are there a number of smaller agencies throughout the province? What kind of process is in place? I know that one of the arguments was that by working through a large, major agency, they would be better able to access matching funds from the federal government and private industry; whereas if you went to the smaller agencies, they were more accessible in other parts of the province but didn't access the same kinds of matching funds. So there were pros and cons both ways.
Hon. J. Cashore: There is one agency called ANTCO, and they subcontract advisory services to smaller agencies.
V. Anderson: That is, I believe, in Kelowna or Kamloops.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Kamloops? Thank you. So it has come down now to the one major agency, and they are subcontracting out to the others.
In the initial stage, there was an attempt to work with the credit unions. In fact, before ANTCO came into being in the first couple of years, there was, through the credit union in Surrey, I believe.... We travelled around and met with bands in communities where there are no banks, in most cases. They're isolated from the communities. Those people are not being there. Knowing the history of credit unions in undeveloped countries around the world -- which came out of the Maritimes in the initial stages, and for which Canada is rightly famous -- I've always been curious why, in encouraging economic development, there wasn't some process for encouraging and working with the credit unions to enable the local communities to develop.
Coming out of small towns in Saskatchewan.... In most of those smaller communities of 200 or 300 people, the credit union is still there. That is very similar to the band situation. It seems to me that that opportunity was raised as we travelled throughout the province. A research project came out of that study that might be followed up as an opportunity to extend a facility to other bands throughout the province. That will never be available through the banks but could be available through this cooperation. It was raised quite often in our travels, but it was left to be followed up further.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: We did that to support an aboriginal lending institution. We can explore that very interesting suggestion at the table in treaty negotiations.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister might comment.... He listed a fourth category: administrative costs for certain social and economic development programs. I would think that that's also a new factor that wasn't there originally. It's a fourth one that the minister mentioned in his presentation, and I'm wondering if he might comment on that fourth one.
Hon. J. Cashore: There is an application form that people can use to write to the social and economic opportunities fund, and then we can address that.
V. Anderson: Following up on the First Citizens' Fund, one of the things that we discovered as we were travelling throughout the province was that people were dealing with different ministries, and they were getting economic, cultural or social development funds from almost every ministry -- from Health, Education, Social Services, Municipal Affairs or whatever. There didn't seem to be any coordination, relationship or understanding between the different ministries about what was happening with the aboriginal communities approaching the government, so there was a great deal of consternation and concern. It seemed logical that the kind of coordination and sharing that should take place in under-
[ Page 14554 ]
standing and being able to access or effectively use these funds should come through the Aboriginal Affairs ministry -- at least it seemed logical in that regard. That was to be followed up, and I'm wondering what's happened as a result of that follow-up, and if the process has changed or improved.
Hon. J. Cashore: We now have a committee of all social and economic directors, which is chaired by the director within my ministry. That should address the concern the hon. member has.
V. Anderson: Pardon me, hon. Chair. I missed the response, having to deal with House business. I'm wondering if he could repeat that for me. I was interrupted by the House Leader, who had to set up the agenda.
Hon. J. Cashore: Chaired by....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I am now going to wait until this hon. member is listening to me -- and that's not a theological debate, either.
The directors have formed a committee of all social and economic directors, which is chaired by a director within the Aboriginal Affairs ministry. That should address the issue the hon. member is raising.
V. Anderson: Thank you.
I also want to comment that when we were travelling, we were often hosted by some of the aboriginal economic development persons who were working in the area. I want to share how excellent, professional, warm, friendly and accommodating those people were. It was what I expected I would find, from previous experience, but it was even more so. I also want to share with everyone their competence, knowledge and ability, and how they went way out of their way to drive us long distances. Also, I'm not sure how they were able to keep up with the demanding work they did out in those areas.
I would like to take a moment, then, to move on from that and ask the minister a bit about the off-reserve policy table he mentioned. We both have a common background of being aware of what happens to off-reserve people, particularly urban aboriginal people. From what I've heard so often in many of our discussions, these persons, up until this point, have been neglected in the discussions. The opportunity within the urban area for aboriginal people to come together and work with a system which is totally non-aboriginal and has very little understanding of their needs is a very crucial issue. There are two issues there: the off-reserve policy table, which I gather has to do with treaty negotiations; and the focus on relating and working with aboriginal persons within the city. One of the key factors that aboriginal people have related to me, which the minister will know well, is having lost their family ties and relationships, and the opportunity to maintain what was crucial in their lifestyle within the urban setting.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, the policy tables are not involved in treaty-making. But they are tables that we seek to get up and running and that would help us to deal primarily with some very practical issues that have to do with the urban first nations populations and to recognize that while there are many first nations people who have taken their place within the urban area and are functioning very well, there are also those who are having difficulty. The people who are best able to assist in dealing with and helping those people are aboriginal people themselves.
The president's council that we have, which is working towards establishing this table, is, I think, doing very good work in seeking to bring a number of organizations under one umbrella and in recognizing the economies of scale that can be achieved in that kind of process. It involves the B.C. association of friendship centres, the United Native Nations, the aboriginal women's association, the Native Brotherhood, and several other urban organizations. I am very interested in that being a very practical approach, dealing with services -- dealing with practical issues. I don't think it should get into dealing with issues that are simply going to take up time but not achieve results. So as that gets up and running, I'm looking forward to that being a very practical resource.
V. Anderson: I would concur, and I'm delighted to hear that's developing. It's been long overdue. I would gather it's just in the process of organizing. When you are looking at the relationship of all the departments and ministries of government, is there a way in which the interministerial aboriginal concerns of the ministries are being tied into that? Because I know that in the area of Social Services -- and Health, at the moment -- there is a great deal of concern about inadequacy and misunderstanding in the relationships between those ministries and the aboriginal urban communities as well as some of the rural areas -- but particularly in the urban community, where there isn't the same band framework to work with. So that interministry working with the group in the urban areas seem to be two separate sides that somehow need to be brought together.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, in two ways. First of all, the interministerial directors' committee ensures that those line ministry interests are represented within that process. Secondly, when the table is up and running, it would involve ministers themselves in those joint meetings.
V. Anderson: Just a final question, to clarify. I understand that that off-reserve policy committee is going to involve the larger centres, particularly Prince George, Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. How much of the urban milieu will be involved in that? Does that include both "status" and "non-status" Metis and all of the different concerns of the aboriginal people who are living within the city? Or is it limited geographically, or limited by the background of the persons who are part of it?
Hon. J. Cashore: It includes all of those areas that the hon. member has referred to, through their organizations. For instance, there are 21 friendship centres throughout the province, and I think they reach into virtually all the areas the hon. member referred to. With regard to the Metis, that would be a separate table.
A. Warnke: I would like to follow up on one more question. It's a question that I want to address later to the Minister of Environment as well. It concerns a recent story that has come out about the attempt by a band in the state of Washington -- the Makah band -- who have expressed their
[ Page 14555 ]
desire to embark on the annual killing of five grey whales. I suppose that would normally be restricted to what's occurring in Washington State, but as soon as the story came out, immediately the response was: "That's all very fine for the Makah band to say they are only going to focus on five grey whales annually." But the slippery slope was obviously there, that if any sort of provision would be extended to the Makah band.... To be sure, they want to kill whales for the purposes of ceremonial and domestic uses. But the slippery slope is that other bands on the Pacific coast could start to focus on whales; that possibly they're available as well. Sure enough, it didn't take long before the Nuu-chah-nulth expressed their desire to hunt whales as well.
The grey whales have been on the extinct list, and they have just been pulled off the protected list. The United States has had the grey whales on the endangered list for the last 50 years, until the grey whale population built up again. I take it that there are about 20,000 grey whales migrating between Mexico and Alaska. It sounds like a very, very large figure on the one hand, yet if there is open season on the whales, we could be right back where we started from.
As it pertains to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- and I want some of his comments on it -- conservation consciousness is expanding. Part of that comes from a lot of people who are genuinely interested in conservation, and they include a lot of non-aboriginals who know a lot about the conservation field and, in this case, about the protection of whales. They see whales not as some sort of living organism to be exploited by humans; a lot of people -- aboriginals and non-aboriginals -- have said that there is a heck of a lot more important at stake than just seeing whales as some sort of living organism to be exploited. This constitutes a very serious problem for a lot of people. I suppose in one way this transcends aboriginals and non-aboriginals. As we near the end of the twentieth century, there are a lot of people who are more conservation- and ecology-conscious, and conscious, especially, of complex animals on this planet. They want to do whatever they can to protect them, because they are such an integral part of our planet.
Once in a while one person will be quoted.... There was one key person of the Nuu-chah-nulth who....
[5:00]
Interjection.
A. Warnke: I don't mind saying the name. George Watts made it very clear that people outside the aboriginal community have no business talking about the connection to land and resources. I would argue that it was a reverse way of saying that this is a form of imposing European values that are colonialist and ecocolonialist and all the rest of it. For the record, and maybe the minister shares this, there is a new way -- European, non-European, American, native, whatever -- at the end of this century of looking at complex animal forms. If anything, I think a page from the aboriginal textbook has been taken in terms of how to approach complex living forms on this planet.
At any rate, I've noticed that the Nuu-chah-nulth now feel that whales should be part of the whole treaty negotiation. And given that we do place a lot of emphasis on conservation -- and, again, it's reinforced by the courts of law -- I'm wondering whether the minister would care to make some comment as to the placement of conservation as being uppermost and primary and, if you like, just not something available to be negotiated on.
Hon. J. Cashore: Our government is opposed to the killing of grey whales. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has issued a statement to that effect today. I am opposed to the killing of grey whales -- they have just come off the endangered list. I believe there is a worldwide ethic that transcends issues such as a consideration that may relate to a local concern -- albeit in Washington State, but it's not very far away. As George Watts has pointed out, the Makah, part of the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples, were the only Northwest nation that participated in whale hunting -- which, indeed, was a very magnificent part of their lives; there's no question about that. We do have to recognize that we are into a new era. We're into a time when there are very real concerns with regard to our global destruction of species and the fact that they remind us of how fragile the ecology is and how important it is that we be prepared, in the interests of worldwide considerations, to protect such species.
As the hon. member knows, British Columbia has entered the B.C. Treaty Commission process, and as that process is designed, parties do have the opportunity to bring issues to the table. There's no way that I'm calling on them to bring this issue to the table, and it's very hypothetical. But in the instance where the issue was brought to the table, it would be respectful and responsible to listen to what different parties have to say to each other about it. At that time, if that were the case, British Columbia would certainly be making its position known. I have to say, however, that jurisdictionally it is a federal issue. But we believe that whether it's jurisdictionally a federal issue or not, we have a responsibility to represent the interests of all British Columbians.
A. Warnke: Just one last comment -- and the comment was raised earlier -- about the Liberal position. I do want to just place on the record that later there will be -- I'm not sure when, but I suppose it is a matter of weeks -- a comprehensive document put out by the B.C. Liberal Party caucus on aboriginal affairs, and that, perhaps, may qualify some of the still-outstanding concerns expressed by the minister earlier. So perhaps at that point the minister might want to make some further comments.
But I want to say, in concluding these debates.... I want to thank hon. members from all sides of the House for their participation in these debates. I want to thank the minister also for some of his frank comments and answers -- very straightforward answers. I appreciate that very much from the minister. I also want to thank the minister's staff. The staff has certainly been very good in terms of helping me out, providing me with appropriate information in terms of ministerial operations background. I certainly do appreciate it, and I want to extend thanks, therefore, to the minister's staff. With that, I've concluded my remarks.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, as I understand the process, I believe we will be coming back to make concluding statements. I see that the Leader of the Third Party is saying no, so there will not be a concluding statement. The hon. Leader of the Third Party does not intend to make a concluding statement. Okay, that's fine, then.
[ Page 14556 ]
I would like to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for his comments. Also, I'd like to thank the Leader of the Third Party and all the members of the House for participating in these estimates. It's been a real opportunity to get positions out, and I think that is one of the very important aspects of the work we do. Having said that, I would like to reiterate the point that was just made: my appreciation of ministry staff, who have been present to assist in a very useful and helpful way in responding to these questions.
Vote 10 approved.
Vote 11: ministry operations, $30,486,959 -- approved.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I call Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, for second reading.
WATER PROTECTION ACT
(second reading continued)
W. Hurd: It was the understanding of this side of the House that several government members wished to address second reading of Bill 9. Seeing only a few in their seats and no one standing, I will speak briefly to the intent and the philosophy of Bill 9, which I think generally has the support of this side of the House.
Eliminating the export of bulk water, and water generally, from British Columbia, is certainly an initiative that people throughout the province are concerned about and have expressed concern about to the opposition. As we've travelled throughout British Columbia, we've become aware of the public concern about rivers, watercourses and the need to protect that resource for the people of the province.
There are, however, a number of sections in this bill which do invite closer scrutiny in committee debate. There's in particular a section here that we'll welcome the opportunity to question the minister on, with respect to the power to stop and search vehicles, vessels and aircraft. That seems to us to be a little bit on the heavy-handed side, given that it's hard to conceive of anyone being involved in a bulk water smuggling operation with a passenger vehicle or a truck or any other type of vehicle. Certainly that invites closer scrutiny during committee debate.
There's no question that British Columbians are greatly concerned about protecting water within our boundaries. As we know, there have been proposals put forward for water diversions in the North Thompson -- in particular, the Thompson River system -- which have aroused great concern on the part of British Columbians.
It's important for all parties in the House to recognize that on an issue like bulk water exports, we can come together and issue a strong statement that sets out the guidelines and boundaries for the types of exports and free trade initiatives that we in British Columbia will accept. Certainly, when it comes to water -- groundwater and watercourses -- we have to respect the will of British Columbians, who have told all parties and all members of this assembly that those types of exports simply should not be on the table for discussion. When it comes to trade in the North American setting and internationally, water is a basic resource that is vital to communities and first nations in the province, and it deserves our support.
I don't have too much more to add than that. Again, it's my understanding that Bill 9 is to be addressed by members on the government side of the House. It's significant to note that the bill was originally brought before this assembly by the hon. minister who is now the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. As we know, the Minister of Finance has taken on this portfolio. I would assume that in the absence of the minister, it may be a little bit difficult to close debate on this bill at this time.
Generally, the bill has the support of the opposition. We look forward to committee stage, when a more careful examination of the various restrictions, licence categories, removal restrictions and prohibitions can be forthcoming.
[5:15]
J. Tyabji: There should be no more important debate in this session than the debate over water, especially in light of the fact that one of the biggest issues that has hit the members of this assembly in this session has been the Columbia River Treaty negotiations and the breakdown of the negotiations. This is the fourth legislative session that I have been in the House speaking on the matter of water. In fact, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will remember, in his prior life as Minister of Environment, some very lengthy debates on the need for a water protection act.
With that in mind, the Alliance Party very much supports the Water Protection Act. Most importantly, we have to give some credit to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin who, in his capacity as Minister of Environment, brought in the Water Protection Act. We should recognize that this was a very courageous thing to do. Some of us believe that it was the Water Protection Act that led to the breakdown of the Columbia River Treaty negotiations. The fact that the government is continuing to advance this bill is a credit to the government, and I think that has to be recognized.
