(Hansard)
TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 2, Number 21, Part 1
[ Page 1899 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I notice a friend of mine is here: Paul Dhillon, from the greater Vancouver area. He is a cranberry farmer in Richmond. He used to work for the sheriff service. I don't know whether he still works with them. Would the House please make him welcome.
R. Kasper: I recognize an old friend in the gallery, Mr. Chris Main. I know that many members on both sides of the House know Mr. Main. He has been an active member, a volunteer, in the community of Esquimalt for the better part of 20 years. He has also worked actively with youth in lacrosse at the provincial, regional and community levels. Mr. Main has spent the last year helping to revitalize the Esquimalt Legion lacrosse club. Will you please join me in making Mr. Main welcome.
V. Anderson: I'd like the House to welcome a constituent from my area, a businesswoman from the Granville market, Morie Ford. With her is a young lady, a grade 3 student, who has come to see how we behave so she will be able to report back to her school in the fall, Logan McIntosh. Please make them welcome.
T. Nebbeling: Today we have a visitor from West Vancouver. Barbara Ewens is a well-known volunteer worker on the North Shore. She is also the first woman president of the Rotary Club of West Vancouver Sunrise and is very much involved in creating youth programs on the North Shore. I ask the House to give her a very warm welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: It is a pleasure for me to introduce in the gallery today a successful and well-respected Indo-Canadian businessman, Mr. Mike Olak. Joining him, as the Attorney General has pointed out, are Paul and Peter Dhillon. Also joining them, as part of his visit to Canada, is Mr. Shingara Singh from India. Will all members please give the delegation a warm welcome.
D. Symons: It is my pleasure today to introduce some fine people from the Fraser Valley that have come to visit us. They have been longtime residents and workers in the valley: my uncle and aunt, John and Emilie Martens. They are accompanied by another aunt, Lydia Isaak, and my wife, Marge Symons. Please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: It is my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today a friend of mine -- from elementary school, actually. Dennis Horwood and his family are here from Kitimat. Dennis is not only a longtime British Columbian, but he has authored some very important books on wildlife and other features in British Columbia, including Birds of the Kitimat Valley and Islands for Discovery: An Outdoor Guide to British Columbia's Queen Charlotte Islands, which he co-authored with Tom Parkin. I would ask the House to make him very welcome.
G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the gallery today a constituent of mine and a friend of hers from Oak Bay, Lois Sim and Lucie Stuart. Lois Sim is very fond of telling the story that M.J. Coldwell was her grade 8 teacher and had enormous influence on her all her life. Both of them work with Abbeyfield in Victoria. Will the House please make them welcome.
G. Plant: I'm delighted to be able to introduce today four friends of mine from Ottawa: Dr. Ben Syposz and Dr. Janet Still and two of their children, Pamela and Valerie, who are here to watch us do our business. I ask that the House make them welcome.
R. Neufeld presented a bill intituled Rural Health Transportation Act.
R. Neufeld: This bill would establish a travel care fund to collect travel bonus points accumulated on airline tickets purchased on behalf of MLAs and public sector employees. All employees, including municipal, school district, Crown corporation and hospital board employees, would be required to donate all travel points to the travel care fund. This fund would pool the value of these points, along with any other donations, and then disburse them to help defray the travel and accommodation costs of northern and rural residents who must leave their communities to obtain emergency and specialist care not available in their home communities.
This bill protects public employees and others who might be deemed to be in violation of ethical standards for technically accepting travel bonus points in the course of travelling on public business, and it provides that the fund may negotiate discounts for rural and northern residents with airlines, transportation, and hotel and hospitality firms for health care-related travel and accommodation.
For far too long, this untapped resource has been wasted as travel points vanish into thin air, as employees are not now legally entitled to collect the points. This valuable resource in the form of travel points can be used to help those struggling to pay the often astronomical bills associated with rural health care travel. Moreover, this entire plan and the travel care fund can be implemented at minimal cost to taxpayers. The travel points program is a win-win situation for everyone involved.
Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
The Speaker: The member for Matsqui. [Applause.]
An Hon. Member: The next leader of the Liberal Party.
M. de Jong: Going first is kind of fun, Mr. Speaker.
M. de Jong: On April 17 of this year, I wrote to the chief electoral officer. We asked him to investigate seven areas where we alleged that the NDP were in violation of the disclosure provisions of their own Election Act. That same day, Brian Gardiner, the provincial secretary for the NDP, described our request for an investigation as an act of political desperation based on deliberately misleading research.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Steady, member, steady.
[ Page 1900 ]
Unfortunately for Mr. Gardiner and members opposite, Mr. Patterson, the chief electoral officer, didn't agree. In a letter to me last week, he confirmed that in each of the instances raised, the NDP are not in compliance with their own Election Act. My question to the Premier is: in view of what Mr. Patterson has said, is he prepared to accept this very simple proposition -- that the laws we pass in this Legislature actually apply to his merry little band of socialists? Or does the Premier take Mr. Gardiner's view that the NDP should be immune from these bothersome little rules that the rest of us have to live by?
The Speaker: If the Chair looks perplexed, it's because I am. I'm not sure that that question falls within any particular minister's area of administrative responsibility, but I see the Premier is apparently prepared to answer.
Hon. G. Clark: It's the end of the session, hon. Speaker.
I don't know the details to which the member refers. Obviously I'm happy to look into it. It is instructive, though, that the chief electoral officer is an officer of the Legislature, not of the government. He doesn't report to me; he reports to the members of the House.
The Election Act, which this government brought in, is at the forefront of election acts across the country. It's a substantial document which I think holds great promise in terms of disclosure, in terms of conflict of interest and in terms of a variety of things. This was the first election that was fought under the new Election Act, and I think that by and large -- I hope all members agree -- it was held in a manner above reproach. If the member has specific concerns or if the chief electoral officer has specific concerns, I'm happy to look into them.
M. de Jong: The difficulty with the Premier's answer, of course, is that this relates to a period well in advance of the last election. The problem here isn't Mr. Patterson reporting to the government, but the NDP reporting to Mr. Patterson. That's where the deficiencies lie. He can't even get a decent explanation about how the NDP were able to issue tax receipts, above and beyond the total amount of donations they received, to the tune of $1.1 million. He says in his letter that they have informed the NDP of the inadequacy of their disclosure. In fact, just about everything the NDP filed, Mr. Speaker, is either wrong, misleading or incompetent. But what's really
[2:15]
The Speaker: Come to the question, member.
M. de Jong: Here's the question. What's really interesting is the signature on some of these documents. These documents are signed by Michelle Kemper.
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!
M. de Jong: You remember Michelle Kemper. She's the failed NDP candidate now working in the Ministry of
The Speaker: Member, I want a question -- soon.
M. de Jong: ...for $50,000 a year. Maybe the Premier can answer this for me. Maybe the Premier can explain. Is $50,000 the new fair wage for helping the NDP skirt election laws, or was Ms. Kemper hired because of her profound ability to interpret and comply with legislation? Which was it?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I realize that it's the end of the session, and I realize that this is totally out of order. I realize that if the members have any newsworthiness, they can do it outside the House.
I have to say that it's a disturbing trend for individuals who are not in the Legislature to speak for themselves, who take appointments on the part of the government -- in this case, a political appointment, an order-in-council appointment -- that members feel free to stand up and attack individuals who work for the government by name in the Legislature. Honestly, hon. Speaker, I've been in the opposition, and I can tell you that I have never seen, in ten
R. Masi: Last week the government demanded that the University of British Columbia immediately return half its minor capital budget to Treasury Board. Among the $8 million slashed from projects and programs that benefit students is the much-heralded Safer Campus program. The Safer Campus program at UBC has been one measure aimed at reducing crime. The former Minister of Women's Equality said: "We aren't going to balance the budget on the backs of abused women."
My question is to the Minister of Education. Given the importance of providing a safe and secure campus environment, what reason does he offer for axing the UBC Safer Campus program?
Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for the question. You know, it's
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the member is right. That's the first question in this House that I have been asked as Education minister. I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that all the way through the last election campaign, the Liberals said that they cared about education. But their silence in this House is perhaps more telling of their true priorities.
But let me also make this point. During the course of the last election campaign, they said that we had to reduce debt, that we had to cut expenditures on debt. They said the sky was falling because there was so much debt being built up in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Minister, I believe there was a question asked.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. There are two operative points here. The first is that the opposition is wrong.
[ Page 1901 ]
We have the lowest per capita debt in Canada, and we have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada -- which shows that we have managed the finances of this province second to none. And second, as a result of
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Now that they're listening, I want the hon. member to understand that the safer access program is not in jeopardy.
The Speaker: The member for Delta North, on a supplemental.
R. Masi: Well, it seems that the senior officials at post-secondary institutions across the province say the decision to axe these minor capital projects just doesn't make sense. They've expressed great concern that the safety of students on campus will be grossly undermined by the deterioration in safety programs as a result of the government's freeze. My question is again to the Minister of Education. The safety of students on campus is central to creating a positive learning environment. What rationale did you use in making the decision to put saving money ahead of saving lives?
Hon. M. Sihota: If those negative Nellies on the other side of this House would have been elected in British Columbia, then they would have fulfilled their election commitment to reduce by 14 percent the amount of expenditures to post-secondary education. If that had happened, tuition fees would have gone up. They're frozen under this government. If that had happened, then fewer students would be getting access to post-secondary education. Now, with this government elected, more students than ever before are getting access to post-secondary education. If that side had been elected, then universities and colleges would indeed be unsafe. As a result of this government's initiatives, they're becoming safer. The reason for that is that we know how to manage our finances.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's why we have the best credit rating in this province.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Wilson: We know that the federal Liberal caucus in Ontario is actively lobbying the federal government with respect to the softwood lumber deal. To his great credit, the Premier certainly has a letter signed by the leaders of all represented
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, perhaps the Liberals in this House don't believe that the decline of the softwood lumber industry in British Columbia is an important issue. However, I believe there are many people in British Columbia who are concerned about the fact that this issue is now before some very prominent members of the federal Liberal government. On the agenda of the thirty-seventh annual Premiers' conference, there is an item that talks of the rebalancing of federal and provincial roles and responsibilities. It will take place in Jasper on August 21. Can the Premier now tell us what initiative he is taking to advance among the Premiers, especially the western Premiers, a need to make sure that our control over resources and the export of resources will remain in provincial hands and not be jeopardized by an end run by federal interests that are going to determine for Ontario the softwood lumber industry at our expense?
Hon. G. Clark: The only way that British Columbia is going to get treated fairly in our federation is if all parties in British Columbia on issues like this stand united to defend British Columbia's interests. I'm pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the PDA, the leader of the Reform Party, on behalf of all members of the House, have sent a letter to Members of Parliament. I can tell you this: when I go to the Premiers' conference in Jasper, I will go not as a New Democrat Premier but as the Premier of all of British Columbia, representing all members of the House, to stand up against any attempt to politically manipulate the softwood lumber deal in order to make sure that British Columbia gets not more than its share, but its fair share historically of the allocation of that quota.
G. Wilson: On a supplemental. I know that at the Western Premiers' Conference, discussions were underway with respect to an independent taxing authority to be established, which would limit the federal control over the flow of tax dollars to Ottawa. Hon. Speaker, that may be the only message that Ottawa listens to when they see that the provinces are prepared to take that kind of initiative to make sure that we control our revenues in the province of British Columbia, so that they start to recognize that our voice must be heard. Will the Premier, during this thirty-seventh annual Premiers' conference, continue to advance that proposition so that Ottawa recognizes that they no longer can run roughshod over B.C. interests?
Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. I will present that, and we will be seeking alliances with other provinces, particularly the western provinces, which often have similar grievances with respect to the federal government. We'll be seeking those alliances, and we'll be working with other provinces -- again I say this, and I mean this very, very strongly -- not to politically pursue an agenda which is favourable to British Columbia at other provinces' expense, but to make sure that we pursue an agenda which is technically correct, which is fair and which gives us our allocation based on our historical cut. That is the agenda I will be pursuing on behalf of all of you, at Premiers' conferences and with the federal government. I fear -- and I really do fear -- that the federal Liberal caucus is not going to respond in a non-partisan way. I ask the Liberals across the House to tell their brothers and sisters in the Liberal Party to not act politically on this and to use the influence that I know they have with their friends in Ottawa to make sure that British Columbia gets fair treatment.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. U. Dosanjh tabled the Annual Report on Multiculturalism for the year 1994-95.
[ Page 1902 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of Supply B; for the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
On vote 8: minister's office, $2,409,000 (continued).
[2:30]
Hon. G. Clark: I was kind of baited this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. To respond, I thought I would give an overview of the government and the accomplishments we've made in the last while, the success of the session, and where we're at in terms of moving forward.
First, to briefly reiterate what I said this morning, let me say how much of a privilege it is to be a member of the Legislature in British Columbia. All members, I think, feel the same way. I'm sure they do. They don't do this for the income; they don't do it for the ego. In many respects members are here to do a service to their constituencies, to act in the public interest, and while we have profound differences about the definition of that, people are here pursuing what they believe is in the best interests of British Columbia. It's a great honour for me to have served for ten years -- at the end of this term, close to 14 or 15 years serving the people of British Columbia.
For me personally, it's a privilege and an honour to represent the neighbourhood that I live in, the neighbourhood that I grew up in, the place where my mother still lives, and to try to represent people who, I think, have not always done well in terms of the way in which governments have protected or not protected their interests.
When I make these opening remarks, then, I think it's important to reflect upon the values that we share, and the values that we hold on this side of the House, which we think reflect the vast majority of British Columbians. Essentially, those are the middle-class and working people, and the values and aspirations they have are ones which, I think, are in keeping with Canadian society and the way Canada has developed as opposed to, say, the United States, south of us.
The creeping Americanism of our public institutions that we are seeing across the country, we saw best represented by the opposition party in the last election campaign in their lack of support for the institutions that we have developed collectively as a people in this country: to try to do things differently here; to have a medicare system where it doesn't matter about your wealth, only your health; to have a system of education where it's a right, not a privilege to go to school and to go to university.
I can say without reservation that today, if I were 18 or 19 years old in British Columbia, I would have a great deal of difficulty going to university. If the other side had been elected and chose to pursue the kind of strategy that they said they would, and which is being pursued in other parts of Canada, I would not be able to go to university. If we want to create wealth in British Columbia and in Canada, and if we want to provide equality of opportunity for people regardless of their income, then education must be a right and not a privilege, and I'm proud that this government supports such an initiative.
Listening to the opposition party in the last few weeks has been instructive, I think, and reading the media outlets has been instructive as well, because you would think listening to the opposition, that it's negative, negative, negative. Or reading some of the corporate-controlled media in this province, like the Vancouver Sun editorial today -- which someone just showed me, and which is clearly outrageous -- and that pathetic meandering about British
Look at what is happening. What is the reality in British Columbia? It's different. What does New York say? What does Moody's from New York say? "British Columbia's large economic
What are the facts? There were 44,000 jobs created in British Columbia in the first seven months of this year. This is a pace of economic growth and job creation which we have not seen in many years in Canada in any province.
Look at these numbers, hon. Chair. Every single year for five years, we have created more jobs than any jurisdiction in Canada. In the last six months -- and, indeed, in the last month, in July -- when the opposition was whining and complaining, when you couldn't pick up an editorial in the Vancouver Sun that wasn't attacking the province, we not only outstripped any other province, we created 16,000 jobs in B.C., out of 19,000 net jobs in all of Canada. This province is booming, and every single agency is revising its numbers.
Look at some of these statistics and some of these numbers.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm looking for them. I can't find them. All of the
Every bank in Canada says we're going to lead the country -- every bank and every economic forecaster. I know that members of the opposition want to give the banks a tax cut, and we don't support that on this side of the House, but all the
[ Page 1903 ]
economists in Canada point to British Columbia. Look at what's happening with in-migration and immigration. We forecast that it would slow down with the recovery in the rest of the country -- and what has happened? It hasn't. People are moving here in record numbers, and they're creating jobs in record numbers. Business incorporations are up in British Columbia again, exports are up, housing starts are up 30 percent, and retail sales are up 5 percent. Look at what is happening. It's completely at variance with what you hear in this chamber. Business bankruptcies are down in British Columbia, hon. members, significantly down. Look at what's happening.
Listen, how can you walk around with a little black cloud over your head in this magnificent province? Go outside. Take a walk; go outside. Look at the thousands of tourists here in British Columbia, and ask yourself how you can be so negative about what's going on in British Columbia. Look at it. Tourism is booming, job growth is up, business incorporations are up and private sector investment is up. Yet if you listen to the opposition, everything is bad.
The facts are absolutely clear. I said during the campaign that there were really four things that I thought we should do. We should create jobs, we should protect medicare and education, and we should provide hope for young people. So let's go through it.
We've created jobs more than any province in Canada, and we've talked about that. Nowhere else in the country is doing as good of a job on the economy as this administration, particularly over the last five years. And what have we done in this House, this chamber? We've brought in a new, very small piece of legislation on forest renewal which is going to link the jobs created by forest renewal to those unemployed in the forest industry in British Columbia. It didn't get a lot of debate. I don't know what the opposition party
Let's go through it. They opposed Forest Renewal; they opposed the West Coast Express; they opposed the Island Highway; they opposed the B.C. 21 construction projects. Now, every day, we see crocodile tears in the House: "Oh, it's terrible. We've cut the minor capital for universities." This is from a party that promised a 14 percent cut to funding universities. Every day for three years they have put forth a radical American agenda to slash the welfare state and spending on health care and education, and to cut taxes on the rich and big corporations. People rejected it, but now they have the gall to stand up here, day in and day out, and whine about spending, spending, spending.
I looked at the numbers, hon.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Look in the mirror, member for Delta North, who was complaining about the capital plans for universities, when we have spent more money on universities and colleges than any other jurisdiction in Canada. Your party opposed every single penny. He also complained this session about the rights of children, when his party opposed every single child care initiative we've brought in over the last five years. They stand up here and complain, and ask for government spending. I looked at it, and there's over a billion dollars of requests from members across the way -- a billion dollars to the Highways minister. They stand up here shamelessly and ask for money for their constituents, but then go out and perpetrate a fraud on British Columbians by saying that we should cut taxes on the banks, big corporations and the rich in this province, paid for by cuts in government spending. But they stand up here and ask for more and more and more. They don't even support the capital freeze; they said they were against it.
They cannot rise above their own politics to be consistent and stand for something. They stand for a right-wing, American-style agenda. The people of B.C. know it. Gur Singh, a star candidate in Kamloops, talked about user fees for health care and said that we had to bring them in. Where were they? Halfway through the election campaign, they tried to say: "Oh no, we're not going to cut health care or education." But people are smarter than that. They know what side that party is on and who they represent, and it's not working people and the middle class.
On jobs, our record is unparalleled and better than any province in Canada. That's an empirical record, not an opinion. Those are facts. You'd never hear it from the other side, but the economy is doing well.
On protecting medicare, this government right here is the only province in Canada to increase funding every single year to protect medicare. The party opposite proposed a $3 billion cut in spending, the deepest cuts per capita of any jurisdiction in Canada. They stood up day after day and said that we should cut $3 billion in spending. The people know that if you cut $3 billion in spending to give tax breaks to the rich, that means that you cut medicare and the kinds of public institutions we built up in this country.
Medicare. We have increased the investment in health care in this province. There is no province in
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Do you want more money for health care? Come on, member from West Vancouver, and look in the mirror. How can you look in the mirror, campaign for a party that wants a right-wing agenda and to cut spending and taxes on banks and corporations, and then stand up here and whine that we're not spending more money for health care? Have a modicum of self-respect and be honest. The cuts that you have proposed would radically alter the kind of system we have built up in this country. That's what we campaigned on, and that's what the election was all about: health care.
Education. What's happening in education? We've increased funding for education -- the only jurisdiction in Canada to increase funding for K to 12. We've made it more relevant. We have more educational programs to give work experience to young people, but most important -- and what I'm most proud of -- are the colleges and universities. Look in the newspaper again -- not the Vancouver Sun, because you won't hear it. But look around, talk to people. There used to be lineups in September for kids getting into university and colleges -- 14,000 people were turned away. We increased funding. We're the only jurisdiction in North America to increase funding to colleges and universities so that young people have an opportunity to get the education they need to be competitive in the real world.
[2:45]
That party did not support Skills Now. That party did not support the increased funding for universities and colleges. It doesn't matter what they say now. The crocodile tears that
[ Page 1904 ]
they talk about now -- they didn't support it. We have embarked upon a radical agenda for education that is going to give people the right to succeed in a very increasingly competitive economy.
We've frozen tuition fees for two years. This party opposed freezing tuition fees during the campaign and before the campaign. They're still opposed to freezing tuition fees.
On this side of the House, we believe that if we want to have access to universities and colleges for young people of modest means, of the middle class, of working people, then we need to make sure that tuition fees are affordable, and we have done that in spite of opposition from the other side.
And what about hope for young people? We presented the largest job creation initiative for young people we've ever seen. We're creating thousands of jobs -- thousands of jobs -- a First Job in Science, a new job creation initiative to do with universities, cost-
You've got to give me more time.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm so enjoying this speech. It just seems to me that all members of the House would benefit if we heard more.
Hon. G. Clark: What are we doing with respect to young people? I became the Minister Responsible for Youth. We're working hard on Generation X and Generation Y. We have frozen tuition fees; we have increased funding for universities and colleges. We have embarked on a job creation initiative, cost-shared with the private sector, which is larger than any we've seen in British Columbia. Much more work needs to be done -- not in the kind of negativity, the kind of dismantling of our system that we see in the opposition, but in providing hope. Government has a role to play in providing hope for young people. That's what we represent on this side of the House.
What about small business? We cut taxes by 10 percent and where was the opposition? I didn't hear anything. I'm still waiting to hear. A 10 percent tax cut, a tax holiday for two years, no income tax for two years for new small businesses in British Columbia. Where are the opposition? Are they praising the government for this initiative for small business? No, they're negative, because they represent downtown Vancouver, big corporate lawyers, big corporate interests. They don't represent the small business people in British Columbia, the hard-working small business people, the hard-working middle class and working people of this province. That's who we represent, and that's who we will always represent.
In this session of the Legislature, we brought in pieces of legislation to reform our welfare system. I'm very, very proud of that. All members on this side of the House are proud of that. We said we're not going to follow the kind of failed policies we're seeing in other parts of the country that make the poor pay for the cost of government inefficiency. You can't fund an existing welfare system that isn't working. It's not working for the people who pay for it. It's not working for the people who are on it. But rather than engage in the kind of right-wing axe-cutting we're seeing across the country and in the United States, we said: "Let's reform this system so we will always be better off working than being on welfare." For the first time in Canada, in British Columbia, since the Second World War, that's the case. The family bonus program is the first serious initiative in social programs, the first serious social program expansion in Canada in 20 years designed to deal with child poverty. We're proud of that, and we want to put it on the agenda for Premiers and the federal government to look at, because child poverty is a disgrace in this rich country. We're taking action, and we want all provinces to do the same across the country.
We brought in a new Youth Works package to say to young people that it's not good enough to have entitlement to cash. It's not working. Instead of an entitlement to cash, you're entitled to training that leads to jobs. It's a big initiative on the part of the government because we guaranteed access to training, and tens of thousands of young people are going to demand it. It's going to be tough, and it's going to strain the system, but we've got to break the cycle of young people going on welfare for five or six years and maybe never working in their lifetimes. We're doing it on this side of the House with a Youth Works initiative designed to guarantee training leading to jobs for young people.
Training for young people, the family bonus, and dealing with people with disabilities differently from the welfare system -- in totality, these changes are the most significant reforms of welfare and our social safety net in the country in 30 years. In this province we're showing that we don't have to abandon the Canadian way of life. We don't have to abandon Canadian values to do things more efficiently and to make initiatives work so that we can protect our safety net and make sure that people have access to jobs and access to opportunity.
That's how you give hope to young people and hope to people in British Columbia. You don't give them hope by promising a trickle-down theory of tax cuts for banks, big corporations and the rich -- and maybe someday it will trickle down to the poor and the unemployed. During the campaign I asked those young people who are employed: "Have you been trickled on lately?" Because that's what the opposition talks about -- the trickle-down theory, the failed theory of the right wing all across North America. We're not doing that. We're doing it from the bottom up, giving more money to the working poor, to working poor families so that this government can show there's a different way of doing it, in keeping with Canadian values and traditions.
We have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada, and we have earned that. Forget about listening to the opposition. Forget about reading the "Vancouver Fun." Look at the facts. The facts are that we have earned the highest credit rating of any province in Canada because of our financial record. That's what the rating agencies say. We have the highest credit rating. We have cut taxes for working people. We have cut taxes for the middle class. We have cut taxes for small business. That's what we have done this session. On the fiscal side, we have cut taxes significantly, and we're going to work harder to continue to do that. We have frozen Hydro rates. We have frozen ICBC rates. We have frozen tuition fees. We have cut taxes, and we have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada.
Our economic record on the job side is better than any province in Canada. So we have the highest credit rating, we've cut taxes, and we've created more jobs than any province in Canada every year for the last five years. We've protected medicare, we've protected education, and we've got a new initiative to give young people hope and opportunity. We've frozen tuition fees. We've brought in legislation to reform our welfare system so it works. We've brought in legislation tying jobs for forest renewal to unemployed workers. This government was re-elected on a platform of jobs, protecting medicare, protecting education and giving hope for young people. We are doing all of that right now in this session of the Legislature.
[ Page 1905 ]
The Leader of the Opposition provoked me. He stood up in the Legislature earlier this morning and said: "Where's the vision?" This party has vision for the future of the province. This party represents Canadian values and Canadian traditions. This party represents the middle class and working people. We are delivering on every single commitment we made, and we're delivering in the Legislature this session. Those people on the other side have a failed, American-style vision, looking in some radical, right-wing direction which is out of sync with the mainstream. It might be in sync with corporate British Columbia or the "Vancouver Fun" editorial board, but it's not in sync with working families and the middle class. That's who we represent. We'll never forget it on this side of the House, and that's what we're going to do for the next three years. That's what we were elected to do, and that's what we're doing. [Applause.]
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. I recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
G. Campbell: I think it is important that the Premier finally got up and said something today. Unfortunately, the Premier showed exactly what British Columbians are concerned about from this Premier. They're concerned about a Premier that does not tell people what the facts are; they're concerned about a Premier that does not come forward and lay out for people a plan that will work for everybody.
When the Premier started today, he said he came from a working-class neighbourhood -- so did I. The Premier said he still lives in the neighbourhood he worked in -- so do I. I can tell you that in the neighbourhood that I come from, the people that I know working in this province are not pleased with this Premier or with this government, because this Premier and this government and every single member on that side of the House misled the people of British Columbia before the election. They misled the people of British Columbia during the election, and they've misled the people of British Columbia every single day since the election.
What do working people want? They want the truth. They want to know that anyone they elect will tell them the truth, and what they know from this Premier is that he does not know the truth, he's never met the truth, and he'll never tell the truth. This Premier believes in what others have called "the big lie" technique: you say it over and over again and someone might believe it.
Let me be very clear to everyone on that side of the House -- including the former Minister of Health, who sat by idly as Health deteriorated across the province -- that this side of the House will always put patients at the top of the list and will always put a health care system first in British Columbia.
To hear this Premier say that education is a right -- what a bunch of baloney coming from those lips! It is the same man who will not guarantee education to every single young person in British Columbia, the same man who, every time he's had a chance, has voted against making education an essential service in this province. And why does he vote against it? He votes against it because his supporters say: "Don't put students first; put us first." And he stands up throughout the election and says: "Yes, I will put our supporters ahead of students in the province." That is wrong in British Columbia. It's wrong from this Premier, and it's wrong from every member on that side of the House.
[3:00]
This Premier was elected, and within hours of the election, he stood up and said to the people of British Columbia: "I need wriggle room." Now, I know he's probably learned from some of his colleagues in cabinet about wriggle room. Unfortunately, we don't have the same method of accountability here in the House as we do in other professions, but let me say this: wriggle room is not good enough for British Columbians. What wriggle room means is that we're going to cancel projects that were promised; what it means is that we're going to cancel schools that were promised; what it means is that we are going to say there is one program in the entire province of British Columbia that's sacrosanct -- and it's not health care; it is not education; it is the fair-wage legislation which pays off their political supporters. That is not the priority of the people of British Columbia; the priority of the people is to get the best value they can for every single tax dollar. Within hours of being elected, this Premier said he wanted wriggle room. What did it mean? What wriggle room did he need? Well, he needed so much wriggle room that he needed a gymnasium to wriggle around in.
The fact of the matter is that this Premier said to the people of British Columbia: "I have balanced the budget." Month after month, he said: "We have balanced the budget." He introduced a budget that he said was balanced, and we know that that was not true. The budget was not balanced; it was a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And this year's budget was presented as a balanced budget. The Premier himself has admitted that we could have a $700 million deficit in British Columbia because of this government's actions. The Premier says he's going to maintain the debt management plan. Already after one year, it's $700 million behind. All the members on that side of the House, all of the people that were elected, sit quietly by and say: "Oh yes, it must be true." The fact of the matter is it isn't true.
The same Premier, the same government, that said that they were going to take care of children in the province appointed a minister who is so inept that every child in British Columbia is at risk if they are in his ministry's care. Every independent officer of the Legislature -- the child and youth and family advocate, the ombudsman, the chair of the Child and Family Review Board -- has said that every child's death, whether they're in care or they're known to the ministry, should be investigated. Does this government investigate? No. Will they investigate the operations of the ministry? No, no way. That is wrong, because people expect that there are times when you can, in fact, put aside politics, and when you can put children ahead of all of the politics that we hear spewing forth from that side of the House. I can tell you this: this side of the House would not have taken months and found delaying tactics and ministers who didn't care about it to implement the Gove report. We would have put that Gove report at the top of our agenda, and it would have been implemented one step at a time, day after day and month after month.
The Premier is making the classic mistake of being angry at the messenger. He's angry at the Vancouver Sun. Just imagine, the Vancouver Sun actually did some homework -- something we know that that side of the House is not very good at. They actually went and did some homework. And they discovered that, in fact, per capita earnings in British Columbia are going down. Take-home pay in British Columbia is going down. The job creation rates in British Columbia are going down, and they're continuing to go down. In spite of the fact that people in this province are working harder, they are taking home less money.
[ Page 1906 ]
They elected a government. I agree that they elected a government.
Interjection.
G. Campbell: The member across says: "What's going on?" I know he doesn't know what's going on, but he should pay attention because people in his constituency are worried. They're worried that he sat mute as the government decided to raid the Forest Renewal fund and take jobs out of his community. They're worried that that member sat mute, as have all the other members in this House. They sat mute and said: "We don't care what we promised you; we will not deliver. We won't give you the dollars for restoring our streams and our rivers. We won't give you the dollars for improving our land base. We won't give you the dollars for sustaining your community and its economic activity. We won't do that, because we have friends in Victoria we're going to do it for. We'll break our promise, and don't expect me to stand up for you in my constituency, because I'm not about to do that."
Let me simply say that when the Premier stands up and outlines a program like he just did, it's a pretty sad day. It's a great opportunity to serve as the Premier of this province, and I think the Premier knows that. But instead of coming forward and saying that here is a constructive and worthwhile program that we can pursue, he continues to try to characterize things in the wrong way. He continues to try to score political points that aren't there for the scoring.
Just think of what we ask from the government. We ask them to be prudent. We ask them to be cautious. We ask them to be diligent in the exercise of their responsibilities. It's not too much to ask, I don't think. After all, the government is taking over 50 cents of every dollar that every British Columbian earns out of their pocket and saying that they'll spend it for them. That's one of the problems with this Premier and that side of the House. They don't know what it's like to go out and work to make a living anymore. They've forgotten that they're taking dollars out of people's pockets. They're taking groceries off people's tables. They're taking homes from people because of this government's activity. Whether it's in the forest industry, the mining industry or small business, it doesn't matter. This government has hurt people, and they have ignored the pleas and calls of people across this province. We hear nothing from that side of the House.
The problem is this. When we look at the province of British Columbia, everybody in this House, I would suggest, sees a great province. Everyone in this House wants to contribute to that province and wants to make it work. They have very small hurdles, small standards, low standards for us to meet. They would think, for example, that when the Premier decides to involve himself in international ventures, in international entrepreneurial activity, that there would be some ethical standards that would be required of the people joining him.
I didn't hear today, for example, who Ali Mahmood is. The Premier still doesn't know who Ali Mahmood is. The Premier still doesn't know the facts about B.C. Hydro, yet he is risking other people's money -- not his money, other people's money. He's risking other people's money as we proceed. Was there any due diligence put in? None. Does the Premier know? I don't know. Does the minister responsible for it know? No, he says. I don't know. This is a government that is bereft of standards, values and ethical conduct, and that's what British Columbians know coming out of this session. There is no question in any of their minds with regard to that.
People in British Columbia expected the truth from this government. They expected them to lay out the facts and recognize that we can have a good political debate based on the facts. This government has done everything they can to hide the facts, to cover up the facts; and when the facts were not comfortable, they would distort the facts to try to mislead the people of British Columbia, and that is wrong.
As we enter into the Premier's estimates, it seems to me that what people are asking for, all the opposition is asking for, is the straight answers and the straight goods. The fact of the matter is that we don't have those. The fact of the matter is that this Premier, has not held one of his ministers to account for their lack of performance. He hasn't held one of his Crown corporations to account for lack of performance. He hasn't any standards that he has applied, as is very clear when you look at the cabinet that he's appointed.
The fact of the matter is that people in this province expect their government to reflect their values. This Premier and this government do not reflect the values of the people of this province, and that's why they only got 39 percent of the vote and we got 42 percent of the vote.
As I've said many times, I would far prefer to be on this side of the House, having told the truth, than on that side of the House, having misled British Columbians for the last year.
Now, having discovered that the Premier has no vision for the future of British Columbia, I think it is important that we actually do try and use these estimates to discern, to put some skeleton, if you want, on the way the Premier expects his government to operate in the years and the months ahead.
I should say that I was glad to hear today that the election will be in three years. I thought it was going to be four or five, so I'm glad we're looking at three years. I'm sure the Premier will stick with his word with regard to that.
Interjections.
G. Campbell: I think it is a good point. If the Premier is as confident as he pretends to be to his caucus, I think we should call the election on Thursday and have another one. It was a lot of fun for me, and I'm sure it was for him. There is one stipulation, I think: we would require that all parties tell the truth in the next election. I think everyone would be better off.
I'd like to ask the Premier now, since he has outlined -- I'm not sure what he
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the only comment I would make, and I don't want to prolong the debate, is with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's comments. He can cast aspersions on my remarks, and that's, in a sense, part of politics. Does he think that Moody's in New York is not telling the truth? Does he think that Standard and Poor's and CBRS and
Interjections.