Having said that, where we have difficulty with Bill 9 is that there is no clear definition or distinction between reservoirs and natural water. Anyone who follows the debate on water as it has existed in the province, nationally and internationally will recognize that all the international agreements that we are subject to in British Columbia and that will be debated in reference to Bill 9 are talking about the distinction between free-flowing water and reservoir water.
It's interesting that there was such a hue and cry from the people of Canada when the North American Free Trade Agreement was in negotiation that a clarification clause was brought in. Earlier today in the debate, the member for Nelson-Creston or one of the Kootenay members, I believe, talked about the fact that the clarification clause that had come in was not going to be something that would be binding on the international treaties. That clause was trying to make the very distinction that we see is not being made in Bill 9.
[ Page 14557 ]
Obviously, in committee stage we can talk a bit about how the major watersheds have been broken down in the province; we can talk a bit about the difference between the registrants in the private sector and the licensed bulk water exporters in the private sector, and about the fact that the Crown is retaining the right to impose tariffs or export water in its capacity as the Crown.
I would almost imagine that Bill 9 could be a precursor to a new Crown corporation of water, especially given this government's predisposition to Crown corporations. I should make it clear that that's not what I'm advocating; I'm just looking at the way things have been developing. The fact is that the Crown is retaining the right to impose a tariff, and if we look at the Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the definition of water as a commodity, as specified in GATT, we can see that if reservoirs in British Columbia, which hold the majority of our fresh water, are defined as a commodity, they will have to come under some kind of jurisdiction with the same kind of structure as B.C. Hydro, in order for the government to administer and operate the tariffs it may be charging. I would assume that that's where the government is planning to go.
But what needs to be held in this province -- and perhaps in this debate we can see part of this -- is a debate about what we want to do in the long term with our water resources. If we are, in fact, talking about reservoirs distinct from this act, then that needs to be made clear. Perhaps if the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin gets up in second reading, he'll be making that distinction. But if we're not dealing with reservoirs, then there's little value to the bill, because the bill is going to be talking about water that does not include things like Williston Lake, the largest artificial lake on the planet; or the Arrow Lakes system; or, of course, the water that we've been talking about in the Columbia River system.
If we're talking about reservoirs, then it's all the more important to be debating the issue we talked about this morning -- the possible privatization of B.C. Hydro, which would affect all of those reservoirs and which could foresee those reservoirs becoming privately owned. What I would like to see come out in the debate -- if not in second reading, then certainly in committee stages -- is: in the event of privatization of Hydro, which of course has jurisdiction over the reservoirs, to what extent would those reservoirs be under private jurisdiction and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the Crown? That's something we're going to need to know.
In addition, I think we have to be very careful that when we talk about the North American Free Trade Agreement and the investment obligations of all the signatories to that agreement, we will recognize that Canada, when we signed on to that agreement -- notwithstanding any clarification clause about our water -- signed on to the provision with respect to protection of investors within the signatory countries. That means that we now have an obligation under NAFTA to ensure that the other countries' private sector investors are not implicated or harmed in any way by decisions of our government that might negatively affect them. Let me give a specific example of our investment obligations. I'm quoting from an article written by Barry Appleton that talks about the frequently raised concerns on the North American Free Trade Agreement. It's part of A Concise User's Guide to the North American Free Trade Agreement. It says:
"Should a NAFTA government prohibit the sale of water by a NAFTA investor, it would be possible for two different types of dispute settlements to occur. First, a NAFTA investor that found that its water rights were harmed by a government action could allege that an act of expropriation had occurred and claim compensation. If compensation were not immediately forthcoming, then that investor could take that government to an investor's state arbitral tribunal. Alternatively, if the investor's government supported the complaint, there could be a state-to-state dispute raised under the procedures laid out in NAFTA chapter 20."
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that that could be a very lengthy, very expensive process.
What we will have to canvass in this bill is to what extent the actions of a provincial government, in trying to enact the new Water Protection Act, would be perceived by an investor or by the government in the United States -- and possibly even taken further if the investor is influential enough -- as actions that require possible compensation or that could be expropriation. Given the fact that we sit here in a province that for 30 years has been giving away our most important natural resource, and given the fact that we're only now, after we've signed on to the North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade.... Even now, after a history of 30 years of that, we have already established some pretty dangerous precedents that may provide investors in the United States with some pretty heavy ammunition if they decide to take us to an international tribunal on this matter.
We are very encouraged by the fact that the province is bringing in the Water Protection Act. That is a very good move. It's unfortunate that there is no reference to reservoirs and that the language that was so specifically referred to in the international trade agreements has not been carried over into this bill.
I think it's important to recognize that in Ontario they tried to pass a similar bill. I would be quite interested to see if this government has had discussions with the government of Ontario, because the government of Ontario tried to put water protection in its provincial legislation during the time when the free trade agreement was being negotiated.
In a book called Water and Free Trade, edited by Wendy Holm, one of the articles by Timothy Danson talks about a "federal-provincial minefield." He's talking about Ontario's legislation for water protection and says:
"While this legislation asserts Ontario's authority over water exports with the expressed intent to 'control large-scale transfers of water out of provincial drainage basins,' it also provides for the approval of such large-scale exports at the discretion of the Ontario government."
I'll pause to say that's almost identical to the kind of legislation that we have in front of us right now. He goes on to say:
"Given the powerful lobbies behind large-scale water exports and the strong market opportunities emerging in the United States, the Ontario legislation provides an early example of the federal-provincial jurisdictional disputes ahead on the issue of water exports."
Of course, that's just on federal-provincial matters. So I'd be very interested to know if this government has canvassed the Ontario government, and to what extent, and whether or not there has been resolution on where jurisdiction lies on those issues.
There has been a lot of discussion in Canada in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord on the weakening of federal authority and the fact that,
[ Page 14558 ]
given that the federal government seems to have been atrophying, many of the provincial governments are taking almost autonomous roles on resources, and that we have these international agreements having direct impact on our provincial legislation. In fact, we should be looking to the international law prior to the federal law to find out if we're going to be able to deal with that within our own legislation. To what extent do we still have jurisdiction over the flow of our water? To what extent will our domestic legislation have any impact?
Going back to the same article, "A Federal-Provincial Minefield," I note that Timothy Danson has written, with respect to the federal legislation on this point, that the federal government tried to have some domestic legislative control:
"It is to be expected that Ottawa's attempts to use domestic legislation to reduce the substantial access to Canada's water resources conferred under the Free Trade Agreement will become the subject of a challenge by the United States through the bilateral panel. But this is not the only obstacle along the route. It is also a distinct possibility that the legislation will fall in response to constitutional challenges by the provinces, as the federal government's jurisdictional authority to ban future interbasin schemes is far from clear."
Given that there have been these debates for so many years, to what extent has that been reflected in this bill?
The question that has to be raised in committee stage, and which can perhaps be answered in second reading by some of the other members is: after almost ten years of debate on the water issue and the critical importance that water will have in the future of North America, and the fact that British Columbia holds within its boundaries probably the world's last, largest, clean, fresh water in reservoir and free-flowing form, why hasn't the language in Bill 9 been written to reflect the debates and the clarification that has occurred on the other provincial, federal and international levels? Why do we have legislation that is almost obtuse in its references to what it has jurisdiction over and what it doesn't?
If this government feels that it's going to come in through regulation, then I would say that is stepping into an even more grey area than the area we are in right now with legislation. We talked a lot for the last three days about not holding back any of the punches, pulling out all the stops, the whip hand -- all the things that we've been talking about with respect to our water. A number of MLAs have said that what British Columbia should do to show the United States who is in the driver's seat with respect to our water is turn off the taps. Perhaps that was just rhetoric. Perhaps there's something the government already knows, and that is that if we did turn off the taps we would be facing an immediate grievance under an international trade tribunal. If the government is aware of that, and if that is the reason we are not pursuing that in a more stringent way, then perhaps that could be shared during this debate, so that we can have a better understanding of just what this new Water Protection Act is going to be governing.
Whether or not we still have jurisdiction is the most important question. To what extent are we doing this? It needs to be done; it's a courageous move, and I applaud the government on that. But to what extent is this perhaps ten or 15 years too late? Or to what extent is it not strong enough? Why is it that we've been talking about turning off the tap and using the whip hand and taking charge and putting out our strongest force on the Columbia River Treaty negotiations, but on this water act we haven't included some of the language that would help us if we ever get into a jurisdictional dispute? And we will. If we ever actually use the Water Protection Act to try to preserve some of the water for our use, we will have -- I predict with almost certainty -- a grievance in an international tribunal. In that instance, they're going to be looking to the language of our law to see to what extent it is prohibiting the kind of use that we might be trying to do, whether it's in the Kootenays or the north.
But the other thing is that when we stand to debate Bill 9, we have to recognize that it's very easy to get bored and to not participate. I think it's shocking to see the level of interest and participation in this debate. The Water Protection Act is not something we're doing for ourselves. I said this -- I started to allude to it -- yesterday. The Water Protection Act is something we're doing for our great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren. For too long we have had in this province, in this country and in the western world an attitude that our environment is not as important as some of the other things that we pursue, that the environment is another consideration that can be put somewhere on the list. In fact, usually it was not on the list.
[5:30]
There was a good reason for that attitude. The reason we had an attitude toward our environment that was -- there's no other word for it -- extremely arrogant was that we had so much. We had so much in terms of so much water, so much fresh air, so much timber. We had so many resources in British Columbia to use and to develop; we had so much land that we could develop in. But we only have to look to the rest of the world to recognize how mistaken that approach has been to the environment, how long overdue it is that we accept that we are entering a new paradigm. Perhaps we are doing this too late in British Columbia, not because we don't understand what the challenges are in front of us and not because we don't respect the environment right now, but perhaps because the problem on a global scale has gone beyond our capacity to control the problems that are coming downstream. I'm talking about the depletion of the water reservoirs in the United States, the depletion of our timber resources and the desertification of many parts of the United States and Canada -- and of course, if we go to other parts of the world, even more so.
So when we look to the Water Protection Act, we must recognize that we have to look at limits to growth. At some point we have to start factoring into our water, land, air and development policies the tangible, physical limits to growth.
I applaud the minister who brought this in, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, for saying through the Water Protection Act that there's a recognition that we have to protect our water. That's the first step; that's an important step. If our federal government had taken that approach ten or 15 years ago, we might not be in the legislative difficulties that we're in today.
The Alliance Party exists on the fundamental premise that we have for too long believed that we can have unlimited growth without any consequences and that we can continue to make use of our land, air and water resources with no consequences. The approach we have all bought into -- we all bought into it at one time. I'm sure we were all sitting in cars that got five miles per gallon and drove around, and we did those long family trips. We all have contributed to the problem we're in.
[ Page 14559 ]
M. Sihota: Not me. It was before I was born.
J. Tyabji: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin says: "Not me" -- it was before he was born. I think there's a bit of fibbing going on, because he has a couple of longer teeth than I do.
We all originally bought into that idea that the world was there, be fruitful and multiply, go forth and proliferate -- all those great phrases. We now know that it was wrong -- at least, most of us know that was wrong -- and that we have to have a different approach. That approach is a limits-to-growth approach.
The limits-to-growth approach with respect to our water has to understand that, as we stand here now, if five generations ago people had been able to see what was coming five generations down the road, first of all they would have been very frightened. A guy named Malthus had something to say about that, and he was laughed out of the room at the time. So it goes. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, his predictions were a bit conservative. We've actually gone beyond that.
The time for limits to growth and the time to recognize our water is now. We have to know.... It's unfortunate that a debate like this doesn't take on more of a spark, for the sake of our constituents -- that we don't recognize.... Coming from a semi-arid area like the Okanagan, I can tell you that my constituents recognize the problem with unlimited growth. And the growers on the benches in Kelowna will tell you.
G. Wilson: People in the Kootenays know it.
J. Tyabji: The people of the Kootenays understand all too well what the problems are with unlimited growth. It's ironic that the people in the wealth-generating parts of the province, who are in the minority in terms of population, understand all too well what the problems with growth are in urbanized centres. Those people will understand. If you're a farmer, one minute you've got unlimited access to your water base. You're producing fruit, and everyone thinks you're a good guy. The next thing you know, a few subdivisions come in, people move in from urban centres, and they resent the fact that you're there and that you're using up all the water, because they need it. That becomes a very long and a very strong debate.
If we're to do justice to this bill, we have to recognize that this bill is long overdue. It should just be the first step. I do think that some of the language could be stronger, and perhaps we'll hear more about that later in the debate. There are some jurisdictional questions that we will ask in the committee stage.
I anticipate that to do justice to this bill, it is not going to go through committee stage quickly. This will be the most important bill -- one that I will be telling my children about in the years to come. If I have to single out one piece of legislation, this could possibly end up being the one act that we will remember long after this government and the government after it is gone -- and I'm not trying to predict anything there. Long after the government is gone, we will have a Water Protection Act.
We will be fighting for our water in the future. Our water will be gold in the next century; it will be the equivalent of gold and the gold rush. The way people strategized their lives around gold is what we will start to do around water, because there isn't enough to go around and we happen to have more than our share, from the perspective of the people who don't live here. Be prepared for that. This bill will be very important.
I hope we'll have a very good debate in committee stage. I congratulate the minister who brought it in. It's unfortunate that it has already led to some fairly serious consequences, but I hope the government holds the line with respect to the intent of the bill. I hope we can canvass whether or not the bill will actually have some weight, given that we're already so far down the road on international treaties.
M. Sihota: Before I get into any of the detailed comments that I intend to make about this legislation, hon. Speaker, I should forewarn you that I may turn out to be the designated speaker on this issue, given some of the liberties I want to extend to myself in terms of dealing with this legislation. I'm going to speak for a few minutes today, move adjournment and then continue dialogue on this bill as the days go on.
At the beginning, let me say that I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker. It is true that I think this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has come before this House in the term of this administration. It makes some very fundamental statements. It makes a very fundamental statement about saying that a resource -- water -- that we take for granted, a commodity that is essential for human life, is a commodity which belongs to the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia have both a right and a duty to protect the integrity of our water resources in a fashion that has never been seen before in this province.
This bill also speaks to a second issue. That second issue is about the integrity of our salmon resources. I think I should impart upon members some of the motivation in terms of the thinking that went into this bill coming before the House.
Third -- and this is the point that I'm going to start with -- it's a statement about the integrity of our environment. It seems to me that in this province -- and I would say perhaps on this globe -- for far too long we have taken our environment for granted. We have never, ever realistically confronted the fragility of the planet that we live on. I don't think we have ever looked at our globe like an eggshell and recognized the degree to which we are placing enormous stress and strain on nature.