[ Page 1907 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Listen, hon. Chair: "B.C.'s economy is poised to return to the fast track. It will grow by almost 3 percent in 1997." That's the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: "British Columbians are far more optimistic about their provincial economy then they are about the Canadian economy. Overall, 66 percent of British Columbians are quite positive about the state of the provincial economy" -- Angus Reid, spring of 1996. "British Columbia has been the strongest performer in Canada over the past nine years" -- Investment Dealers' Association of Canada. "Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are all in line to enjoy above-average job growth" -- Royal Bank, June of 1996.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order!
Hon. G. Clark: A survey of the provincial economy says: "British Columbia will be the country's powerhouse this year" -- May '96, Conference Board of Canada. "B.C.'s long-term debt has been growing, but the economy has been growing as well, and it is important to look at both things," blah, blah, blah -- Patty Croft, Canada Trust. The Dominion Bond Rating Service says: "B.C.'s economy ranks the strongest in Canada." The Canadian Bond Rating Service says: "B.C. continues to enjoy the lowest net provincial and net total debt per capita. Furthermore" -- listen to this -- "despite recording a deficit in '95-96, B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio has declined. Consequently, despite the deficit, B.C.'s financial position actually improved in '95-96."
Hon. Chair, my only point is simply this: while it is legitimate politics, I guess, to compare yourself with the opposition and to attack the Premier's remarks, these are not New Democrats. These are banks and credit-rating agencies; they are big corporations. Given the fact that I am not about to cut their taxes, it is surprising.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, order!
Hon. G. Clark: The interesting thing is that all the empirical
On the office of the Premier, I think there was a specific question. Essentially, there are two streams of organizational structure in the Premier's Office. One is Doug McArthur, who is the deputy minister responsible for the civil service, the head of the civil service. The other is Adrian Dix, who is the principal secretary, which is the chief political appointment of the government. Under that, there is essentially a communications shop -- the director of communications is Geoff Meggs; there's an executive director, Ron Wickstrom; there's liaison and coordination; and there are a scheduling office and a correspondence office. Essentially, that's the office of the Premier.
[3:15]
I might note that it is the smallest budget of any Premier in the country, but -- and I say this very carefully -- there are units that report to the Premier whose budgets are in, particularly, the Ministry of Finance. So there is a civil service section under the Ministry of Finance, which, for all intents and purposes, reports through me, even though the budget is not here before you right now.
G. Campbell: I'm glad the Premier held up the organization chart, because I had received this one, and I wasn't sure if it was correct. If I could, I'll just go through some of the positions. Adrian Dix is, as I understand it, the chief political officer in the Premier's Office. He's called the chief, is he?
Hon. G. Clark: His title is principal secretary, and that is essentially a political appointment. It's a very small political shop, but the separation between the political and the bureaucratic is very important. Mr. Dix represents the political wing of the Premier's Office.
G. Campbell: I remember the name Adrian Dix from an earlier time, and I'm wondering, in his role as the principal secretary to the Premier, would he be responsible for reporting information to the Premier of his meetings, etc., in the Premier's Office?
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix and Mr. Wickstrom were my ministerial assistants for the full period I was a cabinet minister. Now they both have moved with me to the Premier's Office in different positions.
G. Campbell: I'd like to deal with Mr. Dix to start with. Are there specific tasks that are laid out for Mr. Dix? For example, when he represents the Premier, does he come back and give the Premier reports on meetings he goes to, or does he just go and do it himself?
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix and I, and generally Mr. Dix and Mr. McArthur and I, meet virtually every day when the House is sitting and most days when the House is not sitting, to canvass a range of issues before the government, whether they are political, in the case of Mr. Dix, or deal with public policy issues, in the case of Mr. McArthur.
G. Campbell: As I'm sure the Premier recalls -- I've just recalled now from my notes -- Mr. Dix was the Premier's representative on the B.C. Hydro board as a political officer, as well. However, he didn't seem to be forthcoming with the minister of the day with regard to the activities that were taking place. Are there criteria for Mr. Dix to report back to the Premier on activities undertaken in the Premier's Office unlike there were when he was a ministerial assistant?
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix was not on the board of B.C. Hydro, but he did attend board meetings from time to time on my behalf.
An Hon. Member: All of them.
Hon. G. Clark: Not all of the board meetings, but many of them. Mr. Dix does report to me. I accept responsibility for his actions, and I accept responsibility for his reporting to me from time to time. I ask for reports and receive them from Mr. Dix. He is my chief political aide and has been for some time, and I have full confidence in him.
G. Campbell: I would like to touch briefly on some of the activities that the Premier is referring to with regard to B.C. Hydro, because I think it's important how reporting works in the government, how we are all kept abreast of what's taking place. Certainly the Premier, as the chief elected official in the province of British Columbia, has the primary responsibility for a number of these issues, and I recognize he's said that.
With regard to the B.C. Hydro situation, though, one of the concerns that I have -- having gone through this over the
[ Page 1908 ]
last couple of weeks -- is that I am still a little bit perplexed about what the policy considerations were as the Premier went forward and tried to clean up the situation with regard to the Raiwind project. He was not, as I understand it, kept abreast of what was taking place there. But in appointing
Hon. G. Clark: Well, I don't generally accept that. I know that the opposition -- and this has become a habit with this opposition -- calls for a public inquiry virtually every time something happens. I don't accept that. I think that most of the information at the time we appointed Mr. Smith was public information. We knew the situation that was to come about. Mr. Smith was simply to be the chair of the board, to run the board, and to get to the bottom of it and share it.
The individuals that have been appointed by Mr. Smith, and all the testimony and all of that, and the interim reports have been public. These individuals continue to be accountable to the public through, recently, testifying before the estimates committee, and they will be accountable as well when the Crown Corporations Committee is up and running. So the issue really is -- for me, anyway -- getting all of the information out and public for debate and discussion of the appropriate course of action.
Every day, in government and Crown corporations, judgment calls are made, decisions are made. Not all of them are right, including those of ministers or Premiers. The trick, it seems to me increasingly, is to lay out the information for everybody -- the opposition, the public -- and make an informed choice. If it's the wrong choice or seems to be the wrong choice later on, then you're held accountable for that, and you accept responsibility for that. That's what I've tried to do in B.C. Hydro. Decisions were made against my instructions, but they were made. I accepted the responsibility for not having the appropriate due diligence with respect to that. So now we're in a situation where B.C. Hydro's trying to protect itself from potential lawsuits. It's trying to unravel a very complex deal, which was made without authorization from cabinet, from the minister or even from the board, in terms of the complex transactions that took place. It's making judgments along the way in terms of how to manage that and being up front and accountable on it.
Members in the opposition can complain about it, but they asked questions, and they were given all the information. They didn't have to be given all the information; they were. With FOI and with all the information you have with
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Is it? Sorry, all of the information. But that's not my desire. My desire -- and I can be quite frank about this; I'm sure members opposite probably agree -- is to have it all out on the table: fast, done, dealt with, fixed and moved on, rather than this kind of tortuous process of trying to unravel this complicated legal documentation. That's what we're endeavouring to do.
There is a whole series of legal proceedings which unfortunately make it more difficult to share all the information that I would like. In fact, my instructions are, consistently, to get as much information out on all of these projects as they can, so that the public can see what's going on. Then we can make some decisions accordingly. Unfortunately, in the real world, especially with lawyers -- no offence -- things get trapped in various legal proceedings which don't enable you to get all the information out as much as you'd like.
G. Campbell: I understand some of the ways that government would act. The challenge that I have, with regard to both Mr. Smith and the way the whole Hydro exercise is being carried out, is that there still seems to have been no one, either in the Premier's Office or the minister's office, who was following up to ensure that the directions the Premier had given were undertaken. I'm not saying that the Premier has to spend every hour of every day pursuing every initiative. He obviously can't do that. Mr. Dix was on the B.C. Hydro board when this was put together. He was there, obviously, because when the Premier was a minister he wanted to have someone watching what was taking place, to be sure that he kept in touch.
This has all happened since the current Premier came into office. He appointed Mr. Smith, unfortunately, not just to be the investigator of the whole activity. The fact is that Mr. Smith was investigating his boss, investigating the activities of his boss, both collectively and individually. And that does create problems, if you want to have an independent review.
The Premier is concerned that we constantly call for independent reviews. Well, I can tell the Premier that the reason we do that is that the public calls for them. The public doesn't have a sense of confidence about what is taking place. I mean, when you look through Mr. Smith's interim report, even the simplest things are wrong. We're saying that that's the report that's supposed to tell us about what took place and how we can stop it from happening.
Given that I accept the Premier's characterization of this, that he didn't know and he doesn't have to know
There is no question in my mind that the Premier was concerned about what took place with regard to the Raiwind project in February of 1996, as I understand it. I accept the Premier's comments on that. Let me ask this question: what activity then took place subsequent
Hon. G. Clark: I'll just refresh my memory. First, there was a request from all ministries for information. There was a request immediately from the Deputy Premier, I believe, for all information with respect to that. The Ministry of Employment and Investment was sort of the lead agency, along with the Crown corporations secretariat, involved in collecting information and the due diligence around that. There is one individual in the Crown corporations secretariat, Bruce Dun-
[ Page 1909 ]
can, who is an outstanding civil servant, in my view. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of this issue and was involved particularly in preparing some of the details around it. Then Mr. Smith appointed Neil de Gelder and Chris Considine -- and I apologize to the third individual; I can't remember his name; he's an accountant -- to do the review and take testimony, etc. Then we made sure all that information fed through that process, and then, of course, the RCMP investigation kind of subsumed that.
It's interesting that you say that there are aspects of the interim report which are incorrect. That gives me some concern. We want to make sure that it is a full and complete document. I'm sure -- I'm advised -- that lots of issues and territory were covered in estimates. I fully expect and anticipate that all of the questions can be answered to the best of our ability with the information we have.
I have to say, again, and I'm not trying to be defensive about this, that I do have a great deal of respect for Mr. Smith, both as someone who has served British Columbia and as an individual who has chaired another large corporation. I also have a great deal of respect for Chris Considine and Neil de Gelder, in particular. They are two people I don't know personally but who I have dealt with. The thoroughness of their investigation has impressed me and so has the quality of the work that they are doing in terms of dealing with this issue.
As I said earlier, it seems to me that when you appoint someone of Mr. Smith's calibre, as I have tried to do, and we have a senior minister, the Deputy Premier, responsible, we then ask them to carry out the duties as per direction. Periodically, issues have to come before cabinet. The important point here -- I say this to the Leader of the Opposition, and this is, of course, a challenge and, I guess, a political challenge for me -- is that we have, I believe, good public policy decisions that were made with respect to international investments by Crown corporations. I assume that members opposite have all that material. We have documented ethical standards, environmental standards and guidelines. We did a lot of due diligence with respect to moving into this area. The problem we've got in this case is that you can have all the best policy and all the best and specific cabinet instructions in the world. But if they're not followed, then how do you guard yourself against that?
[3:30]
An Hon. Member: You fired them.
Hon. G. Clark: You take action. That's what I've done in terms of firing Mr. Laxton and Mr. Sheehan.
But it seems to me that the information and policy work is substantial work. It's some of the best, really, that I've seen in government, in terms of working on some of these issues. So I don't want to be defensive, but just to
G. Campbell: As is often the case, there are a number of points the Premier made that I concur with. However, having said that -- I really don't want to go back through the whole estimates for B.C. Hydro and the report -- I do want to understand how the government works and how the Premier holds people to account.
As I understand it, in terms of putting this document together, he started by saying yes, we're going to hire Mr. Smith. I disagree with the conflict that was created there, but that's what the Premier said he'd do. He then said to Mr. McArthur: "Would you please make sure that all of our ministers who've had anything to do with any of this bring together all of the documentation. And hold all the documentation someplace." Is it just that they hold it in their ministries? Or does it come to the Premier's Office? Or does it go to Mr. Smith? What happens to all that good documentation that Mr. McArthur has acquired? That's one of the questions I've had.
The second issue deals with the second point the Premier made. When you say there are ethical
The challenge, though, for me, is that when Mr. Smith is asked to do something, when Mr. Laxton is "fired" but not really
My concern is that there seems to be no way that we short-circuit that. There should be. Anyone who's hired should know that when they'
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
The issue is: what comfort can the Premier take from the fact that the lack of accountability and direction that the Premier's Office was able to provide for B.C. Hydro remains? We still have a situation where the minister responsible doesn't know -- and I guess that since the minister responsible doesn't know, the Premier doesn't know. That causes me concern. I would like to know from the Premier how he intends to deal with that in the future, so that we don't keep on getting these "I didn't know" answers. I'm not saying that you can't not know about something that's a small, everyday thing. This is not a small, everyday investigation -- at least, it shouldn't be. Who's keeping track of that?
Hon. G. Clark: I guess there were two questions there: one was the
[ Page 1910 ]
tional investment -- Hydro was the first, but other Crowns were looking at potential international investment; they haven't, but we were looking at it as a possibility, for public policy purposes -- was to establish a series of screens, tests, as much as possible. It's more than just "we're good guys." It's ethical standards, and trying to set a series of tests. As I recollect, B.C. Hydro hired a lawyer to do a series of reviews of the various screens that one might impose. For example, I was very concerned about some of the record with respect to human rights, say, or the environmental record on various things. These are interesting and difficult debates, I might say.
The Three Gorges project is a good example of where one hesitates as to whether or not a government corporation should be involved in a project which may not meet the environmental standards we have in British Columbia. I just make the point that there are issues like Three Gorges. There was a lot of demand for B.C. Hydro to be involved in that project, because they are looking for expertise internationally, and we have some expertise. I've got a lot of concerns, having read even a modicum of information about the environmental damage and the dislocation of people with respect to that project. The question is, then: should B.C. Hydro or any government corporation be involved in a project which doesn't meet the environmental standards that British Columbians have come to expect from the corporation? My answer to that is no, it should not be involved in that.
We
Secondly, there are financial screens, because the second element for a Crown corporation is that we should not be risking ratepayer money on ventures internationally, even if they have potentially good profits, because we don't want to cross-subsidize a project internationally with domestic ratepayers. We try to insulate Hydro or any Crown corporation from financial risk to their core business. We did that work all through the last few years, and I'll make sure that the work is available to the member. I think that the work, by and large, would meet the test, and my guess is that it has probably the highest environmental and social standards of any corporation doing business internationally. In fact, it clearly severely restricts B.C. Hydro's opportunities internationally, because some of the standards in those countries we have met with are different. So we did that.
Again -- not to belabour the point -- even though you do that, the question is to then make sure they're followed. I think that's the member's comment. In this case, to some extent they were not followed, and therefore we're trying to deal with the consequences of that. I agree with the member: we have to set up a process so that there's some due diligence applied to make sure that they meet the cabinet instructions and these screens. You might be able to say: "Well, sure, it meets all the environmental tests." But they could ask: "How do we know we actually meet the tests?" By and large, the Crown corporations secretariat is set up to provide that due diligence. Mr. Duncan, who I referred to, works for the Crown corporations secretariat. Not to single him out, but he worked on some of these particular guidelines. So it's holding the corporation to account after the fact and making sure they're following those guidelines, which we have to make sure the processes are in place for. So we have the new guidelines, the policies, the Crown corporations secretariat and the ministerial accountability.
The last remaining piece, which I've already committed to, is a committee of the Legislature so that we can have more debate about some of these issues. I think those sorts of structural reforms will go a long way to trying to insulate us from this kind of serious problem ever happening again. Again, with this caveat: if people deliberately choose to ignore the rules and go around and invest in unnamed, offshore companies and then aren't upfront about that, it's extremely hard to set up all the structures and systems to avoid someone abusing the rules. But that's obviously what we have to try to do.
G. Campbell: I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, with regard to the standards, I appreciate the Premier offering to send us the social, environmental and, I assume, ethical standards or screens that we go through. I want to get back to something way simpler than all of that. The simple thing for me is that we had a chair of B.C. Hydro who didn't do what the government told him to do, and he was fired. Now we have a chair of B.C. Hydro who, again, didn't execute the instructions the government had given him. Laxton was supposed to be out of there, but he wasn't out of there. No one in government that I have been able to discover has said that they knew Laxton was still involved. So we have someone who is certainly not accountable in this House saying that they don't really care what the Premier or the Minister of Employment and Investment says and that they really don't care what our ethical standards are in the province -- they're leaving Mr. Laxton on the board. That is a major fault, if you want. It's a major gap between what the Premier is saying and what has actually been done. So one question we could ask ourselves is: if Mr. Laxton is dismissed as the chair of B.C. Hydro for not carrying out instructions, why isn't Mr. Smith?
The second question is on the guidelines. As I understand the ethical guidelines that are laid out, there are no conflict-of-interest guidelines in terms of B.C. Hydro and its international projects. I understand that section 7 of the act applies to Hydro, but not to B.C. Hydro International Ltd.
An Hon. Member: That's their argument.
G. Campbell: Yes, but my issue for the Premier is: how do we move through that to make
Subsequent to that, from our perspective on this side of the House and from the public's perspective, they're asking the Premier: how can you do that to us? It goes back to the whole issue of accountability I was raising earlier. I guess the question is: what is the difference between what Mr. Smith did and what Mr. Laxton did? Supposedly, they were both acting the way they thought they should act, but they were acting contrary to what the government said was taking place.
Hon. G. Clark: I sort of understood what you were saying until the end. I mean, surely the member is not equat-
[ Page 1911 ]
ing this to what Mr. Laxton did. We have given Mr. Smith the task of dealing with the situation. It's true that he doesn't report to me on all the day-to-day operations of B.C. Hydro or even to the minister with respect to that. I understand the criticism the member is making, but let's be clear. Mr. Laxton was fired. He is no longer working for Hydro. B.C. Hydro owns, I think, 14 percent of SEPCOL, a very small piece of it. One of the challenges of unwinding this, though, is that we don't even control IPC. By the way, the cabinet instruction was not to privatize this and give it a monopoly on other projects, which is essentially what happened. There was a specific reference in cabinet material not to set it up the way it was set up. There's no evidence that Mr. Smith was going to have Mr. Laxton involved for any period of time. It was only for a brief period of time, with Mr. Laxton in a company that we don't control, which is partially owned by another company we have yet to gain control of. Mr. Laxton was left on the board for that period of time.
[3:45]
There are issues around this which I'm not particularly comfortable with. These questions around the partners in Pakistan and others -- these are questions that are going to be extremely difficult to resolve. Pakistani citizens aren't required to come and testify here in British Columbia. They aren't even required to talk to us, and they have legal and financial contractual arrangements signed, against cabinet instruction, which are binding on the corporation now. We have given Mr. Smith the task -- the mandate -- of trying to unwind this in a way which still protects Hydro from any potential lawsuits, and that's what he's doing. You know, this issue of B.C. Hydro coming back
I appreciate, generally, the tone of the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition, because I think we probably share much of this in common, notwithstanding the debate and the politics around it in terms of how we might better manage some of these corporations. Hopefully, as we move forward through this, making other mistakes -- Mr. Smith making mistakes, and others -- and managing through this, we would be upfront about that, we'd be accountable for that, and we'd try to establish processes, including the ones which might be recommended by the opposition, which try to insulate against these kind of things happening again.
G. Campbell: Can the Premier
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to get that information for you, as I hesitate to answer incorrectly. But I don't believe the offering memorandum went to cabinet.
G. Campbell: I understood that it had gone to cabinet, and I'd appreciate it if the Premier could get back and let us know whether it did or did not go to cabinet. Because, again, if it didn't, then I think we're getting some wrong information from somewhere. The information that we are generally getting is from Mr. Smith's report and other public documents, so I'd like to know whether or not that offering memorandum did go to cabinet.
I want to ask a couple more questions on Mr. Smith. Can the Premier tell us what Mr. Smith's contract is as chair of B.C. Hydro?
Hon. G. Clark: Just from memory, Mr. Smith is not a full-time chair. He is paid a per diem -- essentially, an honorarium. But for the period of the investigation, for the first couple of months, he was paid at essentially a lawyer's rate, which is very high. So he was paid an hourly rate, I think, for the first few months -- I'm not sure exactly -- and then he was to move to the traditional role of the chair of a board of a Crown corporation. But you had better ask the minister for that information. Certainly, when I asked Mr. Smith to take the job, it was on the assumption that it was not a full-time job, that it was meant to
G. Campbell: So, then, it's the Premier's understanding that Mr. Smith is no longer getting remunerated on the basis of whatever his hourly rate may be. Can the Premier tell us if he recalls what the hourly rate was for Mr. Smith at the time?
Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't. It's all a matter of public information. We can get it for you and certainly will.
My understanding is that he still has the ability to bill, from time to time, I guess for the purposes of any investigation or testimony or otherwise. I think that's the case. Now, I might say that it is a big corporation, the second-biggest in the province, so it may be that Mr. Smith should be part-time, or on slightly more than just an honorarium. It's been a big challenge. Anyway, I leave that to the minister to deal with. Certainly it was meant to be paid and to be made whole for a period, and then to revert to the normal Crown corporation per diem.
G. Campbell: So the Premier will make that contract available to us, then?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if I'll make the contract available, but it's under the Financial Information Act; all of this comes out. We're not trying to hide anything, nor could we if we wanted to. It's just a question of when it comes out. It may be six months or a year from now; I don't know. So if you want me to expedite it for you and try to get it faster, I will.
G. Campbell: I have one more question, which the Premier may not know the answer to -- but Mr. McArthur may have the answer. Stan Ridley remains involved with the Raiwind project, as I understand. He has spent a considerable amount of time in Pakistan working on behalf of Hydro and Hydro International. I understand Mr. Ridley pulled together a list of documents that had direct reference to the Raiwind project. Are you aware of that at all?
Hon. G. Clark: No. First of all, let's be clear. Mr. McArthur or the government didn't do anything with the Hydro documentation. It was the government documentation -- the cabinet, the ethical guidelines, the things that went to cabinet -- that we pulled together for them. So with respect to that, I don't know the answer.
Mr. Ridley is B.C. Hydro International. He's the person who has been running it, and he is one of the three or four people who has been in the company for some years.
G. Campbell: We've talked briefly about the Hydro situation, and I believe -- and I'm sure the Premier believes -- that there are significant problems there that we and the
[ Page 1912 ]
government still have to deal with. We deal with them together, I should say -- in fact, if the Premier would like me to take the responsibility for sorting it out, I'd be glad to do that.
I'd like to know about International Power. IPC is a name that has come up regularly with regard to this. There's also a group known as the International Power group, and it is also connected with B.C. Hydro. I understand that when Marc Eliesen was fired as the president of B.C. Hydro, he was persuaded to join Westcoast Energy and Asea Brown Boveri and the government in a new venture called International Power. I would like to know if the Premier could tell us how much money Eliesen is being paid for his work with the International Power group and how much is being paid by the B.C. taxpayer?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I just want to make one last comment on B.C. Hydro, if I could. I think it is important -- and I appreciate the politics of the moment of the opposition; I understand this business -- to put it in context. B.C. Hydro has $10 billion worth of assets and debt. It's the second-largest company in the province. It has 6,000 employees. B.C. Hydro International has five employees. It has virtually $20 million in capital taken from Columbia Estate Company, which is land -- not ratepayer money, not generated. I appreciate that it dominated the attention agenda, and I very much regret that -- I think legitimately so -- though I don't understand the thing.
One of the things we have to work hard at, and I hope the opposition will join us in this, is
B.C. Hydro International is not the business of B.C. Hydro; it's a very, very tiny offshoot which is dominating attention and undermining the credibility, to some extent, of a very good corporation with excellent staff and excellent employees. That's not to say there aren't challenges facing B.C. Hydro as we move to a deregulated electricity marketplace and all kinds of interesting and exciting challenges. But we should put it in context.
With respect to the International Power group, it was a corporation formed by three parties: Asea Brown Boveri -- ABB -- Westcoast Energy and B.C. Trade. B.C. Trade was the corporate entity sharer -- not B.C. Hydro but B.C. Trade. My understanding is that IPG, that group, assumed Mr. Eliesen's contract for the period in question -- the last few years he has been working there. Again, that contract has been a matter of public debate. Everybody knows about it and knows the cost of it. It is pursuing projects. I believe it has been pursuing a significant project in China, but I'm not familiar with any more details than that.
G. Campbell: I'll just have one more shot at B.C. Hydro, as well, in view of that comment. No one believed that IPC and BCHIL were the main job of B.C. Hydro, but it's kind of like a mole on your skin. If you don't look at the mole on your skin, you may find out that it's carcinoma and you're in serious trouble.
I can tell the Premier, hon. Chair, that the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of employees at B.C. Hydro who are very upset with what is taking place at B.C. Hydro. They take pride in their corporation and they take pride in their expertise. They feel that it has been eroded, undercut and undermined by, to be blunt about it, a bunch of amateurs running around and playing with their reputation, and that's wrong. That's wrong, I'm sure, from your perspective, it's wrong from my perspective, and we want to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
With regard to the International Power group, I understand that both Mr. Elieson and Wilson Parasiuk are involved with the International Power group. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that Mr. Parasiuk, at some point, was retained by the consortium as a part-time chair of the company. I don't know if he still is or where that's at, but he was doing work for it. Obviously, when he was at B.C. Trade Development Corporation, Mr. Parasiuk developed lots of contacts and expertise -- prior to that, as well, in the private sector. He's working now in the private sector. This company, which is two-thirds owned by the private sector, is operating in the private sector. So they did retain him for a period of time.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to follow up on a couple of questions that the Leader of the Opposition started -- a line of questioning. My understanding was that the International Power group was involved in the Three Gorges project. I'm not sure if that's the case. I could well have misunderstood that, but that was what I thought the case was.
I guess the question with regard to the International Power group comes down to one of finances. Can the Premier tell us if he has any idea how much of a commitment the British Columbia taxpayers have put into the International Power group? The minister said, I think, that we own a third of this company. I'd be interested to know how much financial commitment the taxpayers of British Columbia have put into this.
Also, can the Premier comment on something that appears to exist with this corporation, as it does with IPC or BCHIL Southern, which is that in both cases it appears that controlling interest has been given to the private sector? That has really put us in a bind in one case, certainly with regard to BCHIL Southern, in that the government has not been able to regain control and really make sure that what's going on there is being done in an ethical manner. Mr. Smith was pretty strong in his comments in his report about loss of control of those companies, and we're certainly paying the price for it now. Perhaps the Premier can comment on the rationale for the 60-40 split as opposed to a 50-50 split with IPC in particular but also with IPG, where there's a split. Why not own 50 percent of those shares?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if you should mix them that easily. In terms of specific rationale, I can't recall, but let me give you the general rationale.
My position has been and actually continues to be that we don't want government corporations risking capital -- risking British Columbia's capital, ratepayers' capital or tax money internationally. We do, however -- I think it's a legitimate public policy goal -- try to exploit the expertise we have, which the public sector has invested in, to create jobs in British Columbia. Essentially, that's the rationale. It's true, by the way, in a perverse way, that it's totally my distinction. If it were up to B.C. Hydro, to use that example, they wouldn't have taken any partners. They would have done this Pakistan deal, maybe, with a Pakistani partner. They would have borrowed $180 million from the World Bank and they would have done
[ Page 1913 ]
it. It was my discomfort, with the risk of a government corporation investing in an international place where the rules, environment, ethics and mores are different, that insisted that B.C. Hydro seek private sector partners in order to insulate Hydro from the risk -- reduce the potential profit but keep the jobs in British Columbia.
[4:00]
My instructions were that they must seek private sector partners. I envisaged that the private sector partners would be a large corporation in Canada like Power Corp. or Westcoast Energy. They would then put the capital risk in, there would be some synergies, and we would get the jobs and some sweat equity benefit from the hydro in the work they'd done. Obviously, that's not how it developed. But just to be clear, it was my instruction -- and from a public policy perspective, I still believe it's preferable -- to have the private sector take the risk and the government get the jobs.
With respect to IPG, as I understand it, it's a third, a third, and a third, and I believe each party committed to a million dollars into the pot. The government is not committed to a penny more in terms of investments. If any investments come up, as a third player, we would have the option of either getting out or putting in one-third of the money to pursue any investment that they may come up with.
I want to make this clear: obviously, the challenge at Hydro, and some of the comments the opposition
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a quick follow-up question, because I think the rationale of the Premier for trying to put the risk onto the private sector is a valid one. The comment in the Smith report that we also wanted to use that as a market test of confidence in funding this
In effect, what we've done
Hon. G. Clark: You've characterized it correctly, in this sense: I still believe the public policy is a good one -- the private sector to take the risk, to have a market test. It wasn't followed in this case, and that's exactly what we're dealing with. Now, in IPG's case, remember -- having learned from this, as well -- no money has been advanced. We are in control of any investments there. Those same tests that I have just outlined, which you agreed with, are still there. We just have to make sure that they're actually followed. As I said before, I don't believe the memorandum of understanding was approved by cabinet, but I'll get that part.
G. Campbell: I would just like to make one brief comment about the use of the Columbia Estate Company land. I think that it's sort of one of the myths of public life that land isn't money. Land is money, it's a resource and it does belong to the ratepayer, so I think we have to be careful with regard to using it.
However, I want to go back to IPG. Both Mr. Parasiuk and Mr. Eliesen previously worked for the government and other bodies or agencies, one at B.C. Hydro and one, I believe, at B.C. Trade. In their roles at IPG, are they receiving any support from the taxpayer at all?
Hon. G. Clark: First, I just want to answer a question. I never said there wasn't government money; it's Hydro's money. But it's really important, in a regulated monopoly like B.C. Hydro, that this is not part of the rate base. So we weren't asking electricity consumers to subsidize international business. But it clearly is money that we could repatriate to the taxpayer at any time.
Now, with respect to IPG, they are getting money from the government, in the sense that we put in a million each, right? The last time I looked, I think there were three or four people working for IPG, and one of them is Mr. Eliesen. I believe one of them is a VP from Westcoast Energy -- I think, the last time I looked -- and I think Mr. Parasiuk is the part-time chair. It's tax money paying at least a third of their salaries. That's my understanding, anyway.
G. Campbell: Okay, so putting in a
Can the Premier tell us what actually is taking place with regard to the International Power group? How are they doing in terms of their competition? I understand they're competing with B.C. Hydro in China on a couple of projects. Can you tell us what's happening with regard to that?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to evade these questions at all, but I'm not the minister responsible for IPG; the Minister of Employment and Investment is. These are legitimate questions, but I don't particularly know the answers to them. The last time I looked, there was one project in Gwangzow which was not competing with B.C. Hydro International, which was a specific one which looked like it had a high degree of probability. But as is the case in this business, as I understand
W. Hurd: I just want to, if I could, shift the debate a little to ask the Premier a series of questions about the role that Mr.
[ Page 1914 ]
Gunton plays in the Premier's government and, indeed, in the Premier's Office. By way of introducing the topic, hon. Chair, I certainly know that the Premier took umbrage at the suggestion of the opposition that there were some difficulties we had with Mr. Gunton's role prior to the election and his role subsequent to that, and the role he may have played in the campaign planning of the government.
I want to ask the Premier specifically about the whole question of a professional civil service in the province. Historically, in British Columbia, deputy ministers have come up through the ranks of the public service and served a number of ministers in succession, sometimes from both sides of the House. It just seems to me that with Mr. Gunton's role prior to the election, his work for the government during the election and then his subsequent reappointment to a senior position in the government, we have crossed a line here, crossed a threshold that we haven't previously seen in the province. I just wonder if the Premier sees any concern with the fact that Mr. Gunton's activities could perhaps have an impact on the morale of the civil service, on other deputy ministers who might not have the opportunity to work politically for a party of their choice. I just wonder if he's comfortable with the way in which Mr. Gunton appears to have been able to work politically at the same time as he served in a senior deputy minister capacity with his government.
Hon. G. Clark: Obviously I support a professional civil service. There are many people working for government today. I don't know their party affiliations, and I don't want to know them. Competence is really the only test. Politicians are the ones that decide public policy, not bureaucrats. It is important, however, that governments get public policy advice and options that meet their political agenda, and that's not always as forthcoming as you might think in terms of trying to pursue major policy initiatives. So it is a balance.
The members can criticize Mr. Gunton's politics if they like, but it seems to me to be a bit counterproductive. I mean, I was watching on television, actually, one time -- I think it was during the campaign -- where I saw several former deputies of the government working on the Liberal Party's campaign. Now, I grant you that they were former deputies, so fair enough. If you were to form the government -- say no more -- I would suggest that you might want to hire one of those former deputies, if you could afford them, in the government or in a Crown corporation, and I would say to you that that's quite legitimate. Getting people to serve in the public service at the senior level is difficult in many respects and for a variety of reasons. I think one has to expect that public servants, like anybody else, have political views and ideologies. Some are better than others at masking those.
Again, I have to be careful. The issue for the public service -- and I've been privileged to be a cabinet minister for five years and have worked with many excellent public servants -- is not whether they're NDPers or Liberals or otherwise; it's whether they're giving you a range of policy advice that allows you to make your own political judgments. That's really the test, and that's the test that I think is important for whoever is in government. In this province, it depends on the government and the government's ideology or activism or direction that it wishes to pursue.
I'll just give you one anecdote. I don't know if members
Public servants are to serve whatever government is in power, and I respect that view. It is, however, important that governments in power have public policy advice which reflects, essentially, some of the values and some of the policy prescriptions that they wish to pursue. That's the balance between the partisan and the political. Ideally, I would say, it's not really a partisan question, but it is a political question of getting public servants who can respond politically to what you're trying to pursue.
W. Hurd: I don't think the issue here is how senior civil servants may vote or what membership in a political party they may hold. I wouldn't recommend that it would be too wise for them to do that. I think the issue here is the extent to which a senior member of the government, of the civil service, can become an integral part of the governing party's strategic plan for the election during the election campaign, perhaps with access to information that he would have gained in the service of government, and then move back into a senior planning role after the election. If the Premier can concur, I think we've upped the ante to the point where we've had a senior civil servant not only prepare information for the government but actively be involved in a campaign for re-election.
[4:15]
I wonder if I can ask the Premier whether his government has standards that they apply to deputies and assistant deputies as to the extent of their political involvement in the actual campaign of a political party. Clearly, if they want to vote along party lines or perhaps support a candidate in some
Hon. G. Clark: Let's be clear: civil servants do not work on election campaigns on government time. If anybody works on their own time, that's allowed. In fact, there was a court decision not very long ago about the rights of public servants to participate in the political process.
Elizabeth Cull ran for the NDP, and she took a leave of absence from working for a Social Credit government. She was a fairly senior policy analyst, I believe, in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Likewise, there are civil servants in British Columbia who worked very hard for the Liberals in the last campaign. They won't be fired and they won't be disciplined, as long as they didn't do it on government time. There are people who were very active in the campaigns, at least that I'm familiar with. I don't think that is wrong; I don't think that is illegitimate. What would be illegitimate is if they played politics in their profession. If someone was working for the Liberal Party at night during the campaign and came to the office and did not perform their task as a professional civil servant, then that would be totally unacceptable. But it's totally acceptable for individuals to work on a campaign.