I have to say that in the time that I had the privilege to serve as Minister of Environment in this parliament, only as a result of that experience did it dawn upon me the impact that we as human beings were making on the environment; and the need, therefore, for government here in British Columbia -- in a very small way, because we are a small portion of the globe -- to take affirmative, aggressive and determined action to protect the integrity of the environment for future generations, so as to ensure that future generations would have the ability to inherit, at the minimum, an environment that is at least as safe, as clean, as rich and as bountiful as the one that we've been fortunate enough to inherit -- rich and bountiful in the context of being able to provide us with the kind of economic success we've been able to enjoy in British Columbia. And all that economic success, when you really think about it, is predicated upon the land base that God has given us and which we've been fortunate enough to inherit here in British Columbia. When I say safe and clean, there is an obligation from one generation to the next to ensure that
[ Page 14560 ]
resources -- whether air or water -- that are essential to human life are protected in a sacred way, which I don't think we've given thought to in the past.
I remember that when I took over this portfolio, my predecessor, the now Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, said to me one day -- it's something that he said, not me, but it's very true -- that we may be the last generation on earth which is able to actually make a difference and reverse the tide and the trend of environmental degradation.
If I may for a moment be political -- and I'll be more political later on in some of the other comments I want to make -- the vision that this government has tried to articulate over the three and a half years it has been in office is one which says that economic development doesn't have to come at the expense of environmental protection. Indeed, we can have our cake and eat it too. We can have prosperity, economic growth -- unbridled, in comparative terms to the rest of North America -- and at the same time take concrete and determined steps to enhance -- not just protect, but enhance -- the strength of our environment. And the vision of this government is just that: it just says that whereas previous governments and other political ideologies in this province have believed that economic development and environmental protection are not compatible, we've taken the view as a government that they are compatible, that they go hand in hand, that they complement one another. And now we can construct and craft a society where economic development and environmental protection reinforce one another.
We've tried to do that in a number of ways. We've tried to break the old mould of pitting environmentalists against those who wish to see industrial activity -- most notably, logging -- in this province. We've tried to do that through the changes that we brought forward in terms of forest practices, and more about that later on. We've tried to encourage British Columbians in a consultative way to engage in land use planning exercises so that we can make determinations as to how best to use the land base, which I said is so vital for us in terms of both our economic success and environmental nourishment.
We've tried to encourage British Columbians to engage in an unprecedented way, uncontemplated by the Brundtland report, untested in any other jurisdiction, in how we can meet the challenge of bringing communities and people and individuals with diverse interests together -- natives, loggers, miners, mainstream environmentalists and extreme environmentalists -- and get them all around a table in some way to be able to draft a land use plan. Much in the same way that a municipality will determine how to zone its land, we have put a challenge to British Columbians to take a look at the map of Vancouver Island, for example, and to tell us as government how it ought to be zoned: what area should be set aside for logging; what area should be set aside for native lands, agricultural and urban needs; and what areas should be set aside for protected areas.
The work of the government in this context has not been limited to its activities within the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment, although there have been a lot of observations and comments in that regard. They extend to critical ministries like the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If one were to step back and take a look at two pieces of legislation that this government has put before this chamber, I think the two that have the greatest potential for the greatest impact in terms of changing the lives of British Columbians are the growth strategies legislation, which was brought forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and this legislation, in terms of protection of water resources. I think those two pieces of legislation speak volumes about the philosophical and ideological approach this administration is endeavouring to take.
[5:45]
I grew up on Vancouver Island, as you know, hon. Speaker. I know that you have spent as much time on Vancouver Island, if not more, as I have during the course of my life. I know we have both witnessed a remarkable change on Vancouver Island with regard to the way in which we used to take our environment for granted and the way in which we are now questioning our past behaviour.
I can remember growing up in Lake Cowichan and never thinking that we would run out of trees for the mills in Youbou, Hillcrest and Honeymoon Bay. I can remember growing up in those forest-dependent communities and seeing with my own eyes companies logging and leaving, and mills being shut down, and witnessing on a firsthand basis the traumatic impact that has on communities, let alone individuals as they try to decide what to do with their lives as a result of mill closures. Where do you go? During the sixties and seventies, when I saw much of that, there were places to go. Most of my relatives ended up in New Westminster, Squamish, Williams Lake or Prince George -- somewhere where there was a supply of timber. I think we took the view, as a society, that we could take that forest base and our water resources for granted.
I remember -- and I'm going to say more about this later on in terms of the comments that I want to make -- as a youngster, like everybody else in this chamber does, the first time I went fishing on the Cowichan River. Under the land use charter we have developed with Mr. Owen's help, I am pleased to say that the Cowichan River corridor is now going to be protected. As a kid, I remember not having a fishing rod, but being down at the Cowichan River just outside of Lake Cowichan trying to scoop fish out of the river as a way of catching fish. I was thinking about that the other day....
Interjection.
M. Sihota: I'm glad that I've got the Reform relating to my experiences. But I have to say that at that point I don't think anybody ever questioned the damage we were causing to our water resources in the province and the impact that industry, logging and other activities would have on the salmon stocks in British Columbia. You can't do now what I used to do as an eight-year-old in Lake Cowichan, because we've seen a reduction in the size of our salmon species.
Over the course of a generation, I think that all of us in this chamber have come to realize that we can't take our environment for granted. Certainly those on the government side have come to that conclusion. In fact, I suspect that the commitment that our political party has historically shown to the environment has been one of the distinguishing features of our political party versus some of the other political parties. I want to say more about that later on in terms of the comments that I make. Protection of the environment and not taking it for granted are things that we have to reflect upon as we consider the legislation that's before us. We have to consider it in a very broad context, particularly as it relates to our water resources.
[ Page 14561 ]
I said at the outset that this bill is about two other things. It is also about protecting the integrity of our salmon resources, and I want to take a few minutes to talk about that aspect of this legislation. Salmon, it seems to me, are a measurement of the health of our environment. If you think about it, salmon spawn in our rivers, make their way through all of the challenges of human activity, and have to confront the full brunt of that human activity. Whether it's logging activity that has caused streams to be jammed, whether it's industrial activity and pollutants, whether it's untreated sewage into watercourses in this province...
Interjections.
M. Sihota: ...or whether it's.... Sorry, I got distracted by the comments about Victoria. I'll be happy to talk about Victoria, hon. member, any time.
Whether it's logjams, industrial pollution, sewage treatment or urban sprawl -- that was the other point I was going to make -- salmon interface with human activity as they commence their life cycle. They also, while at sea, interact with fishing and overfishing. There is remarkable mechanization in the fishing industry, which has provided tremendous capacities. In fact, when you think about that, it's really amazing that salmon survive all of that, only to make their way back up those same watercourses and again confront the same human activity some years later -- but accentuated in terms of sewage pollution, industrial pollution, logjams and urban streams.
In terms of urban streams, it's important to note that one of the most telling things that anybody can do is to first take a look at a map of the city of Vancouver 100 years ago and then at a map of the city today. The first thing that jumps out at you is the abundance of salmon-producing streams that existed in Vancouver 100 years ago which no longer exist.
Fifty percent of the salmon that make their way up the Fraser River now look for haven for spawning grounds in urban streams. Urban sprawl is occurring, of course, and it occurs without much thought. It impacts on those streams, whether we blacktop them, build too close to them or build right over them. Particularly on the east coast of Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland, we have taken away too many spawning grounds as a result of urban development. During the course of debate on the growth strategies act, I said -- and I want to say again today -- that I think one of the greatest challenges for municipalities is to consider bringing in urban riparian zones, much as we've brought forward forest riparian zones, to protect the integrity of streams in urban areas in this province.
But the salmon species, as I was saying earlier, is a measurement of the health of our environment because of the degree to which, and the fashion in which, salmon interface with human activity.
Hon. Speaker, I'm noting the time, and perhaps it may be appropriate at this time to move adjournment...
An Hon. Member: No, keep going till six.
M. Sihota: ...notwithstanding the concerns of my colleagues opposite. In light of another event, I think, occurring down the road -- and I'm sure the hon. member wouldn't want to miss his opportunity to engage in a skit -- it might be appropriate at this point to move adjournment so that I could continue my comments when we next resume.
M. Sihota moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Marzari moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.
The committee met at 2:50 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000 (continued).
L. Reid: We were on cardiac wait-lists when the minister and I left off this morning, and my question specifically concerned strategy. I'm wondering if there has been any headway made on the central registry. The minister this morning talked about some patients waiting six weeks and others waiting 33 weeks. I'm not clear that patients today realize that there are some other options at their disposal. I believe that's what the minister was suggesting -- that they may have choices around that delivery. How will they know that? Is there a central registry? Do they know where they stand in terms of coming up for surgery?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The cardiac registry was, I think, first established in 1991. It is fairly sophisticated. It tracks all cardiac surgery in the province; it tracks everybody who is waiting for elective surgery to ensure that appropriateness and access is monitored. In many ways it's the model that other surgical procedures need to emulate. It does the appropriate job of saying there are options for individual patients. It is the patient's general practitioner who, of course, must work with the patient to make sure that he or she is aware of options. I believe that anybody involved in referrals to cardiac surgery is informed about how it works and what options are available to the patient.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the tracking nature of the registry and that it accomplishes that goal. My interest was in knowing whether that information is ever shared directly with patients. It's not clear from the minister's comments that this happens in a consistent fashion
[ Page 14562 ]
or that it's the responsibility of practitioners to recommend another physician if their patient has been waiting for 30 weeks. I have no way of knowing that; I suppose the minister doesn't either. My interest in the central registry was to know, other than tracking individual patients, if that information is ever shared among patients in terms of wait-lists for different cardiac specialists in the province. That is certainly a question they pose when they come to the constituency office: "I've been waiting six months. Is there someone who can see me sooner?" I think that is a legitimate question on behalf of the taxpayer. Is your ministry in a position to provide that information to them?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Communication on wait-lists for individual practitioners is provided through the family practitioner. It would be inappropriate for the ministry to be providing that straight to patients; that is a matter between patient and care provider. The care providers and physicians do know the wait-lists for various physicians. The 24 physicians who do cardiac surgery in the province are informed of that and have every freedom to share that information with their patients.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. The minister made a point this morning of differentiating between those on the wait-list for six weeks and those on the wait-list for 33 weeks. If I'm on the wait-list for 33 weeks, how would I go about finding a physician who might have a six-week wait-list and who would move me further up the list?
That's the contention my constituents come to me with. How do they find that information? I think that's a valid question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the advice you should give your constituents who face that situation is to keep in constant contact with their general practitioner. Their general practitioner can access that information and provide it to them.
L. Reid: Hopefully this will clarify this for me. If you're the GP and I'm the patient, you will have access from some database that will tell you who has a shorter wait-list in the province. As a GP I simply make that call and secure that information. Is that a ministry operation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The general practitioner can obtain that information from the cardiac registry which is managed through VH.
L. Reid: I appreciate that information, and I am happy to pass that on.
In terms of the move of patients between St. Paul's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital, there is much discussion in terms of when those surgeries will take place and in what setting. What's the rationale for moving some of those patients? I think the quote is: "It is planned to shift 300 cases from Vancouver Hospital and Health Science Centre to St. Paul's during the early part of fiscal year 1995-96." Would the minister kindly comment on the decision?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The movement of location for procedures is part of the overall work that has been going on among the tertiary facilities in Vancouver to get some efficiencies in the delivery of care. I think the member knows that St. Paul's Hospital will be specializing in pulmonary and cardiac cases and in AIDS treatment and prevention. VH will be specializing in oncology, neurosurgery and neurology and in dealing with trauma. So the shift of cases doesn't affect the access to services. It is a way of saying that it's probably more efficient and may actually enhance quality to have one of those two hospitals specializing in each of those procedures rather than duplicate programs.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. From my understanding of what the minister said, the majority of the cases will be treated at St. Paul's Hospital, and Vancouver Hospital may take any excess.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Here's a rough breakdown for the four hospitals that do cardiac procedures in the province. St. Paul's Hospital will be the highest performer of such surgeries in the province: around 1,000 in the coming year; perhaps 700 or a bit less at VH; 300 at Royal Columbian Hospital; and 300 here in Victoria.
L. Reid: I appreciate that information. Certainly I know that many MLAs in the province have had contact with many individuals awaiting hip and knee replacement surgery. There seems to be a lot of confusion over why some people are not moving forward on the list -- i.e., the lack of the actual replacement joint. It seems to me that the confusion over funding the procedure and then funding the actual implant is, hopefully, just confusion. Hopefully it's not as fragmented as it has been portrayed to me in a number of instances. Could the minister comment on whether there is a funding dilemma around that and what has been done to streamline that process?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier today, when we were just introducing the subject of wait-lists, I said that there's not one wait-list issue, but dozens of them, depending on the procedure. Orthopedics is considerably more complex than cardiac surgery, since there are 24 hospitals in the province where the procedures are performed. Hospitals do allocate amounts within their own budgets for obtaining the artificial hips and knees -- the actual joints that are used -- and, of course, for funding OR time to carry out the procedures.
[3:00]
When the Premier and I announced an additional $10 million to purchase 900 or more additional surgeries this year, that amount was for the space -- the rent, if you will, for the operating room and staff -- and the actual joints.
L. Reid: I know the minister can appreciate the frustration of a number of British Columbians, whose issue is only quality of life -- who just need the joint. They arrive at their hospital, one of 26 in the province, and are told by the hospital and their physician that they can have the procedure but there aren't any dollars to purchase the joint. I have ten or 12 cases before me where that is the answer. For me, it's no answer. It's almost an opportunity to put these people off and send them on their way. It only adds to their frustration with the system. I can tell you that I've had individuals saying: "I'll buy my own." I don't think that's an appropriate way to proceed -- to have people show up at the hospital with their implant replacement joint in their hand. There has to be some commitment on behalf of the ministry. If you have the physicians
[ Page 14563 ]
relaying to the patients that the operating time is paid for and the procedure has been approved but we're waiting for the part, that doesn't make patients feel very reassured by the level of organization in the process.
I appreciate the minister's comments that the dollars allotted this time out include the cost of the replacement joint. But I'm wondering what type of direction has been given to the other 26 hospitals in the province which do reconstructive surgery, in terms of communicating more fairly and more directly with patients, rather than turning them away because "we can provide you everything but the part that you really need," which seems bizarre.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Like the member opposite, I have received a number of letters from British Columbians who are concerned about access to joint replacement surgery, and I have heard a number of reasons adduced as to why it's not available at the time they wish. The reality is -- and we should keep this in mind -- that we did about 5,000 procedures last year, which is about 11 percent more than was done the previous year. We have allocated an additional $10 million to do 900 procedures more this year than were done last year. There were about 1,500 patients on the wait-list for orthopedic surgery back in March, and the waiting times vary. They vary for medical urgency -- and again, medical urgency is the prime criterion.
The majority receive joint replacement -- an elective joint replacement, remember, not a traumatic one -- within three months after the need has been identified by their specialist. For an elective procedure, that is, I would submit, pretty good. We think that the wait-list has gotten a little long, and that's why we provided $10 million of additional funding to get it down to more appropriate levels. Clearly, wait times vary from a few weeks.... I do know people who have waited for more than a year. One of the difficulties that we have, which we've allocated some funds to address, is establishing some sort of central registry and control of orthopedic surgery, such as we have with the cardiac registry right now. One of the things that bothers me most is that at times I fear somebody in a wheelchair may be waiting for surgery in one community, while somebody who's had a sore knee for a few weeks is getting the surgery in another community. We need the sort of central registry and central planning that we now have with cardiac procedures.