[ Page 1915 ]
I appreciate that you want a neutral, professional civil service. That's sort of a general view, and I agree with that. But people do have strong personal views, and people in the civil service are no different. There are senior people in the civil service who were political assistants to Liberal cabinet ministers; right now, as we speak, there are former political assistants to Social Credit cabinet ministers who are in the civil service today, some in reasonably senior positions. You know we don't have a witch-hunt for them; we don't go through it, and it would be totally inappropriate to do so. They should be judged on the merits of the job that they do and the performance of the job they do and the advice they're giving the government and their ability to respond. I think that's what you try to do in terms of the balance. Nobody in this administration worked politically during government time. Those were my instructions: if they were to work on the campaign, it was their own time.
G. Campbell: I want to refer to Mr. Gunton, because this is the person that we heard this information about. I think it's important that we get a sense of what took place.
I concur that members of the public service should be able to be actively involved in public life or political life on their own time. The concern I
There was a lottery to save the Orpheum Theatre. I had the opportunity to have a number of tickets to sell for the Orpheum Theatre; it was one way that agencies were using to raise funds. I sold all of the tickets outside of the time that I was working. I didn't sell one while I was in my office at city hall. But there was a great deal of concern that when I was outside of the time at city hall -- after 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock or in the evening or on the weekends -- when I was asking people, because of what I did in my life at that time, they would feel pressure from me because I was an executive assistant to the mayor. I was clearly a political ally of the mayor of the day, and so I was applying unfair pressure; I shouldn't have asked them, in other words.
The concern I have with Mr. Gunton is that it's
I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is not whether we want public servants to be politically active, because I think we do, but whether it is it appropriate for a public servant to use his position to obtain information that is used politically. That's the question I would like the Premier to address.
Hon. G. Clark: I acknowledge that this is some of the grey area. I think you put it very well, but I also want to put it in context. We were bringing in a budget just before the election, and we were considering raising the corporate capital tax -- or cutting it, or raising it on the banks, or providing a longer tax holiday on incorporations. The budget you bring in does reflect the political priorities of the government, and we were very close to an election.
I appreciate what the member is saying, but it is a difficult question when you're in government and you're pursuing public policy initiatives which are part of the focal point that you're going to run an election on. I made this comment many times, and one could debate it. I felt that making promises for a government
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: And you will criticize us if we don't have one.
But what happened was this. My position was that the public is so cynical that if we say, "Here's what we're going to do," they'll say: "Well, you're the government, so why the heck didn't you do it?" Rather than promising to freeze ICBC rates, tuition fees, Hydro rates or taxes, we thought we'd better do it. We did all those things prior to the election, and we ran the election based on that without actually coming forward with detailed policy documentation.
It's true that during the period when the decisions were made -- and many of them were my decisions -- in doing some of these specific initiatives, one could say: "That's political, because he's about to call an election, and he's doing things to set it up for the election." In fact, I might even have said we were doing this before we called an election. Civil servants, some of whom probably didn't vote for the governing party -- even senior ones -- were asked to generate and implement ideas which clearly were going to be part of the government's re-election strategy and campaign.
I don't know how you avoid that. Right now, the federal Liberal Party is looking at an election campaign, and they're busy working on platform and policy ideas. They are generating those ideas from ministers and staff, from MPs and civil servants. In a sense, that's where you have to be careful. You have to try to do the best you can to protect the independence of the civil service while you pursue that kind of political or public policy agenda.
G. Campbell: I wouldn't have a great deal of trouble agreeing with most of what the Premier said, but there is one critical component of what he said which I do have trouble with, and that is when you direct the civil service to get your attack ideas in terms of what your opposition may be thinking. I think it is totally legitimate to say: "Let's get information of what we might do." But I don't think it's legitimate to say to someone who is a senior public servant: "Go and get information that we're going to use to go after the opposition." That's neither here nor there, however.
[ Page 1916 ]
I have some questions with regard to Mr. Gunton's role at this point. I can't recall if the Premier mentioned that he was part of the Premier's Office. Is he still considered to be part of the Premier's Office?
Hon. G. Clark: He's with the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, CPCS. The budget is within the Ministry of Finance, but for all intents and purposes it reports to cabinet, of which I'm the chair. I'm not going to hide behind -- the Chair could make me hide behind it, but I'm not going to -- the fact that the budget's not before us in answering questions with respect to that. So feel free. If I could maybe just forestall some questions -- maybe not -- just by explaining a little bit the functions of
In any government or cabinet operation, there needs to be a central agency -- some people refer to it as "the centre," usually in a nasty way -- to coordinate the activities of government from a corporate perspective. I actually think that successful governments don't stifle individual ministries and ministers, but rather have a strong corporate agenda -- a focus to the government, a specific focus.
Often in a modern government, I would submit, the challenge is not to do more things but actually to do fewer things, because interest groups, civil servants, ministers and MLAs all have things they think government should do -- and all can be done, so be
The challenge, first of all, is that you can't run everything from the centre, nor should you. Secondly, you don't want a big bureaucracy at the centre trying to impose its will on ministers. That's always the tension and balance. What we've tried to do in the CPCS is shrink it. It's quite a bit smaller -- 25 percent smaller, I think -- than it was in the last few years. But we want to have it provide, if we can, more focus to the government in working with cabinet to ensure that cabinet's collective view, the government's view and the government caucus's view, collectively, on the major priority issues of the day, are worked within the ministries.
There are two things. One is making sure that cabinet's will, or government's will, is transmitted to the ministries and the ministers. The other -- probably more often the case -- is when the ministry and the minister come to cabinet, get approval, and then it is translated into a corporate perspective that can deliver it. There's sort of an iterative, working-back-and-forth approach to try to refine and enhance it. There's also a little bit of the Treasury Board function from the policy side, so that there is a really tough, rigorous fiscal review for any minister coming forward. But there needs to be a requisite rigorous public policy review, independent of the ministry, to pursue.
When a major initiative comes forward, the ministries -- I hesitate to use the term "conflict of interest," because it's far too overused -- often have a bureaucratic agenda. Again, it's not necessarily negative, but it's an agenda that they're pursuing. Maybe it's an agenda that an interest group is pursuing. Take something like legal aid, for example, which would be in the Attorney General ministry. The ministry will have a view on that, the bar will have a view on that, the interest groups will have a view on that, and it might be all the same view. There would be a tough fiscal impediment to pursue whatever they want to pursue in that area.
But there also needs to be a public policy, public interest kind of test that they have to meet. This agency, under Mr. Gunton, is designed, in effect, to do that: to provide help to pursue government's agenda, help to pursue the ministry's agenda with government, with rigour and analysis, and quick critique on the policy side, for any initiatives that come forward from the ministry, separate and distinct from the fiscal ones which already get, essentially, a fairly detailed review.
G. Campbell: I appreciate the Premier pointing out that Mr. Gunton is under the Finance ministry.
I guess the issue for me in
[4:30]
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to make sure. I think he reports to Doug McArthur, who reports to me, essentially, in terms of the chain of command.
W. Hurd: I am delighted that the Premier has opened up the cabinet policy and communications secretariat for a line of questions in this set of estimates. I want to find out if the Premier could advise us or confirm whether Mr. Gunton and the cabinet policy and communications secretariat have a communications department with 24 full-time-equivalents. I wonder if he could advise us or confirm that there is a communications section to the secretariat and what the function of it might be.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the exact number of FTEs, but that's probably about right.
Again, it's to make sure that ministries' communications are consistent with the corporate agenda of the government, first and foremost. Secondly, it's to ensure that the corporate agenda of the government is communicated to the public through various communications officers, some of whom are located throughout the province.
W. Hurd: Can the Premier explain whether we're dealing with an internal communications strategy here, or is this a body that deals with external communications such as the government's vaunted budget advertising that we have been subjected to or have appreciated hearing about for the last number of months? Would that be a function that might flow from this particular planning secretariat, or is that another branch of government?
Hon. G. Clark: No, that's absolutely correct. But let's be clear. The Ministry of Finance, essentially, would propose communications around, say, the budget, and this central agency would ensure that those communications are in keeping with the corporate agenda of the government. Then it's for you to put in the actual expenditures. The campaign, etc., is all done by the Ministry of Finance or by agencies hired by the Ministry of Finance. Again, the central agency is there to ensure that it meets the cabinet's test with respect to its collective view.
[ Page 1917 ]
W. Hurd: Again, with respect to this organization chart of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, it's my understanding that there's also a legislative branch, a youth secretariat and an issues management branch, all with their own allotment of full-time-equivalents. I wonder if the minister could advise the House, to his knowledge, of the function of the youth secretariat, the issues management branch and the legislative branch of this secretariat. Do they vet, in some way, the government's legislative program? Are they responsible for proposing legislation? I wonder if he could just clarify those three functions: issues management, legislation and the youth secretariat.
Hon. G. Clark: Sure, I'll just go through it. The legislation working
The youth secretariat is a little different, because I've taken on the Ministry Responsible for Youth. So a central agency function, the one we've been talking about, working with ministers, etc., obviously doesn't entirely apply to the youth secretariat. I was very excited by this when I was taking on this portfolio. Rene Saklikar is the youth adviser to the Premier, and there are a few other staffers working there.
If I could just depart for a second, there is a sort of debate, I guess, in government generally in terms of how you organize things. Do you create a big-staff line ministry, or do you have horizontal ministries that work with the line ministries, if you will? This is essentially a horizontal ministry. We don't want to set up a program-delivery, large-bureaucracy ministry of youth. What we want to do is set up a team that reports directly to me, with the Premier's authority, to ensure that ministries are delivering on programs and policies that are relevant and effective for young people in dealing with their concerns.
This is a new initiative; it's just a few months old. We are working through the role of the youth secretariat and the Premier in terms of promoting youth issues generally and driving an agenda throughout government, and that's what this will do. So it will be both a generator of ideas on youth issues and an outreach in terms of making sure that young people feel that the government and I are responding. It will also make sure that within each ministry there are advocates and people who are pursuing the government's agenda, or my agenda -- the collective agenda of the government -- on youth issues. Anyway, that one is slightly different, I'd say, from the other ones. It's obviously housed there and has to report up through the ADM and deputy minister -- in this case, Mr. Gunton -- although in many respects it reports directly to me.
The other
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I know the Liberals get their advice from reading the Vancouver Sun. That's their research; I know that. I won't make any more speeches.
Let me give you the various agencies. We have the legislation working group; the priority-issues working group; the program review and budget working group; the employment policy working group; the land use, environment and resource working group; the social policy working group; the education working group; and the youth secretariat. Again, as you can see, it's a central agency of government. It's not large by central agency standards. There are a few people in each one. Let's say, on the land use, environment and resource working group, that the various line ministries -- Environment, Forests, Energy, E & I,
W. Hurd: One might suggest that this has all the earmarks of a bit of a political boilerplate operation within the Premier's Office. Given the amount of information that flows into this working group and is disseminated, analyzed and dealt with in some way, it's impressive indeed that that amount of material could be disseminated with a budget of $6.6 million and 57 FTEs. Is that the number we're dealing with? The budget is $6.6 million and 57 FTEs?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: The member must have been talking to Mr. Gunton about the need for more resources and FTEs. I'm sure he appreciates you raising it that way.
You're quite correct. I think there are 57 FTEs. The cabinet policy and communications secretariat is, I think, smaller than that, actually, in terms of the size of the budget. It's very, very small indeed, and it is a huge challenge.
Again, line ministries are expected to perform their duties without encumbrance or irritation from the Premier's Office or CPCS. It's not meant to run everything; it's only meant to vet issues as they come forward and then work on corporate agenda issues that are important to the government collectively. We wouldn't
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Let's take Forests, for example. I don't know what the member is, but the Ministry of Forests is a large ministry that governs and allocates the forest resource of the province. The centre, the Premier's Office, doesn't interfere in that. But let's say the government has decided to pursue a jobs and timber accord, which I've announced. Then it's quite appropriate that if that's the government's and Premier's direction with respect to pursuing that, then clearly the Premier's Office and this agency will have to be involved with the Ministry of Forests in pursuing that cross-government agenda. That's more how it works. It doesn't try to duplicate what's in the ministries. Frankly, that's the only way you can ensure that the central agency of the cabinet and the Premier is not huge. You have to keep it small and lean and deal only with
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: And efficient. Thank you, member for North Vancouver-Seymour. Efficient -- absolutely, to pursue the government's agenda.
W. Hurd: I find the Premier's explanations for the cabinet policy and communications secretariat to be quite fascinat-
[ Page 1918 ]
ing, and I know that it has an important role in his government. I want to explore the relationship between the senior bureaucrats in this cabinet policy and communications secretariat, the Premier's office and the Ministry of Finance.
The Premier will be aware that one of the controversies that surfaced since the election was the extent to which Mr. Gunton might have been involved in the revenue forecasting prior to the election, and the Premier will also be aware that one of the critical roles of the Ministry of Finance is to do projections of forest revenue and other types of revenues of government. One sometimes supposes that those statistics can prove to be somewhat embarrassing to the government if they result in a shortfall.
I wonder if the Premier could clarify the role that Mr. Gunton might have vis-�-vis Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance in vetting in any way the revenue forecasts that might be done on an ongoing basis by the Ministry of Finance. I find it curious that the government has chosen to provide funding for the cabinet policy and communications secretariat out of the Ministry of Finance, where one would assume that they would be involved in all manner of financial dealings like revenue forecasting, yet the line function of reporting is through Mr. McArthur and ultimately the Premier of British Columbia. Would Mr. Gunton have any impact on the revenue forecasts that might be done by the Ministry of Finance?
Hon. G. Clark: First, there is a unit called budget and program review in the CPCS, which is helping to engage in this major program review. The Minister of Finance sets the budget, working with the excellent people in the Ministry of Finance. There is a range of forecasts, but it wouldn't be improper or uncommon for the CPCS to be involved in assisting or providing other advice to the Minister of Finance for the purpose of budget-making.
I'll give you an example of something which, when I was the Minister of Finance, didn't come directly from the centre but partly did, and that's the question of forecasting the welfare caseload. Essentially, the ministry has a forecasting model which has not proven to be as accurate as you would like, and forecasting is an inexact science. In this case, the Ministry of Finance engaged a professor at the University of B.C. to do a separate economic model to forecast welfare rates. I can't remember whether it was any more accurate than the ministry model, and I don't think it actually was in the end. The point is that what might happen out of CPCS, and I don't know if it has happened, is that they would be potentially generating various analyses of different things, whether it be lumber prices or energy prices, to help provide other advice to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance makes the judgment, and that's as it should be.
Interestingly enough, after looking in the paper, I can't help resisting the
Mr. Gunton and the CPCS, working directly in the Ministry of Finance, worked directly for the Premier through the deputy minister in providing a range of advice on a program review exercise to cut spending. Obviously, there will be some major issues which may come out of that, and CPCS will be intimately involved in analyzing various options presented by ministries or presented directly on their own initiative.
[4:45]
W. Hurd: The Premier has indicated in response to a study by the B.C. Business Council that it would be unacceptable to him if the deficit were to balloon to the proportion envisaged in the Business Council report. One would assume that that would require, for the remainder of the fiscal year, a major review of program spending, obviously -- major cuts. I wonder if the Premier can clarify the role that the CPCS would play in that ongoing program review.
I can recall a press conference that you, as the Minister of Finance, held in the press theatre when anticipating lower-than-expected income tax revenues from the federal government. The initiative to reduce spending for the rest of the year came strictly from the Ministry of Finance. One assumed that that was where it should lie. If the Premier could just clarify: assuming that we face a similar problem the rest of the year, what role would the cabinet policy and communications secretariat play in that review of program expenditures? Would the lion's share of the work continue to be done by the Ministry of Finance?
Hon. G. Clark: More than the lion's share would be done by the Ministry of Finance. This is a Ministry of Finance initiative, a Treasury Board initiative -- the minister and the staff there. I have full confidence in their ability to do so. Two or three people in CPCS are not going to replace Ministry of Finance-Treasury Board documentation.
All I'm saying is that there may be major initiatives which will come up through the Ministry of Finance for significant cuts, for example, which might benefit from CPCS involvement or a thorough review. There may be larger corporate initiatives that the government or cabinet might want to look at which might lend themselves to having some central agency working with the Ministry of Finance. But this exercise is one being governed from the Ministry of Finance. The work is being done there, the analysis is being done there, the Treasury Board will make the decisions, and cabinet will subsequently approve them. And that's where it should be.
W. Hurd: In reviewing the organization chart, I note that Mr. McArthur does sit on the board of Forest Renewal B.C. as a participating director. I wonder if the Premier could clarify for the committee the role that Mr. McArthur, as the nominal head of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, would be expected to play on the Forest Renewal board.
Hon. G. Clark: The Forest Renewal board is set up on a Crown corporation model; the people appointed to it come from various sectoral interests. They're not beholden to the government, nor do they toe any particular government line. Mr. McArthur was intimately involved in constructing a forestry strategy in the province and in what came to pass as the Forest Renewal Act and the Forest Renewal board. As such, he's an active member of the board of directors. He has no more or less power than any other board member of that corporation. I know that there are some very, very strong and independent people on the board who would certainly reflect that view.
W. Hurd: Assuming that the decision to repatriate funds from Forest Renewal B.C. was an initiative of the government
[ Page 1919 ]
-- and indeed, it might even be the initiative of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat -- would one of Mr. McArthur's roles on the board be to communicate that initiative from government to the board members? Would he be expected to play the role of policy adviser from the government? Or is he an independent member of the board who might, one would hope, strenuously resist the idea of money being repatriated to the government, to Treasury Board? I wonder if you can clarify the role that he would be playing on the Forest Renewal board with respect to any initiative by government to repatriate money from the forest renewal fund?