It is, as I say, considerably more complex with orthopedic surgery because of the number of practitioners and the number of facilities involved. Also, unlike cardiac surgery, orthopedic surgery has less well-developed provincial guidelines for procedures when they are actually required and when alternative forms of treatment may be more appropriate.
I submit that we need to get a handle on those underlying issues that I feel are rather unconnected wait-list issues. The $10 million that we announced is the short-term way of addressing it. Long term, I think we need some of the coordination that a central registry -- better coordination of standards and utilization management -- can provide us.
L. Reid: I share the minister's discontent around folks who are often wheelchair-bound as a result of requiring hip or knee replacement surgery. Often those folks become virtual prisoners in their homes. Their homes are often not wheelchair-accessible because, hopefully, the condition is temporary. They're hoping to get the surgery within four or five months; as the minister has indicated, three months would be preferable.
When I started this round of questioning I wanted very much to focus on the strategy and the approach, so I appreciate the minister's comments that this approach is not as sophisticated as the cardiac approach. I understand that, but I hope, as we move through this process, there will be some commitment that all of these wait-lists will have a strategy attached that may not measure up to the cardiac strategy today but is certainly putting us on the road to having some kind of sophisticated response.
I made the point this morning, in terms of funding from Social Services and other ministries to support these people in their homes while they're waiting for surgery, that it is often less expensive than the attendant services we put in place to keep them on the wait-list. As the minister is well aware, that's a very difficult discussion to have with a constituent when, as government, we're prepared to pay $30,000 to keep you on a wait-list but not $10,000 to provide you with a service. That makes people much more cautious about the logic often employed by government. I think there are ways we can fund that as a package so that people are not given the message: "We can afford that as a procedure, but we can't afford the replacement joint." That message, in my view, is dead wrong -- absolutely dead wrong. If the minister is suggesting that the funding will be granted as a package, I welcome that. I think that's absolutely an outstanding move.
As we move through discussions on wait-lists, I do want to talk about criteria. I certainly understand the minister's comment about treatment protocols: who gets the surgery and on what basis. That's a position I'm very strongly in support of. Certainly the material suggests that there will be a different number of hospitals this year receiving additional funding. What are the criteria to determine which hospital? Will it simply be those in most severe need on the wait-list? I'm trusting that that's the answer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member and I share some common perceptions of some of the long-term strategies that need to be done. They are more difficult than short term. As I said, the allocation of the $10 million is for procedures. The amount per procedure incorporates both OR time and staff time, as well as the equipment and consumables -- I'm not sure that's the right word -- used.
L. Reid: Joints.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member suggests the word should be "joints." I'm not sure I'm comfortable using that term.
As far as who got the money to do the procedures, that was based on a couple of criteria. People in the ministry worked very closely with the orthopedic community around the province to determine both who had wait-lists that were longer and who had the capacity in OR time and surgeon time to do the procedures. As the member knows, a variety of hospitals around the province were funded for additional elective surgeries this year.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the availability of surgeons and OR time. But again, if you happen to live in a community that's not well served by existing
[ Page 14564 ]
specialists, that's a dilemma, because I take from the minister's comments that you could sit on a wait-list a whole lot longer. Acknowledging fully that these are elective procedures, my contention is that some of these procedures for some of these patients, which we would qualify as elective, perhaps are not. Perhaps the fact that they're now wheelchair-bound and have no ability to find any other resources and often have no ability to travel outside their communities.... Is a decision ever taken where individuals who certainly qualify for elective surgery would be moved out of their communities simply because the availability of a surgeon and OR time is not likely to put them on the list for upwards of a year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the question is: what happens if the local facility doesn't have the OR or surgical capacity to deal with the lists that are available? I guess one answer is that one would hope that surgeons, when they're looking for where to locate a practice, might consider where the need is, at times. This is a difficult proposition for some of them, I know. Surely that is something that we need to start making more and more apparent.
As in cardiac surgery, a person looking for elective surgery for a joint replacement has the option -- and general practitioners do this all the time -- of being referred to a specialist, an orthopedic surgeon practising out of another city in another facility.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. I want to spend just a couple of minutes on the wait-list around magnetic resonance imaging. I've learned a lot about that process in the last couple of days.
In terms of the 2,000 patients that are currently on the wait-list, a number of individuals who bring concerns to my office have very specific questions around the special arrangements for WCB and ICBC. Oftentimes -- and you can certainly confirm this for the record -- they believe they have been displaced as a result of a prior arrangement that puts somebody ahead of them on the list for service, even though they may have been waiting longer. Their contention to me is that they trust that when ICBC and WCB book these machines, particularly at St. Paul's Hospital, those services are provided outside of working hours so as to not take away from the existing list. They suggest to me that that is sometimes an approach which is not consistently followed. I would ask for the minister's guidance.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The arrangement the member describes is the one that I understand to be in place. WBC cases are treated by purchasing after-hours time from MR facilities in public hospitals. I have just checked with staff, and we are unaware of any encroachment on normal operating time by WCB patients.
L. Reid: I'm happy to leave that issue with the minister. But I would simply ask that at some future point he verifies that fact. I have two constituents -- and I'm happy to pass them on -- who believe that the service is being provided to WCB and ICBC between 8:30 and 4:30. I am not able to verify that for them, and if the minister would kindly do that, I would be most appreciative.
[3:15]
In terms of the mobile services that are being offered around the province, could the minister just give me a thumbnail sketch of how positively that will impact on the 2,000 people on the wait-list? How many scans does the minister anticipate will be accommodated by the mobile units?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As of March 1995, the capacity for MRs in the province was approximately 10,000 scans a year. In May we opened up the mobile unit in the interior, servicing Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George. It will provide approximately 2,000 additional scans a year to people in the interior. That's 2,000 people who will not have to travel to Vancouver or Victoria to get an MR.
The Premier and I also announced an additional $1 million in funding for MRs. That will purchase approximately 3,000 additional MRs. So our target for 1995 is to provide 15,000 scans in the fiscal year -- an increase in capacity of nearly 50 percent.
L. Reid: I welcome that information; I think that's very useful information. We canvassed very thoroughly cancer treatment wait-lists and transplant wait-lists in the province. So I thank the minister, and that will conclude my comments on wait-lists.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if he could give us some indication as to what is being done in the ministry to facilitate the 17 percent of the population, as indicated by statistics from the United States and Great Britain, who have debilitating tinnitus. There haven't been any statistics taken in Canada. It's assumed that there isn't much difference, because we have similar communities and similar problems. Could the minister tell us what programs are in place?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Tinnitus, for the record, is noises in the ear -- is that close enough?
K. Jones: That's head noises, to be more specific.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is a common symptom, as the member knows, of many ear diseases. The potential causes are really quite wide, and practitioners around the province treat the symptoms. The member may know otherwise, but my information is that the majority of patients, regrettably, cannot find a treatment that will completely alleviate the problem.
The treatment can include a variety of things, such as medication, hearing aids or technological devices. Treatments are available from practitioners at a wide variety of locations in British Columbia. I think the member knows that a tinnitus clinic at St. Paul's Hospital offers a very specialized range of services; these are also available by referrals to specialists.
K. Jones: Perhaps I need to elaborate a little bit on what tinnitus is and what it amounts to. I don't think that there is particulary good information either in the Ministry of Health or in many other areas of our health care throughout the province that recognizes the seriousness, the causes and the impacts of tinnitus.
Tinnitus is the symptom of an injury that has many different causes. The primary cause in the majority of cases is loud noise, either an instantaneous very loud noise situation or long-term exposure to loud noise. It is through that means
[ Page 14565 ]
that people end up having what may be described as head noises, ringing in the ears, bells. It can amount to many different sounds -- gurgling sounds and popping sounds -- factors that are with the person throughout their life.
There is nothing being done today that relieves persons from those symptoms, that experience. They cannot get rid of it. Other people cannot see it or identify it. It is very hard for people to relate to, particularly when they cannot find other medical, psychological or pathological assistance that will guide them. There seems to be a serious lack of knowledge and a serious lack of help. There is no organization to speak of in Canada or British Columbia to assist these people. The supposed facilities that have been provided really do nothing but identify -- if you happen to find out that you can get a referral -- that you may have tinnitus.
There is nothing in the way of appropriate funding. There is no counselling paid for. In fact, the only counselling, the only offered provision, that has been of any effect for people has been a self-help program on the first Wednesday of the month, held by a small group of volunteers who had tinnitus -- or who have tinnitus, because once they had it, it's very unlikely they'll not have it for the rest of their lives.
It is an experience that in many cases leads to almost instantaneous depression. That's almost one of the first factors to come forward. It is something that causes interference with a person's short-term memory. It is something that causes confusion and, in some cases, a susceptibility to outside noises. Persons with hyperacusis is one form of it, where people cannot even go out of their home without proper gear to prevent them from hearing the noises around them. They can't have their windows open, because of the street noises; they can't have a bus or a fire truck with its siren going go past them. If they hear them anywhere, all of a sudden their symptoms flair up and leave an intense sound in their heads that they can't deal with at all.
This may carry on for two or three days and is unbearable from most of their viewpoints. They have to put themselves in reclusion. These are really productive and functional people who, for some reason, have had what we take for granted taken away: this wonderful experience of hearing. Although they hear, they may have reduced hearing when these intense sounds occur. There may be other factors that reduce their hearing.
They are concerned because in most cases nobody can identify their problem. Often other people feel that there is nothing wrong with them, except that they are going crazy. People have led them to believe this. I spoke with one woman who had tried 15 different practitioners in the health care field -- nutritionists, some from the more limited areas of health care, plus some from the basic health care areas. This person was totally unable to get a response to her concerns. She finally came to the self-help group and found out that there were other people who had the same thing. She found that she wasn't the only person in the world who had this problem, and that she wasn't going to have to commit suicide as she had contemplated.
Suicide is a factor that many have contemplated. There isn't any documentation to show how many people are affected by this today in British Columbia or any other part of Canada. The statistics of the American Tinnitus Association show that ten years ago 36 million people indicated that they are seriously affected by tinnitus. In Great Britain, they did a census ten to 12 years ago in which they found that 17 percent of their population had debilitating tinnitus. By the way, that 36 million roughly equated to about 17 percent of the population in the United States, as well.
If you look at the Canadian population, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of people just in the lower mainland of British Columbia who have this problem. There is absolutely nothing being done to deal with their concerns. There isn't even a publicity note being put out to medical practitioners. The hospitals don't have any documentation. There's absolutely nothing out there to guide them. One doctor has taken it upon himself to take an interest in it; a couple of others have taken a partial interest, but don't want to take any patients. They do a few referrals and things like that.
I am really surprised that, even though I have spoken on this subject in a private member's statement and brought it up at estimates in the past, you are not very well informed as to what the factors are in regard to this very, very serious problem. It is a problem that is quite silent; it's in the category of persons who might have mental disabilities or problems that people cannot see, because of things happening inside their heads that do have a very serious effect on their lives.
For that purpose, there is a need to be better informed, to have society better informed on the whole issue. Could the minister give us some indication, recognizing that we have a serious problem...? Just to clarify my point of view, I have had tinnitus since November 8, 1984, and I know what I'm talking about. Could the minister give us some indication as to what can be done for the thousands and thousands of people who have this?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thanks to the member opposite for sharing that with this body, and, through Hansard and other means, with a broader population. His observations and knowledge on tinnitus, both personal and from other folks, as the member says, point out that it is indeed serious. Whether it's 15 percent or 17 percent -- our research figures may differ -- surely it affects a wide range of the population.
As the member has said, it can be constant or intermittent, it can come or go or be there all the time; the symptoms can be mild to severe. I think the common thing that I guess frustrates medical practitioners attempting to deal with it, as much as it does the member opposite, is that the majority of patients seem unable to completely alleviate the symptoms.
[3:30]
While I think there is wide knowledge of the condition among medical practitioners, more research in the area is clearly needed. There are various treatments available; there are a variety of practitioners in B.C. I have not perceived any information that would lead me to believe that there is one preferred course of treatment on which we should educate all practitioners in the province, one preferred method of dealing with this. If the member has such knowledge, I hope he would make sure that the appropriate people find out about it. It is a difficult issue. It can obviously disturb individuals very severely, impact on their daily lives, and in some cases, as the minister said, lead to varying degrees of depression, and a sense that life is not worth living.
As I say, a variety of treatments are tried: medication, hearing aids, technological devices to mask or cover the symptoms, and sometimes counselling or psychological
[ Page 14566 ]
therapy. A variety of practitioners in the province provide the therapy. The centre for specialization is the tinnitus clinic at St. Paul's. Attempts to address it continue among the medical community. Research in the area continues to attempt to discover more about its causes and more about effective methods of treatment.
K. Jones: I appreciate that the minister is trying to be more knowledgeable of the concerns. I would like to suggest there is no preferred treatment; there is no preferred message other than the fact that there needs to be.... There is a lot of detailed information available through the American Tinnitus Association, or through the British Tinnitus Association and others around the world who are producing material that is not getting to our medical practitioners at any level. Very few medical practitioners are informed -- if I could consider even minimal knowledge as being informed -- on this particular subject. It is not well understood; in many cases, it's not even understood at all.
As far as your St. Paul's clinic is concerned, generally speaking, it has basically been a one-person operation that has really not done anything but be a diagnostic centre.
There is provision for maskers -- or there was; I haven't been current with it lately. But a few years back there was provisioning of maskers, which all the people I've met over the years with tinnitus have had absolutely no success with. Maskers do not work. There hasn't been a method of bringing masking as a useful way of alleviating tinnitus. All it does is create additional noise that blocks out more of the hearing.
Hearing aids are totally useless in resolving tinnitus. No practitioner has been able to prove a justified use of that. Again, there have been some who have tried to imply that their hearing aid would assist persons with tinnitus. There is no proof that that has ever happened.
I think it's important that the ministry take a lead role in providing the assignment of some staff to, first of all, become knowledgable in the subject and, secondly, to inform the public of all the factors relating to tinnitus so that both the general public and the medical profession -- the entire health care profession -- have a clear understanding and can assist the people to work their way through the experience, which will be an experience, believe me, of a lifetime. It's one that I don't wish on any person and one that can be caused by loud noise, in some cases. It is an epidemic situation as a result of loud noise in regard to our young people with the boom boxes, the boom cars, the domed stadiums, the tractor pulls, the motocrosses, the wired-in high-volume CDs and headsets that they're walking around with, blasting their heads out.
That is a serious epidemic, and it's been identified for over ten years by the American Tinnitus Association. It has been published in magazines throughout the United States, in an organized plan to try and make the people in the United States aware of that. Not one of those articles has been published here in Canada. It is something that we are allowing our young people to experience without any attempt to prevent. We are going to have a serious problem as they grow older.
The problem is serious enough as persons grow older, because the generic type of tinnitus is a factor of health. That has been identified. Persons who are becoming less healthy over time, as they grow older, are more susceptible to have the tinnitus come upon them. It's not a factor of age, but a factor of health. That's been clearly defined in studies that have been done in the United States also.