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. McArthur will be expected to enter into any discussions the board might have with respect to that. He is the head of the civil service, as you point out, so he's not totally neutral in any of these options. I think it's important with respect to Forest Renewal to recognize -- and I know the learned member who has been the critic in this area for some time knows this -- that the issue of the expenditure and surplus of funds from Forest Renewal has been an issue of debate, as I understand it, on the board for some time. In fact, the auditor general reviewed the size of the surplus in the account. I don't think there should be any particular shock or surprise that the question of the surplus in the account is a matter of debate for the board.
Regardless of whether the government wishes to repatriate money, as you say, or use money elsewhere, the board itself, managing this corporation, has financial reports given to it -- I assume every month or every few months -- and in those financial documents is the state of the finances of the corporation, as you would expect. As publicly acknowledged, there is a huge surplus in that corporation -- I mean, it's massive. So I would expect -- again, I don't particularly know this -- that the board would be debating this question all the time. How big should the surplus be? What should we do? How can we make investments faster, in keeping with government's direction of getting people working? All these questions are a matter of debate on the board sometimes. As such, the deputy minister, Mr. McArthur, does participate in that debate and does reflect government's views on that from time to time. He is independent. By statute, any board member appointed is expected to do the best for the corporation. But he is also working for the government. We don't pretend that he isn't; he's not some neutral agent on that board.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the Premier can tell us, to his knowledge, when the issue of returning funds to the government was first raised on the board. I understand from dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment, who also sit on the board, that they have advised the Committee of Supply that, in fact, it was raised only at the last meeting. I wonder if the Premier can advise us, to his knowledge, whether his deputy raised the potential issue of Forest Renewal dollars being returned to Treasury Board on any occasion earlier than the most recent meeting, which, I believe, occurred after the election.
Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that this issue has been raised on numerous occasions, not just in the last few weeks, or whatever. I mean, when the financials come before the
W. Hurd: Just so the shadowboxing comes to an end, it certainly is my information that the issue was raised in board meetings considerably earlier than the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Environment suggested. Perhaps, having had new cabinet posts, they weren't part of previous board meetings; but I understand that the issue was raised with the board some time ago. I guess the concern I'm expressing is that it's not hard to envisage a board where someone like Mr. McArthur, who represents, one would assume, cabinet policy and communications, was sitting on the board and perhaps advising the board that if they didn't speed up the approval of Forest Renewal funds and create more jobs prior to the election, there was a very real risk that the funds could be lost to Treasury Board, just because they were so successful.
I guess all I'm doing is expressing some concern that other members of the board who the Premier has indicated are independent, free-minded British Columbians, who may not even have a political affiliation, would have occasion to wonder whether the deputy was acting on behalf of government when he proposed the repatriation of funds or whether he was acting in his capacity as a board member. Clearly, when the corporation was established, there would have been a great deal of concern about the makeup of the board, because of the considerable influence that the head of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat might have on the board meetings. I just throw that out there. Can the Premier confirm for the committee that his deputy did raise the spectre, if I can use the term, of funds being repatriated to Treasury Board long before the last election?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure precisely, but, yes, I think that for some time there's been this discussion. If you want, for the committee, for public
It certainly wouldn't surprise me that the board, the deputy or otherwise would say to the board members: "Look, we had better get moving here, because the government has some very specific" -- if you will -- "demands on this corporation to get moving on these issues. If we don't move on it, don't be surprised if the government takes the money away." We'll make sure it is invested on the ground. I think there is a certain amount of tension there, and I don't dismiss that. I've been quite upfront about that right from the day I became Premier -- or before I was running for leader -- that I didn't think the pace of the investments was adequate. I've been quite honest, as well: I still don't.
One of the purposes of the legislation which was passed was to try to get that link going with jobs on the ground for people who are potentially displaced because of various decisions on annual allowable cut or otherwise. The pressure is on the companies. I'm right upfront about it. Publicly, privately and every other way, the pressure has been on from me and probably others for some time, and the board is putting pressure on the company. Part of that pressure, I'm sure, is this escalating and growing surplus, which the board has been familiar with for some time -- although I don't think it would
[ Page 1920 ]
have been raised a couple of years ago or even a year ago, probably because the surplus wasn't that large and they decided to have a program continuance fund. But as time moves on and they
There is one little caveat in the board's defence, and I say this clearly: we don't want them throwing money away, rushing out and doing things inefficiently, because of the drive. That would be their response, and I accept their response. But they are always going to get pressure from me to deliver on the promise of Forest Renewal for jobs on the ground.
W. Hurd: I want to go on record as saying that that pressure is totally appropriate. If the Crown corporation isn't functioning to the extent that it should, then obviously the Premier and his representative on the board should convey that disappointment to the board in the strongest possible way.
I guess the concern I'm expressing, however, is that it appears in this case that the Premier's deputy may also have been carrying the warning of a major policy shift by the government that might result in the loss of the assets of the Crown corporation -- the money they had on deposit. I question, in that case, whether the Premier's deputy is acting in his capacity as a board member or as the nominal head of the cabinet communications secretariat. I would hesitate to think that in other Crown corporations in the province, such as Hydro, for example, the government representative on the board would be warning of financial repercussions to the corporation by saying, "We may take an asset away from you, or take over the operation of a dam," or something along those lines. I think it really undermines the ability of the board to meet policy objectives if, at the end of the day, the result would be the loss of the assets of the corporation.
[5:00]
I would suggest to the Premier that if that is the method of spurring performance from Crown corporations, it's a new step but not necessarily a positive one. I would hope that in the board meeting coming up in September, where I understand the issue is finally going to be settled, the Premier's deputy minister will be functioning as a member of that board attempting to find ways to improve its performance, to spend the money that's already there as opposed to going there with a mandate as to how $400 million of it might be returned to general revenues.
Hon. G. Clark: Certainly I've no hesitation in agreeing with you on the last comment, but let me disagree with you on your earlier comments. I am going to be very clear: the government as a shareholder does put pressure on. You only have to look at ICBC, where my instructions are that I am not satisfied with ICBC and that if they don't resolve these problems and become more customer-focused, more competitive, and keep rates down, then they won't be around. How's that for a bigger threat? I'll just eliminate them or the government will take them right out. So don't be under any illusion here with respect to Forest Renewal. Because they do get pressure from the government, and it is tough pressure, up to and including whether the corporation should even exist. Now, Forest Renewal is a new agency, so we are not threatening anything of the sort. But believe me, as a shareholder, as separate and distinct from the board of directors, there will be pressure on all Crown corporations to perform or face consequences, which may be more serious than taking away surplus funds or assets. We may eliminate the corporation entirely.
W. Hurd: I am only sorry that the leader of the Reform Party isn't here to hear the remarks about ICBC, because he would be doing handsprings down to this side of the House.
I hear what the Premier is saying about the performance of corporations. But looking at it on a political level again, which we do in this chamber, had the information about the government's priorities for Forest Renewal B.C. been available before the election -- if indeed it had been public knowledge that the head of the cabinet communications secretariat was pitching to the board the idea that as a policy priority of government we might be repatriating funds if we didn't get
I would just say again that I hope that at the meeting in September, when the issue is discussed and dealt with, the role of the Premier's deputy minister will be that of any board member looking for signs that the corporation is improving its bottom-line performance, not that of an architect of a major policy shift to find a way to remove $400 million from the corporation, which represents a sizeable amount of the corporation's assets.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't want to belabour it, but all members of the board, as responsible board members, have been deliberating for some time on a variety of things, one of which is how to fulfil the government's or the corporation's mandate. They're looking at how they can get things moving and make the investments. We're putting the pressure on, and the deputy minister on the board is pursuing that, as well. They've also been pursuing the issue of the appropriateness of the surplus for some time -- that is, the question of what to do with it. In fact, a year ago, I guess, they made a determination that a surplus made sense. They should put it in a separate fund, a program continuance fund. That was their decision at the time. The board, I assume, had a debate about the fund then.
The deputy will be involved in those deliberations in September. We intend to allow the board to make those decisions. We could easily either pass legislation or give a directive or something, but the board, I think, has been very responsible on this question. They're working hard with the government and the deputy ministers on that. They're pursuing the appropriateness of action as well as the size of the surplus that would protect the integrity of the corporation. They're increasing investments -- albeit maybe too slow for me and maybe for the board as well, but they've been pushing and moving it along. They're going to continue making those deliberations.
It sounds like the member has some sources on the board, and I encourage him to talk to board members. Notwithstanding my criticism of the corporation, from my perspective the board's been doing a good job of debating these issues and moving them along. They're going to continue doing that, and we expect them to do so.
[ Page 1921 ]
W. Hurd: I don't wish to belabour the point, either. I guess my final comment on this issue would be that earlier in the estimates debate today, the Premier indicated that it wouldn't be acceptable to him for the government to run anywhere near the kind of deficit that has been projected by the Business Council. The temptation certainly would be strong to offset the potential political damage by repatriating $400 million for very short-term gain. As we debated Forest Renewal B.C. in the House, it was my understanding that the government assured us that the building up of a huge surplus in the first two years of the corporation's existence was not only possible but highly desirable because of the nature of the corporation's five-year funding cycles and long-term commitment to the land base. I would just point out that there still lingers a suspicion that there is a link between the fact that the government had a dollar figure in mind for the amount they needed and the fact that we're projecting a deficit for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The government might be going to the board with a target to deal with the more immediate financial problem rather than giving the board time to work out its initial difficulties.
Hon. G. Clark: Let me try to give the member as much comfort as I can on that. If we have a structural deficit -- if that's what transpires -- then we will take corrective action on the spending side. To deal with it, we wouldn't simply go out and get revenue which, as you point out, would be of a one-time nature. I'm not saying that the board may not decide that the appropriate level of surplus is X and that anything above that should be given to the government. That may be a course of action. But let me assure the member that we're not going to jeopardize the independence of the corporation. We're not going to jeopardize the fundamentals of their expenditure in terms of making the investments we need. Let me also assure the member that if we face revenue shortfalls, then we'll deal with it through spending cuts, as we have tried to do for some time in terms of being on budget.
Just to elaborate a bit more on the course of events, when the first quarterly report and other reports come out, we'll be able to test certain assumptions. No doubt some revenue will be higher and some will be lower; no doubt some spending will be higher than projected, and some will be lower. It's the same every year. At that time, the Minister of Finance, on the basis of empirical evidence on what's happening with respect to revenue, will take appropriate action. The appropriate action will be to make the kinds of cuts that are needed to bring it in on budget. As we have said consistently, we want to do the best we can to bring in the final numbers as close as possible to the budgeted numbers that were presented before the House. That's what we're going to try to do. The comfort I am trying to give you is that there's no quick fix that we can just look to, say, Forest Renewal, and take some money, and that will solve all our problems. If we face challenges, we'll deal with them in a structural way to try to ensure that we, on an ongoing basis, have a balanced budget.
W. Hurd: That does give me some comfort -- the fact that it won't be used to avoid making hard decisions on other programs and expenditures of government. Clearly that would be financially irresponsible on two counts: undermining the ability of a Crown corporation which the government has a lot of political rent in, and at the same time avoiding the tough spending decisions. So I do take comfort in that.
I just have one other question with respect to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, and then I understand that my colleague from Chilliwack, who is the critic for Youth, had some follow-up questions on the youth secretariat.
I just want to ask if the Premier could explain whether any of the functions of the old Crown corporations secretariat have been added or repatriated to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. As we debated the role of Forest Renewal B.C., it appeared that secretariat has a very active role in that corporation. What about other Crowns, in terms of their strategies and their investment policies, such as, perhaps, Hydro and others? Would they be sort of a clearinghouse or a policy-vetting organization for the activities of other Crowns in the province? The Premier made brief mention of ICBC. In fact, I think he said he might terminate it if it didn't perform. So are the Crowns coming before this secretariat?
Hon. G. Clark: No, the Crowns are dealt with through the Crown corporations secretariat, not through this. Let me just qualify that a little bit. High-level policy questions likely come here if they deal with Crowns; the detailed nuts and bolts of management and due diligence, etc. is all done by the Crown corporations secretariat and/or Treasury Board. That's not what the CPCS does. If any documentation around Crowns comes through the CPCS, it's probably through the Crown corporations secretariat and up that way.
B. Penner: I just have some initial questions for the Premier, not to deal with Youth specifically, but just seeking some clarification about his comments earlier having to do with his understanding of Forest Renewal B.C. and its intended purpose. The Premier has made numerous references here this afternoon to a surplus in the funds held by Forest Renewal B.C., and I am wondering what he means by the word "surplus" in this context.
Hon. G. Clark: I am tempted to answer very simply that it's more revenue than expenditure, but that's a bit too glib. What we've always said with Forest Renewal is that there would be cycles in the lumber market, etc., and that we wanted to ensure that there was a constant amount of expenditure on the land base. The numbers
We don't want to do anything to compromise that, but in the course of doing it, and in the course of the agency getting up to that level of a steady state of constant investment, there has been a far larger increase in revenue than was projected. Partly that's some policy decisions which were made -- to add royalties and a few other things to Forest Renewal revenue -- and partly that's lumber prices, etc. And then expenditures have been much slower to ramp up than we anticipated.
That's why, even with being very conservative, even with saying that there should be a program continuance fund to deal with downturns, even with a large accumulated bank account, it's still growing very rapidly. By any definition, it seems to me that it's reasonable to say that there is a surplus of funds there which they may never be able to use, you could argue. I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but it is this kind of
[ Page 1922 ]
ever going to be able to invest. So I don't know what the quantum is or anything else, but it seems to me there is a surplus beyond what was ever contemplated by the legislation or the House.
[5:15]
B. Penner: Keeping on with this topic for a few moments, my understanding is that as of today there is just short of $800 million in the forest renewal fund. I'm wondering if that's accurate. It appears that the Premier is indicating that it is.
Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a little high right now. I guess the question is: at the end of this fiscal year, what could be in it? Depending on lumber prices, etc., it could be as high as $1 billion. I think the number people generally think is probably more like $800 million. I don't think they're quite there yet. They may be getting close to that amount of revenue.
B. Penner: What interests me is that we're now about two years into the forest renewal program. Roughly speaking, I believe the legislation was introduced in the spring of 1994. We're now more than halfway through 1996.
In the debates that occurred in the Legislature when the act was introduced, the member for Saanich South, who is now the Minister of Finance, was then the Minister of Forests. He spoke to this bill, and he indicated that it was his expectation, according to the transcript in Hansard, that Forest Renewal B.C. would take in about $400 million a year. He estimated that over five years they would have taken in a total of $2 billion in forest renewal funds. That's $2 billion over five years, so presumably that would be about $400 million a year. If we're now about two and a half years into the program, we should have about $800 million to $1 billion, according to my rudimentary mathematics.
I've been interested in some of the Hansard report that pertains to the debate that took place at the time the act was introduced. The hon. member for Saanich South, who was then the Minister of Forests, indicated that he expected that at times the fund would take in more money than could be spent. He viewed it as something of an insurance fund. This is a quote: "This fund will build up funds when times are good and pay them down when times aren't so good. This is like an insurance fund for the future of British Columbia." He said that on April 28, 1994. He also said on the same day that this fund "can accumulate funds when times are good in terms of timber prices and can pay those down when times are not as good, and because, without sacrificing accountability, it has some independence from the day-to-day politics of this
My point in referring to all of this is that it seems that at the time that Forest Renewal B.C. was being created, it was anticipated that there would be times when the fund would have more money deposited to its credit than could be spent in any given year. In fact, based on the comments from the member for Saanich South, it seemed that he thought it would be prudent to always keep some money on hand, in excess of what could be spent, as an insurance fund or a rainy day fund or however you want to describe it. It's based on that that I ask the question: how does the Premier view this to be a surplus? I'll just let the Premier clarify his remarks.
Hon. G. Clark: I agree with all of the comments the member has made. The only debate we're having is, in order to protect for a rainy day, to use that analogy, how much should be kept in the bank account. I ask the member this, sort of semi-legitimately; it's in public policy terms. If at full capacity the corporation is to spend $400 million a year -- that's where we're supposed to be at; I say that for the sake of argument -- and it takes in $400 million a year, how much should it have in the bank account in order to protect itself from the vagaries of the marketplace or politicians?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: A whole year -- $400 million? Should it have $400 million that is protected forever, or in case of a downturn, should it have $800 million or a billion dollars? In a way, this is really the debate that we're in. We want to ensure that there is more revenue than expenditures; we want to ensure that so that there's some protection from a downturn. We want to make sure there's money in the bank, in order to make sure that programs continue regardless of what happens -- all the stuff you said you agree with.
The only debate is if, at the end of this fiscal year, there's a billion dollars in there that has not been spent. What's a prudent amount of money that should be in the bank to cover any and all possible exigencies? A year ago, when they faced a surplus, I think they said: "Keeping the $400 million is prudent; that's a whole year when we're fully operating. We'll keep that in the bank." The auditor general certified it, and it was done, so they had $400 million. Now, at the end of this fiscal year, and for a whole bunch of reasons, it may be more than a billion dollars, so I would ask you the question. You might say: "They should keep it there." Well, what if it's $1.4 billion a year later? Should we just leave it all there? Maybe we should. If somebody could give a good public policy reason for it, I guess I would understand that.
All the board is grappling with is what's prudent, what makes sense, and how much money we should keep in the bank for a rainy day and for problems. They want to make sure programs continue and don't suffer from government cuts. All those questions are being debated by the board, as they should be. There is a sort of logic to saying: "Let's keep a year's, two year's, or a year and a half's budget there. Anything above that is not necessary for the prudent operation of the corporation." Anyway, that's the kind of debate they're having, and I leave it to them to have it.