In order to alleviate this, we need an action plan from the British Columbia ministry. There has been the setting up of a structure in British Columbia called the British Columbia Tinnitus Association, a registered society. But unfortunately the people involved in that, because of their tinnitus and other activities, are not currently able to make that into anything beyond just a structure. There is no opportunity there at the present time to bring a staff person on or any other support.
That's why I ask you to bring on something in the ministry that will concretely deal with people who have a very, very serious problem. Is the minister prepared to take that kind of action? I realize it's a financial factor. There would be a small financial part in changing some planning, but it would be addressing a problem that is serious. It has been a serious problem for quite some time, but I see no indication that anything is being done to address it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member again for his wide-ranging discussion of some of the factors and some of the difficulties in treating tinnitus. I share some of his frustration that we don't have, as I said earlier, a treatment that is able to alleviate successfully some symptoms in even the majority of patients -- even 50 percent plus one.
K. Jones: You can't do it for any of them.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It strikes me that some of the attempt to address the issue, I suspect, will initially have to be in the area of research, both in this country and other countries. The member has already alluded to some of the research that is starting to come out; obviously, more needs to be done.
The member has identified a number of factors that can lead to tinnitus and the need for attempts to prevent the condition, where possible. If he has any advice on how we can get youngsters to stop compressing their ear up against a stereo system, I'd enjoy receiving it. In the Ministry of Health we obviously do that sort of prevention work in as wide a variety of areas as we can. There are indeed standards for noise and noise pollution at public events -- sometimes widely ignored. That leaves out, as the member says, the tendency of some to crank their boom car and ride down the street in the middle of their loudspeaker, with resultant damage to their hearing. I would be glad to hear the member's suggestions about particular areas which additional attention needs to be devoted to for treatment of this. At this time, prevention is one area that we do look at, but quite frankly, I see no magic silver bullet that's going to alleviate this condition in all people.
K. Jones: There are two areas that I would like to suggest for helping to deal with this. One is in the counselling area, which is what I was suggesting: that the ministry set up a process where people can, through their practitioners and through the direct information bases to the public, be made aware of the facts of tinnitus and also the factors that create tinnitus and through that help prevent many people from having the experience of tinnitus -- an experience that no one should ever have.
[ Page 14567 ]
There is also the need to establish a research area. I agree that there is work going on in different parts of the world -- fairly limited work, again -- but it's a part that we also should be making a contribution towards. We have very talented research people in this province and throughout Canada, and it would be very, very beneficial if we could get some of them working in the area of tinnitus.
But we need to recognize that there is not one single method of cure presently available to the people who have this. There needs to be a series of programs. I would be happy to introduce the minister to others who have experience and concern about this, and perhaps the minister might be willing to develop a small task force to look at how best to facilitate this area. At the present time there's basically nothing being done.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his suggestions. I would add one suggestion of my own. One area that I think the member might possibly pursue is a direct approach to the UBC faculty of medicine continuing education program. They do take suggestions on measures for the ongoing education of physicians, both in new therapies and conditions that are neglected or that physicians seem unaware of. It might be well to see what work is being done, or what work could be done, through the ongoing education of practising physicians in the province.
K. Jones: I appreciate the suggestion of the minister and certainly will follow through on talking with UBC continuing education with regard to some program that could be provided for the physicians in the province.
I would hope that the minister would also take on the larger responsibility of trying to get the message out to people all over the province. I can tell you that there was one little bit of publicity by the group that later formed the Tinnitus Association of B.C. When they put their phone number down, they were totally inundated. They just couldn't cope with the number of calls that came to them with concerns about the problem. At that point, they vowed they would never use their own phone number or name again. They were just overwhelmed.
There is a serious problem out there and no small group of people can deal with that. There needs to be some agency that can deal with that large, overwhelming desire for information. I think it can only be effectively done as part of a ministry program.
[3:45]
I'd like to go on to another area. I'd like to go back to the question we were talking about a few days ago in estimates with the minister. That was with regard to the need for ambulance and emergency services in Surrey and the fact that two areas -- the Cloverdale area and the Scott Road, or 120th, area -- are serious growth areas which are the furthest distance from any of the available hospitals. Therefore there needs to be a place for persons, particularly young families with various household and playground injuries and illnesses, to be taken for minor treatment and, if more serious, to be stabilized and advanced to one of the major emergency facilities.
Could the minister give us some indication of what work is being done to provide that type of facility?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As we discussed earlier, the land at 120.... Is the land on 125th or 128th? I can never remember.
K. Jones: What land are you talking about?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is the Surrey site that we're looking at constructing....
The Chair: As hopeful as it may be, hon. members, if comments could be through the Chair, or if this could take place in some other venue, it would be of assistance to Hansard.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to know that the Chair is alert and vigilant in his duties.
The site on Scott Road is slated for phase development, initially for multilevel care. I think that is one of the prime needs that health bodies in the south Fraser area have identified for additional growth. Following that, there is the addition of ambulatory care; following that, there will be a decision on whether additional acute space should be provided through other facilities or added to that site.
K. Jones: I'm pleased to see that the minister is indicating that there may be a facility available in the area of 120th Street and Scott Road. But what about the Cloverdale area? It is almost eight miles to the east, and there are major traffic problems in trying to get anywhere near the Surrey Memorial Hospital during regular times or at rush hour. What provision has the minister made for facilities in the area, say, from 176th Street to 184th Street, or that area where there's a large urban home development going on, almost right through to Willowbrook?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've spoken of the next major facility that will be added in the Surrey or south Fraser region. There are at least tentative plans to include ambulatory care. Decisions will be made about whether further acute services should be added to other existing facilities, such as Surrey, Langley, Peace Arch, or to the new Surrey site at 120th and Scott. I must say that I will refrain from conveying to the member opposite how a ten-mile trip sounds to somebody from my part of the province, where one may live 70 or 80 miles -- in some cases, hundreds of miles -- from any facility that could provide emergency care.
K. Jones: Having lived further north than you live, and for almost five years of my life in the Peace River district and up the Alaska Highway, I fully appreciate that places like Fort Nelson, Liard, 101, Burwash on the Alaska Highway and certainly Hudson's Hope.... While the dam was under construction, I spent two and a half years there. We appreciate the difficulties of northern travel.
My daughter, my family and my grandchildren live in Kitimat, and I appreciate the trouble they have trying to get proper health care facilities there. I fully support the needs of people in those areas, but I'm also addressing areas where it may take almost as long to travel across Surrey as it takes to travel from 100 miles out of Prince George into Prince George. There's a far greater density of population. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people within this area, but the smaller populations need to be addressed too. You won't find me criticizing the need to have practitioners and proper
[ Page 14568 ]
accommodations in Fort St. John, as was brought up in question period. Certainly the problems you experience in Prince George, where persons with broken bones are being sent to Edmonton or Kamloops to try to get an orthopedic surgeon to deal with them.... There is a real need.
In this case, we are talking about a small amount of money. We're not talking about a major hospital facility. We're talking about having something that would provide emergency and ambulatory or walk-in service that would deal with the minor issues and problems, and if they are identified as major problems, give the patients some stabilization and send them on to the major centres. It's good, efficient health care.
This is what I am sure you are interested in. It's Closer to Home health care, and that's what you have been saying you want to put in. That's why I am suggesting it. I am not suggesting that we put a hospital in Cloverdale. Not at all. I am saying: let's put in the emergency treatment capabilities, because we have so much need. We have seniors and young children who need that kind of short, quick treatment. We can save a lot of dollars if we treat people in the very earliest of stages. It's like the fire department. If you get there within five minutes, you're probably likely to save most buildings. If you get there much later than that, you're likely to say you'll try to protect the adjoining structures, because you've probably lost the original building.
That's the type of situation we have in emergency health care as well. It is hard to believe that in a circumstance like this, the ministry is reducing the vehicles that are available in Cloverdale under the ambulance service from two vehicles or one and one-half vehicles to one vehicle. Could the minister explain to us why there is a reduction in the ambulance service in Cloverdale?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much for that curve ball.
Let me just say this. I must say to the member opposite that there are various clinics and walk-in offices available for people who have a minor injury and need to get treatment. That is as true in Cloverdale as it is in other parts of the province.
K. Jones: No, it's not.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite says no, it's not. I suggest to the member opposite that there are lots of walk-in clinics around, but they may not be on his particular block.
K. Jones: Check after hours.
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the challenges we have is to spend health dollars wisely. To suggest that we can have a trauma unit in every block simply does not make sense. We are going to spend the dollars as best we can. I would suggest to the member opposite that he might want to take his concerns about the clinic situation to the community health council in his area, because I know that in South Surrey, as in other parts of the province, people are looking at what services could be provided in a clinic rather than a hospital setting.
As far as ambulance service goes, I would suggest there is a clear need to make sure that we are using ambulance resources effectively and to make sure the response times are as low as possible. If the member has information that response times have not been met or that service is not being provided, I would be glad to hear them. I have asked the ambulance service to take a very close look at staffing around the province, because in the past, as far as I can ascertain, much of the staffing for the service has grown perhaps more by lobbying than by planning.
I think we ought to develop a more rational approach to allocation of resources for emergency health treatment, as we are in other areas of health provision.
K. Jones: Throwing in the ambulance question wasn't meant as a curve. They are connected in that they provide the emergency treatment and then the transport for bringing the people to the emergency facility with cars, in many cases, and ambulance service.
What has happened in Cloverdale, which is a high-growth area and is situated between two very large growth areas as backup, is that we have reduced the ambulance capability in that area. I am hearing concerns from the practitioners that somebody has things mixed up. Perhaps you could look into that and try to find out what's going on, why that would be occurring and maybe rectify the situation. It is more likely that we should be adding to ambulance capability rather than reducing it. I would like to leave that item for now.
I would like to ask one other question, and that is: could the minister give us a breakdown of the lottery fund usage? Where are the funds that come from the lotteries spent?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member opposite knows, the Health special account consists of one-half of the moneys that are paid into the consolidated revenue fund under the Lottery Corporation Act. In fiscal year 1995-96 we estimate the revenue from the Lottery Corporation will be about $230 million; $115 million of that will be paid into the Health special account.
[4:00]
The full amount in that account is spent on ministry operations. It is applied against voted expenditures for the ministry in a variety of areas, including the Closer To Home fund, public health inspection and kidney devices. There is a long list. We have not said that we should target that fund at one or two specific initiatives. We have said that we ought to be using that fund widely in providing health services to British Columbians.
G. Wilson: I have some very specific questions with respect to the riding. I appreciate the opportunity to get in and do this. I'll do it as expeditiously as possible so that members can get back to their more lengthy debate.
In the first instance, if the minister could please advise, there was a press release that went out today with respect to psychiatric beds. The minister knows that we have met on a number of occasions with respect to the provision of psychiatric services in Powell River through the construction of and the promise of a separate and independent building. I'd like to know what the update is on that. I had understood, in my meetings with both the minister's staff and with the Ministry of Employment and Investment on that issue, that we were still in line to have that building constructed. If this bed and the announcement of the midcoast beds is connected, I'd like to know. Clearly that would be a change in position from where I thought we were.
[ Page 14569 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must regretfully say to the member opposite that I don't have that specific information available to me right now. I'll see if staff can provide it.
We have had, as you know, several discussions about the importance of replacing some rather unsuitable facilities for mental health in Powell River. We had worked on a variety of options and I know the member had worked both with me and with the Minister of Employment and Investment to move forward with a mental health facility and mental health services in Powell River. I will attempt to ascertain if there is any change in status. I am unaware of the activity to which the member refers.
G. Wilson: I'm referring to a press release that went out May 24, 1995. I have a copy here. Maybe I'll send it over and you can take a look at it.
The issue with respect to that service.... I wonder if I could just push the minister a bit on it. I'm aware, because the minister has been very forthcoming with staff time to try and look at the increased placement of psychiatric patients in Powell River, that there is a funding debate going on within cabinet as to whether or not it would be better to utilize the second floor of the new hospital, or whether it would be better to construct a new facility for the provision of long-term service. We're concerned that if we look at increased placement opportunities now, and if there are provisions for some intermediate plan, then that is de facto going to become the direction that we take. I can't make a strong enough case for the need for a separate facility, a separate building. It was something that was promised to the people of Powell River; the people of Powell River fully anticipate they're going to get it. I think they're prepared to wait if they have to wait a little while for it, but not long. I wonder if the minister might tell us who's winning the battle in cabinet: this minister, or the Minister of Employment and Investment?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As for the capital budget and the location of mental health services in Powell River, the battle is ongoing. As for the news release and the beds to which the member refers, I thank him for the copy of the news release; I was not sure what he was referring to. I would like to distinguish between the facility we're developing for Powell River and the services we need to consolidate and provide proper housing for in Powell River with the announcement of the Riverview replacement beds.
In the case of the Riverview replacement beds, what we are looking at is the sort of tertiary mental health service for very intense cases that will require, as the mental health community says, a sanctuary, a place away from the world where they can feel both safe and treated. What we have said as a government is that we intend to act on the Riverview redevelopment plans to both construct a new facility of 300 to 320 beds at the Riverview site and also disperse some of those tertiary services to other regions in the province. A task force for the Vancouver Island midcoast region was asked to present a plan of where their approximately 100 beds for that area should be allocated. The results of their report, as the news release says, is that they were looking at some 50 in the Victoria area, 45 in facilities at Nanaimo, and five kept for very specialized cases at the lower mainland, probably at the Coquitlam site.
This is a long-term plan, as the member knows, as part of the Riverview downsizing. We're downsizing for two reasons. First, the mental health community and care providers who work with mental health clients are increasingly convinced that better treatment and more respectful treatment can be provided in community settings rather than in institutional settings. Therefore we continue to build residential housing for people who don't need a tertiary facility.
The second part of the downsizing has been to say that it isn't good enough for the province as a whole to say there's one place in the province where you can get tertiary mental health service. It isn't closer to folks' homes if you live in the Okanagan, Prince George or Nanaimo. One of the difficulties that goes along with it, though, is that you must have a certain critical mass of patients to enable you to attract the psychiatric specialists and other care providers to make sure that you're delivering quality care. So while it would be wonderful to say we could have a full range of mental health services up to and including tertiary service in every community, the reality is that there's not the critical mass of need to make that work. Therefore the folks who were looking at the replacement beds for the Vancouver Island midcoast region have recommended -- and the ministry has accepted the recommendation -- locations in Victoria and Nanaimo, and a small number of beds in the Vancouver region.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the clarification from the minister. Coming back, then, to the proposition of the facility itself, can the minister tell us when the people of Powell River could expect that a decision will be made? And may I offer at this point that if the minister needs any additional ammunition to finish off his colleague on this question -- if that's what needs to be done to get that facility up and running -- I'd be happy to provide it. There are some very sound financial reasons why this facility should stand independent of that hospital. The problem is that when you tend to look at it in the cold, hard scrutiny of a ledger, you forget that there are some very real human reasons why, in the long term, financially you're better off to go the other route. I'm sure this minister hasn't forgotten that, and I offer my assistance in making sure that his colleagues, who may be legitimately looking at budgetary considerations, see the light on this question. But the people of Powell River would really like to know what time frame we're looking at for that decision to be made.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that this has been an issue for the people in Powell River for some time. The member and I have both corresponded and conversed on how we balance the appropriate site for delivery of services with the fiscal prudence that we're charged with employing in spending public funds. As the member knows, one of the arguments that's been advanced very strongly by some people involved in capital facilities is that at a time when there is vacant space in a hospital, we should be looking at whether that is suitable rather than looking at building a brand-new facility. The work between my ministry and the Ministry of Employment and Investment is ongoing as far as ascertaining what is suitable space for delivery of these services. I would anticipate that we would have a decision for the people in Powell River sometime this summer.