B. Penner: I heard, from some of the questions that were asked earlier by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock, that a person from the Premier's Office -- I believe it was Doug McArthur -- actually sits on the board of Forest Renewal B.C. I see that Mr. McArthur is here; greetings to him. Could the Premier tell us if he provided Mr. McArthur with any instructions to take to the board with respect to setting a goal for the funds on hand and what the minimum bank balance should be for Forest Renewal B.C.? Or does Mr. McArthur merely sit in on those meetings as a monitor for the Premier's Office?
Hon. G. Clark: No, he's not a monitor. He's a fully participating, independent board member who also happens to be the deputy minister to the Premier. Everybody knows that. Mr. McArthur has not given any directives to the board and will not. In discussions around the surplus, what's an appropriate size, how much it should be, what they're investing in and how they can expedite some investments in various agencies, Mr. McArthur is a full member. In that respect, he
[ Page 1923 ]
does carry, if you will, a government view on these questions. But, frankly, he's one of around 14 members of the board of Forest Renewal. I appreciate that he is a senior officer or employee of the government and carries a certain amount of weight with that, but I'm going to let the board decide what's appropriate and prudent.
We're not going to give it any kind of dictate or anything. If we wanted to give it a directive -- I think we have the power, actually -- we would give it a directive and you guys could criticize, attack or support it, whatever you wanted. We haven't chosen to do that. The board, actually, has said: "What is the prudent amount? What's reasonable? What makes sense? What protects the integrity of the corporation? How much should we keep in the account. And should there be a dividend to the government if there's a surplus beyond that?" The board is deliberating on these questions, and Mr. McArthur is part of that discussion.
B. Penner: I would presume that Mr. McArthur would fully apprise the Premier of discussions that take place at Forest Renewal board meetings, specifically those to do with the funds on hand that are greater than those that are being spent at any given time. I wonder if the Premier could tell the House if there's any indication or any idea at this time of what amount the board will settle on as to an appropriate minimum balance? In other words, in the board's eyes, what is really a surplus? How much is a surplus?
Hon. G. Clark: I have no indication at this time. The board will be debating these points, I guess, and probably that point specifically, in September.
B. Penner: Just to clarify, then, I believe the Premier said he would expect some form of decision on that to come in September of 1996.
Hon. G. Clark: Probably. That's what we've been told, but, again, we haven't instructed them or told them or anything else. So if the board comes to a different determination, wants to push it off for a month or so or wants to debate it at their regular meetings, they'll do that. My understanding at this point is that they will be debating this, with a view to some resolution and some policy they support, in September.
B. Penner: I thank the Premier for his comments with regard to Forest Renewal B.C.
I'll move off that topic and just touch on something that my colleague from Surrey-White Rock referred to a bit earlier. I was listening carefully for the Premier's answer, and I'm not sure if I heard it exactly. The question had to do with another official in the Premier's Office, Mr. Tom Gunton, and his role in liaising with, I believe, Ministry of Finance officials in terms of planning for annual budgets. I wonder if the Premier could elaborate a bit for us -- I listened carefully, but I don't think I heard the answer I was waiting for -- and explain what in fact Mr. Gunton's role is or what he's authorized to do in terms of liaising with Ministry of Finance officials in the budgetary cycle or planning process.
Hon. G. Clark: I say this with great respect to the hon. member. I will answer this question once, but I have answered these questions at some length, and I don't intend to canvass them repeatedly with other members every time they come in.
Mr. Gunton is the head of the cabinet planning and communications secretariat. It has within it a unit of three or four people, called budget and program review, for budget deliberations. So there is some involvement, a very modest involvement indeed, with respect to budget-making and the like, because we have a full Ministry of Finance, a Minister of Finance and professional staff who do that. Mr. Gunton's involvement is to ensure that the corporate objectives of the government are carried through -- to ensure that the objectives that cabinet sets, for example, are followed through by all ministries, including the Ministry of Finance. To that extent, if the government decides we're going to cut $200 million, then the cabinet planning and communications secretariat would be monitoring the Ministry of Finance and Treasury Board to ensure that those cuts actually took place -- just to give you an example.
Similarly, if a policy was developed by the Ministry of Agriculture on a certain thing that we wanted pursued, the cabinet planning and communications secretariat would work with the ministry and ensure that that cabinet directive was followed. I don't think it's anything particularly more than that, other than that in this case there actually is a small unit dealing with the fiscal side of government.
B. Penner: I did make a photocopy, I believe, of the flow chart that the Premier has for his office. It indicates where some of the staff are. I find that somewhat helpful and thank him for that.
I don't want to belabour the point about Mr. Gunton. I realize that the Premier may have had to answer these questions before, but I'd ask him to indulge me for one more question. The question is: would Mr. Gunton have ever been authorized by the Premier to go to officials in the Ministry of Finance and have them change revenue projections in the budget planning process?
[5:30]
Hon. G. Clark: Of course not. The Minister of Finance makes the appropriate determination as to the various revenues that go in the budget -- the forecasts -- and that information, which the Minister of Finance makes, is based on a range of forecasts prepared by various arms of government. The minister makes a judgment, puts it in the budget and is then held accountable in this chamber.
B. Penner: My colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour would like to ask a few questions, I believe.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the Premier a few questions. I hope that I don't wake up the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I see that the Whip is doing his job properly.
In any event, the Premier mentioned a few things about Youth Works and Mr. Gunton, and I was quite surprised that he didn't bring up the subject of mining while discussing Youth Works. Maybe it was apropos that he missed that in view of Mr. Gunton's opinions -- and no one knows Mr. Gunton better than the Premier. I've given a few speeches about the Guntonization of British Columbia, in view of some of the books that Mr. Gunton has written concerning his philosophy on mining in this province.
What I'm looking for from the Premier is a positive note; I'm looking for something that would give the mining indus-
[ Page 1924 ]
try a better awareness of where the government and the Premier stand. He has stated that he is in favour of mining in this province and feels that it is a necessary part of our resource revenues. As the Premier probably knows, exploration and revenues are down, from the small free-miner's certificate and small exploration companies right up to the majors. They're looking for signals from this government, like: "Let's get to work again." There certainly hasn't been any sort of confidence put forward, due to the uncertainty of the land claims, the aboriginal settlements and the parks. I was just wondering if the Premier could give some kind of objective statement as to where this government intends to go in the next short while with regard to mining -- not a subjective statement, not one of those fuzzy, warm things, but something real, something that we could put our teeth
An Hon. Member: Right to the end of the shaft?
D. Jarvis: Right to the end of the shaft, as the member for Peace River North said.
If the Premier doesn't mind, it would certainly be something that we could take back to the mining industry and maybe get some money into this province. I appreciate that the government does give a few odd dollars -- not odd dollars, quite a bit -- to the free-miners' certificates in order for them to go out exploring, but that's not what they're looking for. Most of the mining companies, exploration companies and the majors are not looking for money. The Premier did hand out I don't know how many millions to Royal Oak Mines, but it wasn't really necessary, I don't think. Their financial backers were the Mitsubishi company, which has a bottom line that could buy and sell British Columbia -- at least get us out of debt, for sure. They're looking for confidence, so that they can raise money, and they haven't been getting it.
Hon. G. Clark: Let me thank the member for raising this, because it gives me an opportunity to go on the record on the mining sector. I'm a big supporter of mining in British Columbia. As the Minister of Employment and Investment, I was privileged to work with several mining companies -- they weren't big giveaways, in my view -- to try to send a signal that we're open for business.
I'll just give you a couple of examples that the member knows about. Mr. O'Rourke is looking at the Huckleberry mine, and we're giving an essentially non-subsidized loan to try to show again that we're supportive of this activity and that it makes a lot of sense. Peggy Witte and Royal Oak
The big cloud on the horizon, frankly, is the price of raw materials, particularly copper. But put that aside for a second. I say this, hopefully, not in a Pollyanna way: we really are on the verge of significant expansion in the mining industry in B.C., the likes of which we maybe haven't seen in several decades. Poised is literally several billion dollars' worth of private sector investment, whether it's Mount Polley, the Huckleberry mine, Royal Oak Mines, Kemess North, Kemess South, Red Mountain. I can name several just off the top of my head and I'm not the minister of mines. It's very exciting. There is a lot of significant investment poised to be made in British Columbia.
The one cloud, as I said, was that, as a result of that small scandal, the price of copper has taken a big dip. That may jeopardize some of these investments, although interestingly enough, many of them have sold forward copper supply at prices which were attractive and should allow them to continue. I'm very optimistic that we're going to see, for the first time in a decade or maybe two decades, real investment in the metal mining industry in British Columbia -- in gold, copper, and some other deposits. That's good news, and the government has played a small role in some infrastructure help. Aside from the infrastructure help, I hope it's a strong message and symbol to the industry that the government wants to support and promote mining in British Columbia.
Can we do better? The simple answer is yes. The mining industry and representatives of the mining industry were here in the Legislature recently. They may have met with the member opposite. They certainly met with government officials; again, I don't criticize them for meeting with opposition members. It's appropriate. We have a strong minister, the Deputy Premier, who has responsibility for mining, and I believe if we work hard and provide the right environment, we're going to see significant investments in the mining industry beyond the ones I've just mentioned.
There are land use questions, aboriginal questions and others which we have to sort through -- an environmental process, which is very tough on companies. I won't bend from that, but I will make sure it's fair and also time-limited, so there's a process -- hopefully one process -- they go through, and it's yes or no, and they proceed. We have to work and continue to work on all of that. I think we're sending a positive message, a positive signal to the industry. We're going to see some significant investment, and we're going to work hard to see if we can see more in B.C.
D. Jarvis: There's a problem out there, evidently, with regard to the confidence that people have in the mining industry. The mining industry itself has little confidence whatsoever that this government is prepared to make some changes. They go out and explore and find some minerals today, and tomorrow that could be a park. That's a big problem. As I said before, they're not looking for money from the government. They're looking for other sources, and other sources in the boardroom say B.C. is not a comfortable place to come and put their money into.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I hear a gentleman over
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Most of that money has been here for a long time. Those mines were discovered some time ago, and you yourself
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: Madam Chair, as you're probably aware, it takes about ten years after you explore a mine to get it through. There is an uncomfortable feeling out there towards this government and their mining policy. I think that if we're going to increase our revenues to pay off our debt, we're going to have to change that attitude drastically. The fact that we have still 3 percent of parks to come is a scary issue out there. Where do you go to find the mines? Do you put in restrictions, like through the forest policy, that you can't go into those specific large areas? That's all right for forestry, to control the cut and the growth of forestry and the renewal of forestry. But you never know where a mine is going to be. It's
[ Page 1925 ]
not always up on the top of a mountain or on the bottom of the valley. They've got to be able to have the right to go anywhere, and that may mean even mining in places that are restricted today. That could be changed, so the minister should be considering that.
The other thing, Madam Chair, seeing that you don't want to discuss mines anymore, is the attitude, the little remark the Premier made a minute ago which really disturbed me. That the Premier would even suggest that ICBC might not be around in the future and he might even want to terminate
As I said, you put a CEO in there that has no idea how to run an insurance company -- none whatsoever. You know that insurance companies are run on an actuarial basis, all insurance companies in the world. Most of them are making money. ICBC is not really making any money, because government has been pumping money into it every once and a while -- because of political interference. I think, if I'm correct, the rates show that between 1973 and 1990, ICBC, in comparison with the rest of the insurance companies in Canada, went up over 483 percent, or some unbelievable figure. Now, in the latter years, they have balanced up. The difference isn't that great, because Ontario came in there, started fooling around and screwed everything up by trying to get into a proper no-fault situation.
Hon. G. Clark: Which you support.
D. Jarvis: No, I don't. I think the government should probably get out of the business altogether. Put it into private hands again, where it's run properly.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: No. The suggestion's coming out that you think that you may be into a no-fault basis. This is where it's all coming from.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: You're heading that way; you know you are. We know you are.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: I assume that the Chair agrees as well. [Laughter.]
The Chair: The Chair has no opinions.
D. Jarvis: Madam Chair, I want to know how the Premier could possibly expect ICBC to perform like he has said with the political interference he's giving and the threat he has given that they're all going to be out of work. It's impossible unless he goes back into an actuarial basis. You cannot dictate the premiums that insurance companies should be setting, because people always get in accidents. Accidents are rising, so they have to increase premiums. You're interfering by dropping the premiums. Government should not be involved in the running of an insurance company.
Hon. G. Clark: That is rather hard to follow, but let me try.
There are clear differences between my position and the member opposite. I don't know if it's the same for all members opposite. I support ICBC. I think that a public automobile insurance agency can keep premiums lower than a private for-profit, on average. I think the empirical evidence suggests that's the case, first of all.
Secondly, just because I support the concept of ICBC does not mean that I'm going to stand here and defend ICBC all the time. This is an important distinction which I make all the time. I am not going to defend government, I'm not going to defend bureaucracy, and I'm not going to defend big monopoly companies if they're not performing the service we expect of them.
If you're like me and you actually support the concept of ICBC, then you have an obligation to try to make it work and be respectful of and responsive to what people say. If, member opposite, through you, Madam Chair, your position is that you should get out of it and go to the private market, I accept that position. It means rates will go up, of course, for most people, and the private sector will be in, like we had in the bad old days. But it means that you don't have to worry about ICBC, because your position is easy: we're going to get out and have private competition.
[5:45]
What I'm saying is that I want to reform ICBC in a way that meets its true intention, which is to be a service agency for British Columbians, to have a huge pool of capital reinvested in British Columbia -- as it can do -- and to make sure that it has rates which are lower than the private sector. If the rates are no lower than the private sector, then one has to argue whether we should keep it. I make no apologies for challenging ICBC to keep their rates down, to service British Columbians at a high quality and a high level. What I said earlier, and I believe this, is that if they're not doing that, if they're unresponsive -- a big, monopoly, bureaucratic corporation that has rates as high or higher than the private sector -- then I won't tolerate that; we'll get out of it. We will; we'll eliminate it. That's not necessarily a statement of the status quo, either. That's my general view: we'll just terminate it if it's not responsive.
The instructions I've given to the minister and to the board of directors and everybody are: "Look, this corporation is not performing as well as the public would expect. The rates need to be lower than the private sector; otherwise the rationale disappears for having it." We're challenging them to do it. It is not political interference. Let's be clear: the legislation explicitly states that cabinet sets the rates for ICBC. You could debate whether that should be the case, but that is the case -- not the board, not actuaries; nobody but cabinet. It is a political policy decision that cabinet has to make, by statute.
How we could reform ICBC is another debate which we won't necessarily have now, but one simple reform might be to make it a regulated monopoly that has to go the Utilities Commission, at least, to be held accountable. This is a corpora-
[ Page 1926 ]
tion that has no market test. It may be incredibly efficient; it may have cheaper rates. But how would we know that when there's no market test for it and when it's been in existence for some time? So we're putting some pressure on -- as we should, I think -- to freeze rates, to keep working them down. Yes, they're becoming aggressive on safety issues; they're becoming aggressive on service issues. I think they're reforming and doing well, generally, and moving it along. Yes, they're exploring ways in which we can reduce legal costs. I know the members
It seems to me that it's a big challenge. I make no apology for making that challenge and for threatening extinction, I guess, if they don't meet that challenge. That's the appropriate course of action. The alternative is your position, which is to take, in advance, the notion that this company doesn't make sense, that it cannot provide a cheaper or better service, that there's no public policy reason for having it, and that we should eliminate it and go to the private sector. I'm suggesting that I come at it from a
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Sorry -- it's not your position, but the position of the other member. I appreciate the position of the member. I come at it with the aim of trying to save ICBC and all the jobs associated with it, but also with the aim that it has to provide better service to the public than it has been doing, and preferably with cheaper rates or rates which are more competitive with the private sector.
D. Jarvis: The question of what type of insurance company I want doesn't really matter. Our party isn't saying: "Just get rid of ICBC." Certain aspects of ICBC are really good. You talk to anyone in North America, and you'll hear that it's not a bad company. But there are certain aspects that could be removed, versus what they have now. There's no question that you cannot expect to drive the rates down below the open market, and that's the way this government and cabinet are interfering. Every time cabinet has interfered with the situation at ICBC, there needs to be an infusion of money just to keep it going. Look what happened back in '75 or '76 when you went out that time.
To say that you're going to get rid of the company if it's not making money doesn't help the situation at all. I imagine ICBC is doing the best it can. But you have to get professionals in there to run it properly -- and not, on a whim, suddenly drop or freeze the rates, which you did as an election issue. Then, all of a sudden, when you're getting pressure from external sources out there who are in direct competition with you, like the free enterprise country that we live
In any event, I guess we should move adjournment to 6:35 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and sit thereafter until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:52 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 2:36 p.m.
On vote 39: minister's office, $462,000 (continued).
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just for the information of the members present, I am joined by my deputy minister, David Kelly.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister could help me again with ambulance services. Is that gentleman still present, or is he gone? Is he here?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
S. Hawkins: You can let me know if you can answer the question. If not, perhaps you can get the information to me.
I was talking this morning about reduction in ambulance service to some of the areas outside the lower mainland. On further discussions with some of the people concerned, they made reference to a tenth collective agreement which didn't allow for any jobs to be permanently voided. Apparently, some of these positions now are vacant and are not being filled. I am wondering how many communities are affected by vacancies, how many communities are not being serviced by full-time paramedics and how many communities have part-time paramedics filling these vacancies.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take a crack at this, but I can get you more information, as you ask for it.