[ Page 14570 ]
G. Wilson: I get the feeling -- and maybe it's just my sensitivity on this question -- that the minister is hedging a little on what I thought was a very convincing argument that I had sold him on earlier: that the facility standing alone, in fact, was the best way to go. I won't feel quite as comfortable if I don't think that argument is being advanced without reservation against the colleagues who may be arguing differently. Can the minister confirm that he still is of that opinion about a stand-alone facility, notwithstanding where its site is? That's another matter, and it's a rather contentious matter, as to whether it's sited in its original place or to the side. I think that has now become a secondary consideration fuelled by the fact that it may not be built at all. If the minister could just reaffirm that he is still of the opinion that an independent facility is most desirable, then we'd be prepared to work with him to make sure that it comes about.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I can assure the hon. member that my prime arguments will always be to ensure that the facility meets the need to deliver appropriate patient care. As I have told the member, I accept that the stand-alone facility met that test. In order for me to move away from that position, I need to be convinced that an equivalent quality of services could be provided in another location. As I say, the debate is ongoing.
G. Wilson: Knowing the minister to be an intelligent man of great integrity, I know that there is no viable argument that would convince him otherwise, so I take some comfort in that. But I do offer assistance. This is something that really is of importance to the people of Powell River, notwithstanding the concerns. I know that there are budgetary concerns, but if we can get those dealt with and get the project up and running, that would be useful.
If I could now move on. I really have only four other principal issues, and I'd like to just go directly to them. On the matter of alcohol and drug prevention in Powell River, the history of this is somewhat interesting. In 1992 there was application for and an offer at that time, I believe, for a prevention officer provided for the community of Powell River to look at alcohol and drug prevention within the schools. At that time, because the offer was made in the absence of any discussion with the Powell River District Teachers' Association, who were involved in a very controversial negotiation for their collective agreement, viewed that that might be a contracting-out issue and they tended not to want that position to come forward.
I met recently -- in fact as recently as last evening -- with the committee of the board, with respect to alcohol and drug prevention. There is no drug prevention officer there at the moment. There is an urgent need. We have put in place a community youth organization that is now involved in peer counselling. We've got people who are actively involved in the provision of services to youths who are addicted. We have a number of organizations which are up and running with respect to services, both in terms of counselling and provisions for family rehabilitation for those people who have come off rehabilitation programs and are now moving home to their family in order to do follow-up.
We do urgently need a counsellor, an officer or a worker. Those words get interchanged, and I want to make sure that it's the same.... Staff person -- that's what I'm talking about. This is not a huge cost, and the benefit to the community would be enormous. I hope the minister can see the need and the wisdom for it and recognize that, notwithstanding what took place in 1992, the community is very much behind getting such a person. If the minister would like, I'd arrange some kind of a venue for him to make the announcement himself.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess what is interesting is that what started out as a project, really, to see if prevention staff could have an impact, a number of years ago.... At the time, the member says there was a proposal from Powell River to bid on one of these positions. At that time it was a relatively innovative idea, and people weren't sure whether it was a valuable idea. People, indeed, questioned whether we should put any money into prevention rather than into building more detoxes and treatment centres.
I'm very pleased to hear that.... Let me say first, I regret very much that things went so sideways when the original proposal from Powell River didn't come to fruition, as the member says, because of some jurisdictional difficulties with staff. I wish I could announce to the member that we have great amounts of new staff to allocate; we don't. I'm pleased to hear that the member is supportive of this approach, though. I will make sure that, as we look at what resources we do have to enhance prevention counselling, Powell River is high on the list of those considered.
[4:15]
I think one of the most essential parts of an effective prevention program is community support. I was pleased to hear the member report that there is an active community youth centre, peer counselling and other initiatives. As he and I both know, without that sort of receptive ground, you can plant as many seeds as you wish, and not many of them will sprout. I'm pleased to hear that some of that ground has been tilled and is still receptive in Powell River to the idea of a prevention officer. We'll give it any consideration. If we find funds, I assure the member that Powell River will be high on the list of those for consideration
G. Wilson: I certainly would be happy to help you look for the funds, as necessary. We don't need a large number; we only need one. It's not a huge amount. I would point out, though, that when the minister does review this matter, and I'm pleased that he will review it.... I will get back to him. I think this minister knows me well enough to know that he'll be hearing from me again on it shortly. I hope the minister recognizes the isolation of Powell River. We can't share a position; it's just not possible. One of the things that I explored was the possibility within the health unit of the chance for shared facility and use. It just can't logistically work that way; otherwise, I think we probably would have opted to go that route, recognizing there is a fiscal issue at hand. We do need an individual in Powell River who is there full-time, and if we can help you identify those funds, that would be useful.
Recognizing that others want to get back into this debate, I wonder if I might move on to a larger matter: the proposition of fluoridation. Because I haven't been able to be in the debate until this point forward, I don't know if fluoridation has been raised. This matter is becoming a serious concern to a number of people. Could the minister please give us an update on what the position is with respect to this ministry's advocacy for or reaction against community fluoridation of water systems?
[ Page 14571 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to return and touch briefly on the school-based prevention program for alcohol. One of the things my staff has just informed me of is the work that is ongoing at the Institute of Health Promotion Research at UBC. It is doing an evaluation of this three-year program on prevention that has led to the employment of prevention workers in 53 secondary schools throughout the province. One of the things that the institute is going to be assessing is the feasibility of implementing an ongoing project that crosses these artificial boundaries of government ministries. Is it an education issue, for instance, a health issue or a municipal issue? It doesn't much matter. It's everybody's issue, and it's our kids, so we need to address that. As that work is ongoing, the need for increased prevention planning will be there, and the results of this evaluation will demonstrate the effectiveness of the program we have had in place for the last three years.
As far as community water fluoridation is concerned, fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective way to reduce the incidence of dental caries, and it continues to be that. It also continues to be recognized in this jurisdiction and others as both effective and safe. The royal commission, as I think the member may know, recommended that all community water supplies be required to have fluoridation. This is presently a decision of the municipalities, and under the act, they have the right to decide. That's where the situation stands right now: it is in their hands. There are indeed some groups that would seek to defluoridate water in some municipalities. The most recent coordinated campaign I am aware of was last year in Kamloops, where at the end of the day, the referendum failed and fluoridation remained.
G. Wilson: This of course remains a very controversial issue for some people, who have compelling arguments to suggest that fluoridation is in fact not the route to go, and that it is not as safe as it is presented to be. I am interested to hear that the minister is suggesting to us that his ministry is not prepared to take action to remove the decision from the local communities, if I have heard him correctly. If that's the case, then that's really all that needs to be said here at this point. But clearly, those people who do have concerns need to address those concerns within municipal councils, so that both sides of the argument can be heard. The fluoridation lobby is a very well-financed and powerful lobby, and there are some considerations that need to be looked at before we get into this wholesale provision of fluoridation, if it ever comes about, notwithstanding the royal commission report.
If I could move on, again in the interests of time, I wonder if I might raise another matter that has to do with a community water system. It deals specifically with arsenic content in the Middle Point area. This is an area that the minister knows, and we have talked about the levels of arsenic in domestic water supplies. I should declare my past interest; it was in an area where I, at one time, owned property. Due to circumstances somewhat out of my control, but within the control of the judiciary, that property now resides outside of my concern. I'd be interested to know whether or not the levels of arsenic went up since that decision. It might implicate me in something that I'm absolutely innocent of. But the issue of arsenic is a serious one there; I guess I should take it up for those constituents who are faced with it. Here we've got unacceptable levels in domestic well water, and it's well water we're talking about here. We have no easy way to provide regional water into that area because it's extremely rocky terrain; it's very expensive; it's very difficult to move water lines in there. Filters, while they are useful perhaps in the interim or as an immediate solution, are not the long-term solution, quite obviously.
I wonder if the minister could tell us what position his ministry is taking with respect to their responsibility, or if they deem that they have any responsibility in making sure that the provision of safe drinking water can be there.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will assure all members of the committee that every bit of evidence we have suggests that the elevated arsenic levels in some rural well supplies in the Sunshine Coast and Powell River are entirely a natural occurrence.
I think the member states the situation well. Clearly the best long-term solution would be extension of community water supplies to the areas. What we have said in this regard is that eligibility for revenue-sharing grants to help defray that cost will be expedited wherever we can. We are supporting that process by recommending that both the matching funds and the regional district make it a top priority.
Failing that, I must say that the responsibility for private well water quality remains with the owners of the property. While the Ministry of Health staff are available to offer advice and recommendations, the options and costs associated with bottled water or treatment devices are the responsibility of private well owners.
G. Wilson: One of the problems with this situation -- and I heard the member for Surrey-Cloverdale suggesting that shallow wells may be.... The problem is that they're all drilled wells; they're drilled primarily in granite. Most of them are over 300 feet in depth; these are deep wells. The concentration of arsenic seems to be in a particular area and doesn't affect the rest of the coast.
I was curious because when it first came out that there was arsenic in the well water, it was around an interesting time of my life, and I was expecting some front-page headline that somehow I'd contaminated the systems. I'm pleased to know that they're entirely natural, and I'm glad that the Hansard record, at least, is going to acknowledge that.
I wonder if the minister, then, is telling us that there is provision for matched funding, that there will be expedited.... I think the regional district is now, through their engineers Dayton and Knight, putting together a package. If the minister, with his commitment today, can support what I'm sure will be an application within the very near future, that's very useful for us to know.
I'll move on to ambulance service in the same area, the Pender Harbour area. There is an issue with respect to ambulance service and the Pender Harbour clinic. The minister will know that he's received correspondence from the attending physician, Dr. Amiel in the Pender Harbour clinic, with respect to either abilities or inabilities to provide treatment of serious injury at the clinic and/or the discretion of the ambulance attendants and drivers to bypass the clinic to go directly to St. Mary's Hospital, which is some distance away. This comes as a result of an incident where an individual had suffered a cardiac problem -- I'm not sure exactly what the problem was. But it seemed to be a discretionary call on the part of both the ambulance attendant and the driver whether
[ Page 14572 ]
they should go directly to the clinic where there was a physician standing by or drive the 30 minutes to the hospital. They opted to go to the hospital, which was -- as it turned out, I think -- a serious error of judgment on the part of the attendants, although a loss of life was not, very fortunately, a result of that decision.
I'm curious to know what the minister's position is with respect to two items: first, the provision of both diagnostic and treatment facilities at clinics such as the Pender Harbour clinic where I think we could and perhaps should accommodate some provision for both diagnostic and treatment capability; second, the matter of discretion with respect to ambulance attendants on where they would deliver first response services for patients who are in chronic need.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll deal with the second question first. My understanding -- and staff have advised me -- that when ambulance attendants are called out, there are pretty clear protocols as to which conditions are transported to which facilities. There is some assistance or additional information provided at times by dispatch. But my understanding is that this is well codified and known to health providers in a region and so shouldn't come as a great surprise. If there is a particular incident where a protocol which has been well known and established has been not adhered to for some reason, I'd be interested in seeing it. I'd be pleased to have staff review it and provide you with information as to why a protocol was not adhered to in a particular case.
[4:30]
As for the upgrading of a clinic at Pender Harbour to the status of a diagnostic and treatment centre, I think this is one of the opportunities that community health councils and regional health boards will have to plan on a regional or community level for where services are best provided. They have to balance the usual number of priorities: funding and access. Obviously that is the balance that they will be working on. But in principle, I have no trouble in saying that moving wherever possible some services closer to where folks live is desirable. The challenge that councils have is making sure that the need for those services is actually sufficient to support the expense of a clinic to provide them.
G. Wilson: I want to move into the community health council and, in particular, talk about what I think is a fairly unique situation with respect to the Coast-Garibaldi health unit. We have an interesting situation there by virtue of the fact that we've got the Squamish area in Howe Sound, which is geographically quite distinct and isolated from the lower section of the Sunshine Coast, and then, of course, the Powell River area to the north.
One of the problems we're going to run into with these community health councils -- and I wonder if the minister might comment on it -- has to do with such things as protocols. It also will deal with the matter of where scarce funds are going to go in terms of diagnostic and treatment facilities. I wonder what thinking the minister has with respect to the provision of staff services for that region, which will be able to tie together three relatively distinct communities, and how we're going to be able to manage that without escalating budgets. We're going to need three somewhat independent administrations, if the minister can understand my concern. We are extremely concerned. I will say that the Alliance is on record as saying that in the event that we were in a position to, we would not abandon this process. There are far too many hours of community service put in for us to simply toss them out. But we would seek to limit the amount of administrative costs that are going to be tied to these new CHCs and RHBs. In this particular riding those costs are going to be fairly significant by virtue of the distinct areas that it serves. If the minister could tell us what thinking there is within the ministry to try to mitigate against those kinds of costs, I think people who are on that committee would be greatly interested, as well.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say just a couple of things about the Coast-Garibaldi health region. It is a challenging region to plan for, as the member says. Not only does it have three geographically separated parts, but people of the region travel to other regions to receive a substantial portion of specialist services. So indeed, health planning and delivery for the region is going to be a challenging job for the regional board.
I know that one of the things they looked at very closely when they were doing their work leading to designation was whether they should continue as a region or attach themselves to other regions that would provide a wider set of services within the borders. The decision was made by the steering group that at least initially they wanted to preserve those health unit boundaries as the region they were working on. We respected that decision. They may wish to review it at some point, but we surely respected their decision to do that.
I submit, hon. member, that their challenge is to do the work with other regions to plan for the delivery of services to communities where possible, access to services in other regions for residents where travel is inevitable and, as the member says, to consolidate and coordinate the services within the three distinct regions.
I must say that my favourite name for a community health council so far has to be Sea To Sky Community Health Council in the Squamish-Whistler-Pemberton area. Those three communities did come together to ask: "How can we plan jointly?"
One of the principles we have laid down for staffing of these councils is to say: "We are not interested or prepared to fund administrative add-ons." We think that in virtually every community in the province there are sufficient resources currently devoted to administration and support. Councils need to reallocate those and get some efficiencies in the administration and support functions for provision of health services. I think the transition teams and three community health councils that are working on health plans and administrative structures in the Coast-Garibaldi region are working on those principles with loaned staff from health agencies that provide services to the region. That is the principle we expect these councils to proceed on.
I will share with the member that at the end of the day when regionalization is operational and authority has been transferred to councils and boards, I will consider it a failure if I see any increase in administration in any region of the province. In most regions, I think administration efficiencies and savings are going to be relatively easy to find. I recognize the challenges in smaller communities, particularly communities that may have a variety of smaller centres that have been coordinated by one community health council.
[ Page 14573 ]
We have said repeatedly that regional boards have accepted, and community health councils are operating on, the principles that there are no administrative add-on funding.
G. Wilson: We'll take the current administrative costs as a baseline from which to measure the success or failure of this minister's plans. Of course, he didn't mention the time frame, so it could be a year, ten years or 15 years.
I have a couple of other local issues, one provincial issue and then I'm finished. If we can take our minds back to Powell River and talk about the Olive Devaud situation and the two-year waiting period we now have for people who need long term care facilities.... We've got a serious problem in Powell River.
One of the problems is, I guess, kind of a two-edged sword. On the one hand, we like to encourage people of retirement age to retire and spend money in our community. The difficulty we have when they do so is that because they're senior in age, their demand on the health care system obviously goes up. The Olive Devaud centre provides a tremendous service, but it is simply inadequate to provide for the need. We have a situation where seniors are being relocated from communities where they want to live out the remaining days of their lives.
I don't know if I can propose an immediate solution. I know the minister would say it's a matter of money and funds, and so on. We are proposing projects. I'm working on an idea with a number of groups in Powell River, which I'd like the minister to comment on in these estimates. I believe it would bring about significant cost savings. It has to do with bringing together Ministry of Housing dollars that are currently going into the provision of specialized housing -- often low-income housing, but sometimes seniors' housing -- to create housing that surrounds diagnostic and treatment facilities. There would then be direct access to medical care within those seniors' complexes.
Private investors are now looking at the opportunity of investing dollars into retirement complexes. These would have a series of units that would either be completely independent and self-contained or be completely serviced. I think the private sector recognizes that there is a dollar opportunity in the provision of these kinds of retirement services. This is starting to be done in the United States; it's been done in Europe for 15 or 20 years. We're a long way behind.
I wonder if the minister might tell us what planning or thinking is going on in the ministry now. There are three groups in Powell River that I'm working with and encouraging to get into this head space. They can start planning these kinds of complexes if there are likely to be avenues along which the ministry will assist in their development.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to pursue the philosophy for the provision of housing and care for seniors which I think the member opposite is looking at. I think the approach he's working on is commendable. It's clear that the health facilities this ministry funds through the continuing care division are true health facilities, and people who reside in them need a fair set of health services. Increasingly, the efforts of long term care societies, home support societies and the ministry have been to provide as much support as possible for people in their own homes or living accommodations without requiring them to relocate to a long term care facility.
Within this ministry, the Ministry of Health, we provide funds for the long term care facility -- the health facility. We do not fund the sort of supportive housing that the member is talking of. One of the difficulties is, of course, to not tread where the market is serving well. I am pleased to hear that the member is working with groups that are working with private developers in the municipality to figure out how supportive housing can be designed by people for themselves.
He might wish to have these groups approach the office for seniors in my ministry, which forms a coordinating liaison role for a variety of groups across the province that are involved in the design and building of supportive housing for seniors, both through the Abbeyfield housing movement -- you may be aware of that -- and a variety of other arrangements and options that might be of interest for his constituents to consider, as they look at what arrangements they might wish to make for themselves in their senior years.
G. Wilson: I thank the minister for that response. We are actively pursuing the avenues that the minister recommends, and we'll proceed that way.
I would bring to the attention of the minister an issue that I know he and his staff have been aware of. It has to do with this issue of home support and the problem that we run into when we look at the number of hours that are demanded within a fixed budget. Those hours may be advanced early on in the budget year, only to find that by the time you get into the latter months of the budget, you effectively are no longer in a position to be able to provide service. Because those hours escalate, when the new budget comes down, if that new budget is based on a base that doesn't take into account the escalating demand, then we end up with what would, for all intents and purposes, look like a cut -- a reduction.
I've had an opportunity to meet with Colin Elliot and go through this in detail. He's given me a very detailed explanation of how this thing works financially. But the problem here is that if we don't find some better system of providing that in-home service and home care, and if we don't look at ways of trying to mitigate against those rising costs, fewer people are going to be served with the dollars that remain. That is a significant problem for the Powell River and District Home Support Society.
[4:45]
The minister will know that we've had some considerable discussion on this matter, and I'm hoping that he has some good news to tell us: there is a recognition that the increased demand is there and that we are going to have to recognize that there are more dollars to go into that home support service, notwithstanding the fact that we're being fiscally responsible. I wouldn't want to be accused of just demanding more and more money, but I am demanding more money for this particular service, because we've got people who are seriously in need of it. It seems to me that the first obligation of government is to look after the people who pay the taxes to support it, and this is one of the ways we can do so.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that in the member's riding, as in others around the province, some of our reassessment and adjustment has been brought to the attention of MLAs' offices, and there has been concern about it. We had a rather extensive discussion in this chamber about it, and the member might wish to review the Blues from two days ago, as we thrashed this issue out in detail.
[ Page 14574 ]
Let me just say a couple of things. First, I absolutely share the member's concern that we increase and continue to increase home support where it is needed. It might be of interest to the member to know that in the Coast-Garibaldi health region in the 1990-91 fiscal year, the home support hours funded totalled just over 105,000. In the last year for which I have figures, 1994-95, that figure was 141,000 hours -- a substantial increase, nearly 40 percent. And that is typical of the funding increases that have gone into home support services around the province over the last five years. This has not been an area in which we have stinted. The budget last year for home support was $154 million for the province; four years previous it was $95 million. So we continue to fund home support and recognize it as a necessity.
In this area we have asked our care managers to review cases and make sure that the services are going where needed. We have found some inconsistencies in how services are funded, and we've also said to case managers: "Be very careful. Assess well. If an adjustment in hours would result in somebody having to move to a residential, institutional or hospital setting, preserve the hours; don't take them away. Independent living is what this is about." We've also asked them to look very carefully at making sure they're getting the most out of these dollars.
Last year the total number of hours funded provincially went up between 2 percent and 3 percent, depending on the health region. The final thing I would say to this member, as I have said to others who have raised this concern with me, is that if you have a constituent who feels that he or she has been inappropriately assessed and the hours have not reflected need, do assist that person in seeking a reappraisal.
Case managers have been told that if there is a questioning of the adjustment another case manager should initially be assigned to do an assessment. If the assessment is still found to be unsatisfactory to the client, the continuing care manager should be a route of appeal. If there's no satisfaction there, people in the branch here in Victoria will look at the case. We are not interested in taking away necessary services; we are interested in making sure that we are putting the dollars where they are needed and doing so effectively. This is an area of great concern to many; it's an area that I want to see funds increasing for. But I want to see consistency of use so we're making sure that we're spending dollars wisely.
The Chair: Before recognizing the member, the Chair would like to advise all members that there is certainly recognition that all members have concerns within their own constituencies to raise. There is a danger in how we proceed that the same subject matter can be canvassed 75 times. In fairness to all, and so as to avoid becoming repetitious, when a matter has been extensively canvassed in the past, it would probably be prudent and not limiting of debate to refer back to that extensive canvassing. Having said that, the hon. member continues.
G. Wilson: I was actually going to say that I will take the time to go back and read the Blues, and I won't take up the valuable time of the minister. I'm looking around: there's probably about five hospital beds right here, I think, if we were to equate in FTEs the time spent in this process, which is really productive. Right? I think we can agree for the most part.
I would like to send over to the minister the comment from Dr. Amiel with respect to that, so that can be dealt with. I just have one last issue -- actually two, possibly. I just raise this by way of notice, because I may pick it up later. I don't know if the member for Richmond East has dealt with the whole question of denturists and the idea of the provincial association. Does the member intend to raise that matter?
L. Reid: I could, but if you'd rather, please proceed.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure this is the appropriate time to do it, but now that I've done it, let me just quickly push forward. The minister will know, because I'm sure that he, like the rest of us, has received many, many of these little cards that say: "I believe that denturists require their own College of Denturism in the expanded scope of practice recommended by the Health Professions Council of B.C." It has been a very effective lobby; certainly I have had an opportunity to meet and spend a very good and very productive session with a group that does believe there should be some amendments to the act.
I wonder if the minister might tell us what the current thinking is on this question, whether or not there is going to be some movement toward resolution of their concerns and if so, what exactly that might be.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite referred to one part of the lobby. I wonder if he's also been lobbied by the College of Dental Surgeons of the province on the issue.
The current status of the desire to establish a college for denturists is this: the Health Professions Council recommended a regulation and recommended the establishment of a college. Cabinet approved that we should proceed in that direction and published the draft regulation. An extensive period of debate over the regulation has now been completed.
I have, a few days ago, signed off on a formal submission to cabinet for approval of regulation and establishment of the college. I expect that cabinet will be dealing with this issue in the very near future. I hope that before we go home for the summer, we will be able to announce the conclusion of this process which began nearly two years ago, I think, with a report from the Health Professions Council.
The Chair: The Chair is aware of this issue going back 30 years.
G. Wilson: I didn't quite hear the comment from the Chair, but I think that this presumably is going to be good news, at least to half of the lobby. I don't know where the other half is going to.... I have actually been lobbied by both sides in this question, and in fairness, I think there are some legitimate issues here. I'm delighted to hear that the minister is moving forward.
In this business, when you're in opposition, you tend to glean little pieces of information whenever you can. I don't know whether this is an announcement that's coming down, but I'm pleased that the minister has been that candid. The fact that he said "before we go home for the summer" sounds to me like we might be back next spring, which is something that we might take as a warning with respect to when the election might be. Maybe I'm just reading far too much into that, I don't know -- could be.
[ Page 14575 ]
This is my last question, and then I'm finished. I would say, hon. Chair, that one of the reasons that I don't have five days' worth of questions is that the minister does make himself and his staff so available. I think the record should demonstrate how appreciative I am as an MLA to the minister for being so forthcoming and for having his staff so available. It really makes the job as MLA much easier if you're able to get to the heart of the issues and get issues solved without going through this rather lengthy and laborious process. It also removes a lot of the politics from it, which tends to be more productive most of the time.
However, I'll move on to a political issue that deals with the accord and information as I've travelled the province. If the member for Richmond East has raised this already, I'll again yield to read Hansard. As I travel the province, there seems to be growing concern from health administrators that the accord, because of the rigidness of it and the limited flexibility, is requiring that hospitals spend from their capital budget on operation.
If, in fact, hospitals are having to spend out of their capital budget to cover operational costs, this would be a very serious issue. It would indicate that if that's the case -- I would think, in my limited experience -- and one was to do a spot audit, one would find that moneys that presumably are there on deposit with respect to capital provisions aren't there at all. They are being used on an ongoing basis to deal with operation. The reason, I'm told, that this is going on -- I've heard this from independent regions that don't come together except by way of their provincial discussions from time to time -- is that the accord limits the flexibility.
There have been no additional dollars provided in order to meet the requirements that the accord provides. If the minister could comment on that, I'd like to know, because it is of growing concern to administrators who are trying to be responsible. They are concerned that accounts that show moneys there in fact don't have moneys there, because those moneys have had to be used for operational expenditure.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I had similar discussions with hospital administrators on the difficulties of the accord. I've replied that they should have considered the difficulties of doing the restructuring of health care without the accord. I suspect that would have been....
First, the wage bill is almost identical; that needs to be recognized. I'm surprised to hear that the member has had hospital administrator after hospital administrator saying they are raiding capital funds to do operational expenses. You are not supposed to do that unless you inform the ministry and get approval, and we have no extensive records of that. That leaves them open to a variety of possibilities.
Second, we are aware that there are some rigidities in the adjustment provisions. We recognize that sometimes the adjustment of staff may not take place in as timely a manner as one might wish. That's why we provided $4 million through a shared-risk fund for hospitals having difficulty outplacing displaced workers. We intend to continue that practice this year.
In closing, I would only say that the initial remarks on the accord -- and we may need to debate it further.... I continue to receive reports from the Labour Adjustment Agency. I continue to ask them and the ministry to measure how the downsizing of staff in the acute sector of the hospital sector has progressed. Their latest and most comprehensive report was through October 1994. I am anticipating the one through March of this year. They'll be doing it semi-annually fairly soon. The one in October 1994 showed that there had been a reduction in FTE staff in the hospital sector by close to 1,900 FTEs. Hospitals confirmed that for the ministry through independent reporting on paid staff.
I think that on balance the accord has been a good thing, if you are going to have to go through that level of readjustment. I submit that as we talked to hospital administrators to consider what the alternative would have been -- namely, spending three years in front of the Labour Relations Board debating arbitrations over layoff provisions.... The spectre of thousands of health workers whose morale would be, quite frankly, shattered.... It would be seem as if their very valuable work had not been respected.
[5:00]
On balance, I know the accord has been difficult for some. But I submit that if we look at readjustments of the size we are doing in Health, what we have done through the accord is, in many cases, not different from what many major private corporations have done, in terms of adjustment for individuals, retraining and a chance to relocate or pursue other options as staff are downsized.
G. Wilson: This will be my last comment. I think we might get into the accord in more detail a little later, and I will look to the lead critic on this.
My concern is not to point fingers and sort of tattletale on administrators. They are not telling me this for any political reasons. They're not trying to rush out to embarrass the government or to find themselves embarrassed by that process. They have legitimate concerns, because they want to account properly for the moneys they have. The way they posed the issue to me is: "Look, it is not a question of salary." They are not arguing that salaries are too high or too low. They are saying that the flexibility -- with respect to hiring, firing, the provision of staff and how those staff are going to be accommodated -- is not there for them. Therefore, they cannot make the hard decisions they have to make in terms of operation expenditures within their budgets. What they have to do, by necessity, is put reserve and capitals funds into operations.
You're right, that is a big problem. It is a very serious problem, because if audits are done and those reserve funds are not there -- particularly if those reserve funds are provided on some basis through the community -- it's going to be a serious issue. That's why I raise this issue in this debate, because I think this is the appropriate time to do it. This is why I don't stand up in question period and throw it at the minister, because I'm not interested in playing politics on this question. I'm not trying to embarrass any hospital administrators, and neither am I trying in any way to ring the alarm publicly that we've got problems out there, to try and help myself politically.
What I'm saying to the minister is that we've got a serious problem with that flexibility clause and the ability to be able to deal with that at local levels. That problem is creating the necessity for those funds often to be used where they shouldn't be.
[ Page 14576 ]
I urge the minister to look into this seriously, not with a punitive view, to try to go out there and punish those administrators, because I wouldn't want that to be the net result of my remarks today, but to go out and take a serious look at this with a view to doing a bit of an audit, finding where those problems are and finding some provision to solve it. These are responsible people who are trying to make responsible decisions, but due to the lack of flexibility, they simply aren't able to. The minister would agree that it's potentially a bombshell.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to thank the member opposite, and I surely don't take his comments as any indication that I should send in the forensic auditors, followed by the RCMP, to hospital administrators around the province. I appreciate him flagging this as an issue for staff to look at.
Let me just say that one of the things I've been very encouraged about is an increasingly close operating relationship between Ministry of Health staff and hospital administrators around the province. We have been saying to hospital administrators for well over 18 months now: "We know that we're presenting you some tough, tough budget challenges. We don't want to be seen as somebody who's throwing you an anchor and saying have a nice swim. We want to be assisting you in finding out what the best practices could be for a facility your size in clinical aspects and in administration and support, and assisting you hospital administrators and boards in making appropriate adjustments at your facilities."
That has been the goal that I have asked the ministry to strive for, and I think that partnership is, increasingly, working. Over the last year, we've had a number of reviews of hospitals that have been struggling with their financial circumstances. We have assisted with temporary funds in some cases, and we have produced some recommendations on how they could accommodate the accord. Some concerns about flexibility of labour adjustment are one factor in the challenges they face. To state it again: we recognize that as a factor. That's why we have provided millions of dollars in the shared-risk fund, so that when prompt labour adjustment cannot occur, there is some cushioning for individual institutions.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter into the debate. I indicated earlier that there are three or four topics I wish to canvass this afternoon. With the minister's indulgence, I believe that will wrap up consideration of regional programs. Next day, I believe, as we discussed earlier, we'll begin a consideration of corporate programs. If that pleases all present, we'll certainly proceed that way.
Certainly, the core service discussion....
Hon. P. Ramsey: So you had forensic, health protection and aboriginal?
L. Reid: Yes, and the only item remaining from the previous list is core services. I just have a couple of comments in terms of the discussion around core service. I know that a number of discussions have been ongoing with many folks around this province, in a whole myriad of discussions, on what a core service is. I've certainly seen a number of the documents in transition.
I'm wondering if there is an update on the original core service document and, if indeed there is, what the process looks like. Perhaps you have a better understanding of what core service will look like, and what provincial core service looks like compared to regional core service. I'm wondering if there are going to be differences. My sense is that all services that the ministry perceives to be core will not be offered in all regions of the province, and I certainly support that contention. I believe in a centres-of-excellence approach. Could the minister perhaps provide me with a snapshot of where we are in terms of the core service discussion?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The 1994 core services report, dated July, is the one that regional health boards, community health councils and the ministry are working from as we plan for transfer of operational authority to boards and councils. The member is quite right that there may well be at times only one or two sites in the province where a service is provided. I keep using as an example, frankly, to folks from, say, the Prince George or Dawson Creek region, that I doubt we'll be seeing heart transplants done at the Dawson Creek Hospital. There will probably be one place in the province where those are done, and that's appropriate. You need a centre of excellence for that. You also need access to it for all people in the province.
The member for Powell River and I were having an interesting discussion about some of the difficulties that that region is going to have in accessing some "regional" services -- specialist services that in most regions of the province will be provided within a region. In the region that he represents, because of sparsity and diffuseness of population, residents may have to travel to another region.
The challenge that the regional boards are dealing with, as they prepare their individual health plans, is to work from the core services document, to work from inventories that we've been able to provide them on existing health services throughout the province, and to plan for provision of those services to residents in their region. That is their challenge. Yes, there will be a need to do more revisions in core services -- and specify them, I think -- as our care needs change and as the way we provide services changes. But in general, this version of the core services document seems to have provided an acceptable framework on which to base planning by councils and boards.
L. Reid: I welcome the minister's comments; however, I'd be very pleased to receive a copy of that document.
Interjection.
L. Reid: Either would be wonderful, in terms of having some assurances for constituents who approach me, not just from the ridings in the lower mainland but from across the province, wondering what that service is going to look like. I appreciate your comments in terms of the ongoing discussion about it and having folks address some of the inventory material that's obviously available.
My concern surrounds the reality that the core service will be determined by the availability of physicians, specialists, subspecialists and the like. Even though constituents may find on paper that this core service should in fact be available, the reality is that it may not be. On behalf of the minister, I'm wondering what kinds of checks and balances the ministry will have in place. I hope, upon reflection on the list of core services to see how those are being delivered in the regions and how that kind of evaluation might be put in place.
[ Page 14577 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raises an excellent point. As regional health boards prepare their health plans, they are responsible for identifying and demonstrating to the ministry that they do have a plan for providing those services. The ministry will be monitoring the implementation of that plan and the actual provision of those services.
There is of course always the possibility, particularly in some of the more remote regions of the province, that a temporary shortage of health personnel may result in the necessity of asking people to travel for that service rather than having it provided within the region, even though the plan would normally be to provide it within the region.
We had some interesting dialogue today on provision of physician resources, which is an ongoing issue for me and virtually every other provincial health minister in the country, I think, as we figure out how to get physicians interested in practising outside major urban centres. What is the right combination of financial carrots and regulatory sticks to effect a true physician resource plan that meets the broad needs of a dispersed population in this province and other provinces in Canada?
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments on each of the regions having a health plan. Both he and I are aware that many regions of the province today are lacking psychiatric service, obstetrical services and general surgery. If previous methodology hasn't corrected that situation, I'm not convinced the plan will. I think we will still have lovely plans on paper sitting on shelves. We still will not always be in a position to provide those services to individuals.
With all the best intentions in the world and, hopefully, some decent incentives to attract specialists and subspecialists to those regions, will there be an opportunity for the ministry to put in place some kind of check and balance, some kind of checklist as to which regions are meeting their plan and which are not? Certainly there are regions and hospitals today that aren't delivering those services. We lament the fact that they're not. We say, "Isn't it awful that those people can't have that service?" but we don't do anything about it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I wouldn't take issue with much of what the member opposite has said -- only that she referred to a previous methodology. I detect a lack of methodology, quite frankly. Every time somebody tells me that our health system is excellent, I say we may have excellent health services but we don't have much of a health system. The challenge is to take the next steps in Canadian medicare and actually produce a health system that integrates services.
I want to share one or two stories with the member opposite. Very often what seems to happen in terms of actually doing regional provision of services is that an institution or a community group decides that a particular service is what is needed and actively goes out and advocates for it, recruits necessary staffing, lobbies for appropriate funding and provides it in the absence of any regional or community health plan or any staffing model for physician services or other health professionals within the region.
[5:15]
One of the advantages that regionalization provides us is that we will have, for every region and the communities within it, an actual plan for what services should be provided and what staffing is required. We can, I submit, start doing a more accurate measurement of where the chronic gaps are that need to be filled. Right now we're responding episodically. We have in place, for example, a joint committee between the ministry, the BCMA and psychiatrists in the province to look at appropriate measures to more equitably distribute psychiatric services. That arose out of a longstanding shortage of psychiatrists in the part of the province where I live and even more of a shortage further north. So we will be monitoring closely the ability to fill those services within regions where there is a gap that needs to be addressed. We then have the ability to monitor and react and respond to regional health boards that will be saying: "Hey, six of us are having the same difficulty here. What can we do to make sure that those resources are more appropriately distributed?"
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, and I look forward to receiving the core services document. In terms of forensic psychiatric services in the province, I had the opportunity to visit -- and I'm sure the minister has, as well -- a number of those sites. Any anticipated changes? Any new funding in place? The folks I met with indicated that the demand on their resources is extreme. There's a lot of new demand, if you will, or they're perceiving it to be new demand. There seem to be some needs that could be addressed. If the minister could just give me a quick snapshot of that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the things that I was just informed of, that I must confess I lost track of, is where we actually were in the process of building the forensic institute that we need for the province. After a year and a half of my involvement in the planning of it, I was just informed that we are actually starting to drive piles and build it, which I think is wonderful. It will be about two and a half to three years before the new facility is actually constructed and open. The total budget runs to $66 million -- a substantial investment in capital facility that, as the member knows, is very badly needed. That gives us the appropriate setting for dealing with some of the needs that are being increasingly faced by the forensic institute.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, because that's the update I was looking for; I was not clear on the status. If I can receive status reports, I would be very appreciative of that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Piles are going into the ground.
L. Reid: Thank you very much.
In terms of tobacco reduction -- the strategy that has been ongoing in the province.... The minister has been very supportive of reducing the number of young women taking up the habit of tobacco. Both he and I have been aware that typically the average age is 11. That allows for a habit of 60 or 70 or 80 years, which has all those attendant costs that negatively impact on the health care system.
There are some opportunities to be very hard-hitting on this issue. Is it the minister's intention to take some definitive action in the next number of weeks, hopefully? I appreciate that the legislation will be forthcoming, but beyond that, is it ever going to be this government's intention to have that as a controlled substance -- to sell it only in liquor stores? Certainly the research across the land suggests that if you're truly
[ Page 14578 ]
committed to making a difference, you ensure that that substance does not readily find its way into the hands of young people in this province or in this country. Other provinces have approached the issue differently, and I am very aware of what this province has done in terms of vendor licensing and what the new legislation will look at. I'm wondering if we're going to move to the most productive step, which is to view it as a controlled substance.
The Chair: Without wanting to limit the generality of the debate, the Chair would caution all members that future policy and hypothetical questions are not in order. Within the realm of the rules of order, the Chair recognizes the minister for a response.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Chair -- having tied my hands around my back, he then recognizes me.
Look, next steps are a matter of ongoing discussion between both levels of government involved in regulations around tobacco. As you know, the federal minister has recently released a report on whether plain packaging would have an impact on use. The conclusions of that research were that it seemed to have some impact, particularly among young users -- new users -- of tobacco products. As for further steps, I would suggest that we'll be continuing to work on anything with the federal level of government and within our own province.
I must say, though, that one of the things that on a political level I've been most vociferous about is what I consider the total failure of federal policy, as far as tobacco taxation goes, and I think that continues to present problems for all provinces. It has increased the number of smokers, particularly young smokers -- fortunately, not too much in this province. But I think the failure of leadership is startling.
The other thing I would say is that I think we have a lot more work to do at the school and community level with adolescents and preadolescents to assess exactly why smoking seems to continue to have this appeal and what we can do at that level to make it less appealing. Clearly, through the prevention care ads, which both this government and the federal government produce, I think we are doing what we can to counter media image of attractiveness for this habit. As my 15-year-old daughter told me as she looked at some of the prevention care ads that this ministry is producing: "Dad, those are gross." I was very pleased to hear that evaluation, because that is obviously the goal.
I think the next step, frankly, has to be that and then increasing work with vendors. I was distressed recently to learn from the media outlet in my own community that they'd done a random sample of vendors of tobacco, with a 17-year-old in tow, to see how many outlets would sell. Regrettably, it was too many. I think that the legislation we will shortly be debating in the Legislature will give this ministry some tools to work with tobacco vendors, the majority of whom, I continue to believe, want assistance in saying no to minors who purchase tobacco products. The more we can enforce consistency of application of the regulation, the happier most vendors will be. There will obviously be a few who wish to continue to violate the act and sell kiddie-packs or open packs or not post warning signs or have vending machines in uncontrollable locations. Obviously the consequences of that will be considerably higher once the new legislation is passed and proclaimed.
The Chair: Before recognizing the member, the minister's comment does remind the Chair that there is a bill before the House, the second reading debate of which will provide an opportunity to canvass some of these matters. Those aspects of this matter, which are dealt with in that bill, are out of order in this estimates debate.
L. Reid: I want to just make two points. An opportunity is definitely present today to commend the ministry on their ad campaign, and I will certainly do that. I think the ads have been very, very effective in discouraging young women from taking to tobacco. I would again commend the ministry and this government for not bowing to pressures to reduce taxation levels on tobacco. I think that decision was a very good one, because if it is an import/export question, it's not answered by creating a health problem. I certainly appreciate that both your ministry and the Finance ministry stood firm on that. I would welcome standing with this minister at some point if tobacco was seen as a controlled substance and was only sold in liquor stores.
In terms of the final comments for today on aboriginal health -- and not to do such a vast topic a disservice -- my comments will be restricted to two very straightforward points on communication. Certainly the ongoing theme in this estimates debate has been how best to communicate health promotion messages.
I would ask the minister whether any discussion has taken place in terms of revising some of those ad campaigns to incorporate aboriginal health issues or indeed some of the aboriginal languages that are predominant in this province. It seems to me that if we're conveying a message about health promotion, it should be in a manner and a dialect that is understandable to the majority of folks. We should package it in such a way that it would be a useful message. If the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the challenges as a provincial Minister of Health is to work with the federal level of government in coordinating the effective delivery of health services to first nations. As the member knows, the prime responsibility -- at least, financial responsibility -- rests with the federal government.
One of the things we have been funding through aboriginal health councils has been prevention and promotion campaigns in areas such as Best Babies programs and prevention programs for sexually transmitted diseases and others. The federal government, I understand, is embarking on a project with first nations to provide increased health information in first nations languages. They are leading that work right now, hon. member. One of the challenges, of course, is the great diversity of languages among the first nations. There is a wide, wide range, and it does present a challenge to communicate appropriately.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments that the federal government has responsibility for funding, but certainly the provincial government has responsibility for delivering those programs. It seems to me that the ongoing theme in this debate has been how to encourage British Columbians to make better choices around the types of service they would avail themselves of. Certainly not to take away from the
[ Page 14579 ]
minister's comments, I think there are vast opportunities there that we have not explored. Perhaps to simply say that we should shift it back is fair, but it's missing, I think, a glorious opportunity to take the discussion forward and look at the folks from aboriginal populations who do reside in British Columbia today and see how best they would like to receive the service.
Some of the most powerful material I saw some time back was part of a production message that had Alwyn Morris as one of the spokespeople. He was the aboriginal rower who won the gold medal in 1984 and is a resident of British Columbia, who said: "If you have it in you to dream, you have it in you to succeed." That kind of message has stood the test of time. I mean, he originally spoke those words in 1984.
There are opportunities to engage British Columbians in assisting to deliver the message. I would certainly support that notion. But to have them be responsible or participate in couching the message, positioning the message, I think has to have some value. I am certainly happy to hear the minister's response and to conclude on that.
The Chair: And with an eye to the clock, the hon. minister.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I must review the rules of order to ascertain whether the extent of directiveness we have experienced is entirely appropriate. But I do thank you for your caution. I will try to say a few general things, and then maybe we can engage in further conversation on this.
I did want to introduce staff. Joining me to my right is Judy Moses. You may know her; she heads the aboriginal health policy branch in the ministry.
I agree with the member that one of the real challenges is to enable aboriginal people.... Every study from the provincial health officer's most recent report back to the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and well beyond that, says that this population has some of the lowest health outcomes of any group in British Columbia. To empower that group to have a greater say in decision-making about health services is one of the major challenges that we face. We have established aboriginal health councils around the province to assist in determining what projects should be funded, and to make sure that we're hearing the voices of aboriginal communities in making those decisions. I think that is important work.
[5:30]
One of the things I think is the greatest challenge right now is how we make sure, as treaty-making goes forward and self-government becomes a reality rather than a theory for aboriginal communities, that their voices are also heard in the planning and delivery of health services within their regions -- services that are planned and delivered by community health councils and regional health boards. The aboriginal health policy branch of my ministry, working with the New Directions branch, is working hard to devise strategies on how best to do it. There may be no one right answer, but we surely have made considerable progress in involving members of first nations in plans for councils and boards. I agree with the member opposite that there is far, far more to be done.
With that, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]