I think -- and believe you me, I don't want to articulate the union's position for fear of getting it wrong -- that the issue is that there is, or could be, evidence that in communities where there is a full-time paramedic and call volume may fall before the statistically sound method -- meaning a full-time paramedic may not be necessary -- the agreement with the
[ Page 1927 ]
union is that there will not be layoffs, that the changes to deal with the reduced volume will occur by attrition. Therefore, there will be no layoffs. Certainly, through discussions with the union there is a model that provides for the full-time unit chief position in communities with approximate call volumes of 600 per year. It provides for two full-time staff where the call volume in a community is 1,200 or will attain this figure over the next three years.
It's my understanding, actually, that this staffing model has been discussed and had thorough input from the paramedics' union, that the model will be utilized for future staffing decisions and that it will continue to be monitored with the full input of the paramedics' union as well.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can go back later, look at some of those questions and perhaps get me some specific answers.
I understand that with the eleventh collective agreement in place there is now some discussion of downsizing some of the stations. I wonder if the minister can confirm that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The plans include only a continuous monitoring, according to the staffing model that I've just outlined, and where the call volume falls below a certain level, a reduction through attrition will be considered.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister or her staff can confirm that the call volume for the ambulance service has increased by about 10 percent. The population
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, both of us have a recollection, but the recollection can be confirmed as accurate from Mr. Pattee, and I'll get that information for you.
S. Hawkins: My information is that the call volume has increased by 10 percent. Again, I see a question mark on the face over there. If you could find that for me I would appreciate it, because there is a concern that the call volume has gone up but that we're decreasing services. If that is happening, then I wonder if it is providing adequate services to the areas where there is increased need.
I also have a question from my contacts about advanced life support services in the capital regional district; I understand that there are three ALS units. In Surrey, which is almost equivalent in population to the capital regional district, I understand there's one. In Vancouver, I understand there's two -- and possibly another that services Burnaby, as well. I'm wondering who makes the decisions about how many ALS services are going to go where, and according to what population need?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's unfortunate. We need Mr. Pattee here, so if the member wants to stand down these questions and we'll get him back, certainly we can.
S. Hawkins: I would appreciate that. Perhaps, if you want to call him back, we can just canvass those areas with him and get those over with.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, maybe we can get some agreement that when we call him back, though, we deal with the ambulance questions. Is that possible?
S. Hawkins: No problem.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay.
S. Hawkins: Perhaps we can go back to staffing, then, for a minute. I keep getting questions fired at me, as well. I'm sorry, I'm new at this. You'll have to bear with me a little bit, bouncing all over the place.
I have a question regarding a Mr. Gordon Austin, who was fired as president of the Health Labour Relations Association -- I believe it was last year. Apparently there was quite significant discussion regarding a severance issue. The question is: was it paid out, and how much was paid out?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Nothing has been paid out.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can inform us as to what's going on with the progress of this issue?
[2:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's not part of my jurisdiction, but I can; it's within the public domain. The matter is under review by the Premier's Office for further action, if any.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister, in her capacity, can confirm that he had a guarantee that he would be paid out two years' worth of compensation, benefits and pension contributions up to an amount of about half a million dollars?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I recollect this just from the public documents on it. It was all in the news. He was an employee of the Health Labour Relations Association, so the contract was with them as an organization, the details of which were agreed upon between the Health Labour Relations Association and Mr. Austin. However, also in the public domain was that there was a commercial arbitration in effect as well at the time.
S. Hawkins: Maybe I'll just leave that one. Thank you.
I wonder if I can go to provincial hospital funding, then. Is somebody here who can help with that? Again, you'll have to forgive me if I'm bouncing here and there. I had asked earlier about a funding formula for hospitals, and I wonder if somebody could explain that to me.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a funding process. It's ten steps; it takes in matters like population, referral, utilization. It's an industry-based committee that walks through the ten steps and involves the health care providers and administrators in the industry.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if I could get some information, just a brief overview, of how the funding formula is applied to arrive at a funding level for hospitals. I know there are different levels, so if I could just get a brief overview of how it's
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. Actually, I'll give you this; I'll walk you through the methodology. But it would also be useful -- and I don't mind sitting down with you, because it would be useful for me, too -- to actually get a detailed briefing on this, seeing as how it is such a major portion of our budget. Maybe we could do that together.
I'll go into detail with the steps. One is the calculation of the population increase. They do an annualized average. There's the calculation of referral patterns, and it's weighted by region. Then there's the calculation of the provincial utilization rates. Some of the utilization rates involve stuff like acute
[ Page 1928 ]
care, rehab and day surgery cases. The next step is the calculation of the new weighted cases. That's the next step because the first step is the provincial utilization weight, and then they look at that particular region to take that provincial utilization weight and incorporate the gender-age group for that region. The regional utilization rates are next.
Then there's a step called the workload adjustment. This is adjusted in each region to reflect the ASUR, age-standardized utilization rate. The next step is the allocation of workload to hospitals. When this has been applied, it yields the estimated new weighted cases per hospital. There's a cost calculation done at this point, a cost-per-weighted-case adjustment. That depends on what category, what peer group, the hospital is in, as well. Then there's a calculation of the initial funding allocation.
The last step is an adjustment for the socioeconomic status of the hospital. That is applied
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry feels that the present formula is the best one that can be applied. Or is there another one in the works?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the best one we've got now, which isn't an unusual answer. But the committee itself updates the methodology each year, by agreement.
S. Hawkins: What kinds of things does the committee take into account when they're updating the formula?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Utilization rates are key, and those are influenced by population. Substantially, it's a major factor. They look at the cost per weighted case and then work out from there in terms of changes necessary.
S. Hawkins: It's our understanding that a 10 percent bonus is applied to COUTH -- Council of University Teaching Hospitals -- and it's our understanding that this bonus is applied after the funding formula is applied. I wonder if the minister can help us justify that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there's no bonus.
S. Hawkins: Teaching hospitals appear to get on the average 10 percent more after the formula is applied. What is this 10 percent, then?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's for the work of teaching, and it's
S. Hawkins: If a teaching hospital were to get $100 million, 10 percent is $10 million. How can you justify the work of teaching, which is students or
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no bonus. There is a reflection, though, in the application of the formula for teaching hospitals, that teaching hospitals have extra costs associated with it in terms of the provision of the residency programs. And, indeed, teaching hospitals have more programs than non-teaching hospitals. The cost associated with that is reflected throughout the formula. But I would also just say, in terms of the application of the increased funding for teaching hospitals, that sometimes the programs are also provincial programs, too, and service the provincial population.
S. Hawkins: Perhaps once I get a chance to look at the information you were referring to, you can make some of your people available to make me understand. There is a feeling of inequity out there that some hospitals are getting more and seem to be getting a bonus over the others. If we could clear that up with some of the hospitals that I've been talking to, that would help.
I wonder if the minister can explain the existence of an alternative funding formula proposal which exists right now. It's referred to as "Jeet's formula," and I wonder if someone could describe that to us.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What did the hon. member call it?
S. Hawkins: It's apparently authored by Mr. Jeet.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, okay.
S. Hawkins: I think the slang out there is that it's called Jeet's formula. Sorry.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just wanted to make sure I had the right thing. I hope one day to have a formula named after me.
S. Hawkins: I'm sure you will.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's the regional funding formula and allocation of budgets to the regional health boards. It was prepared with input from academics, health care professionals and regional health boards. It is available, if needed, to provide an objective, consistent and equitable method of allocating a fixed amount of resources amongst regions. It's just available for use, if necessary.
S. Hawkins: I have not looked at this formula in a lot of depth, but I understand that it has been described as being fairer than the present model, since it adjusts for many of the variables more equitably than the present formula. I'm wondering if there are plans to change the funding formula and to use this one.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's interesting advice. I'll certainly take the fairness of this under advisement. There are no plans to change the existing formula now, but I will say that as part of the assessment of regionalization, the issue of funding on a basis of regionalization is a factor that we're looking at.
[3:00]
S. Hawkins: Maybe I can use some of your people to help me understand this new formula as well.
The classification of acute care hospitals has always been sort of grey, and I understand there are guidelines being developed to delineate the different levels. I wonder if I can get some information on whether the classification of acute care hospitals has been delineated, and what the different levels are.
[ Page 1929 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are groups in place; they're called peer groups. I also want to advise the members that the methodology committee agrees that these peer group categories need to be changed, as well, and they're looking at that.
There are 12 categories. Peer group 1 is the largest hospitals; the next seven, down to peer group 8, are hospital classifications. Generally, I guess you could say, they go down according to size of the hospital, but, again, hospitals themselves have changed so much that the peer group methodology doesn't really work. The next three categories start with extended care and move down to specialty hospitals, and then the final category is around stand-alone programs.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister is familiar with the terminology of primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary hospitals.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
S. Hawkins: Could I have the definition of each, according to the minister?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you were asking me whether I was generally familiar with the terms. I am, but they're not terms that we use, in terms
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the person for dialysis services is here. Yes? Good. I have to ask, with all the bodies moving around here.
I notice that the budget for kidney dialysis services, which I can refer to as KDS, has increased substantially -- by almost 60 percent, 57.45 percent -- for this year, and that the Provincial Renal Council has proposed a strategic plan for the delivery of end-stage kidney failure treatment on a supra-regional basis, with funding being protected for the provision of dialysis care. Now, this is very important in my community, because a lot of the residents I represent are seniors and this is an end-stage disease. Apparently this plan was forwarded to the ministry in March and was accepted. I'm wondering if the minister can advise us whether the strategic plan for renal care was put on hold at the same time that New Directions was and, if so, what plans have been made for the renal council to make representation to the review committee.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no change in the delivery of the program, but the way the people who are in charge of the program are designated is being assessed as part of the assessment around the regionalization. But the program continues to be delivered within the two models. That could or could not change, depending on what the assessment concludes.
S. Hawkins: My understanding is that because of the way regionalization broke up the regions, and because dialysis sort of umbrellas a bigger area, a plan was put forward. If the plan isn't on hold, I wonder if the minister can advise us about the progress of implementing that strategic plan that was presented to KDS?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to make sure that we're not in any way, because of the temporary pause, affecting the actual delivery of the services. The services themselves are not being affected; delivery of services continues. The strategic plan outlines a way in which the services should be delivered in the context of regionalization. That itself will not move forward until the final assessment is done. But it's my understanding that there is no effect on the actual service delivery to the patient.
S. Hawkins: So can I assume from your answer that this plan is put on hold?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Are you asking about the authority for delivery of the programs? If that's what you're asking about, then yes, the authority for delivering the program is on hold until the assessment is complete.
S. Hawkins: I'm sorry, I'm not making myself clear. The kidney dialysis services would be delivered over a few regions, not within the context of the way the regions are broken up under the regionalization plan. So this -- the supra-regional strategic plan, I guess -- was presented to the ministry. I'm wondering if that plan is on hold with New Directions, and if that's being assessed with New Directions as well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Further movement on that strategic plan is contingent upon the assessment, yes.
S. Hawkins: You were asking about service delivery, then. Several patients from my colleague's riding of Okanagan-Vernon have been travelling to Kelowna to receive dialysis therapy, in part due to staff shortages in the community dialysis unit in Vernon. I understand that the ministry has been aware of this staffing situation for several months but were unable to act because of a ministrywide hiring freeze, until fairly recently. With the 57 percent increase in funding for KDS, can we have assurances from the minister that dialysis unit staffing will be increased in the province for the care of patients as close to home as possible?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
S. Hawkins: Can we have assurances from the minister that hiring freezes in future will not apply to programs such as dialysis, because they do provide a life-supporting function? I guess I can give you some information here. Renal patients increase by roughly 7 percent to 10 percent per year. Apparently, staffing ratios will have to allow for growth, as long as we're prepared to deliver those dialysis services close to home. Can we get some kind of assurance that these patients won't be denied life-supporting services close to home?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I know that the hon. member has a great deal of expertise in this area, so I defer to her. I just want to make it clear that the services are never denied to the patient; the services will be provided. What we need to discuss here is: how do we best provide that service in a cost-effective way, so that we can provide it to more and more people?
It's hard for me to talk about this in terms of guaranteeing no staffing freezes, because I can't give that guarantee. I can make this commitment: what needs to be done -- and perhaps hasn't been done effectively enough yet -- is to make sure that these services are delivered as close to home as possible, in the person's community, without being affected by big government staffing freeze decisions. I can make that commitment.
S. Hawkins: I appreciate those comments. Perhaps many people aren't familiar with dialysis, but it takes three to four
[ Page 1930 ]
hours out of a person's day three times a week. These patients are quite ill; they're quite immunosuppressed. When they have to travel -- as in my colleague's riding; they travel from Vernon to mine, and that's a 45-minute drive -- you know, they're exhausted. They drive back three times a week. Some of them actually hold down jobs in the communities where they live, and to have to travel out of their community even to one as close as mine is a big deal. So even freezing one to two staff can make a huge difference in the lives of perhaps ten people who need services in a little centre like Vernon.
Another technical-type question -- you'll probably get a few of these from me. Erythropoietin therapy is a valuable therapy for dialysis patients. For the information of non-medical members, it's a hormone injection similar to insulin that builds up the blood count and prevents the need for repeated blood transfusions.
While this therapy is made available for dialysis patients, kidney transplant patients and AIDS patients, it's not made available through any program for patients suffering from kidney disease prior to the need for dialysis. Often these patients lose work or go on long-term disability because of their fatigue associated with the low blood count of kidney failure. I'm wondering if we can expect to see some kind of erythropoietin program to be expanded to provide treatment for this group of British Columbians as well. It really seems unfair to have to deny these people that kind of treatment and wait until they go on dialysis until they get it. If we could give it to them before, perhaps they could carry on with some kind of quality of life and keep up their work.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the support for the drug that the hon. member outlines. I'm sorry: it's erythropoietin? Just so the members are aware, the budget is increasing this year by almost 50 percent. The increased use of that drug will be determined by a team of clinicians applying clinical guidelines, so the increased expenditure will be determined by that group, and I accept their input on how that should be spent.
S. Hawkins: Is there some time line within when that's going to happen?
[3:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is anticipated that the council will consider that in the fall.
S. Hawkins: That's excellent.
With respect to the parenteral program that is next on the list, does that include the home IV therapy program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get that information for you.
S. Hawkins: Perhaps I'll address that under acute care hospitals. I think my colleague from Peace River South would like to ask a few questions.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you, hon. Chair, for allowing me to raise constituency issues. They won't take a long time. The four areas I want to talk about are: a little issue around record-keeping by dentists, and I expect it may extend to other areas; doctors in remote communities; operational funding for some equipment in Dawson Creek, particularly a CAT scan; and a seniors housing project referred to locally as the Rotary Manor redevelopment project. That's so we have a sense of where we are going with this.
The first issue I want to raise with you is about a constituent of mine, a dentist, who has been in correspondence with the Attorney General around the need to maintain dentists' records for 30 years. I attempted to raise it with the Attorney General and was advised that it was the Minister of Health who had authority there. Can the minister give me some sense whether this is an area where there is an opportunity for less maintenance of records? Are there compelling reasons why someone should have to keep records for 30 years as opposed to the more traditional six or seven years?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I met with the dentists and the college, and I received good input from them on this issue. I have subsequently written a letter to that buck-passing Attorney General to suggest that perhaps action is needed. I'm not in any way suggesting that I agree fully with the total move that the dentists are recommending, but I am recommending to the Attorney General that change occur.
J. Weisgerber: Would it be possible to get a copy of that correspondence which I can then relay to my constituent? I'll leave it at that.
Something that troubles my constituents -- and many people across the northern part of the province, and remote areas not necessarily in the north -- is the availability of doctors. One of the areas that has been particularly of concern is the fact that Canadian doctors -- doctors educated in Canada -- often appear the most reluctant to move to communities such as Chetwynd or Fort Nelson or perhaps more remote communities in the interior and in the north. As a result, many of the doctors available for those communities are doctors on visa, often, currently, from South Africa. There has been a great deal of difficulty with the college in getting any kind of a commitment or authority for more than a year-to-year -- or in cases six months at a time -- letter of authorization. I'm not sure of the formal details.
Perhaps before I go too far down the road, could the minister give me some sense of the ministry's involvement? I know there's the college, there's immigration, and then, surely, there must be a fairly significant role for the Ministry of Health in this whole issue.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just try to approach this from a resolution to the problem, because I don't feel comfortable getting into the exact issue that the hon. member raises. Let me tell you what our role is in terms of ensuring that there are enough physicians for underrepresented areas in the province. We have entered into agreement with the B.C. Medical Association -- I refer to it as the doctors' agreement, which was signed earlier this year -- that is on the verge of putting 100 percent billable physicians, which are physicians able to bill 100 percent, into areas such as the communities you describe. That new physician supply arrangement is imminent.
J. Weisgerber: I'm encouraged to see us move in some direction to encourage doctors, particularly new doctors, to move into underserviced areas. It wasn't too many years ago that billing-number restrictions were in place that essentially served that same function, and I think served it pretty well. Unfortunately, a court challenge brought that down. What kind of confidence can we have that this new formula, this new process, will be more successful in the courts than the old billing-number assignment process was?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's certainly our view when we reached the agreement with the doctors that it is within our
[ Page 1931 ]
legislative purview now to implement the physician supply agreement. There's been ten years of jurisprudence since the last court challenge. Interestingly enough, the last court challenge -- a successful one -- was done by the man who now has signed the agreement for us on this physician supply, so we've all grown up since then, I guess.
However, I also want to say that we're prepared
J. Weisgerber: My recollection is that doctors going into designated areas are allowed to bill 100 percent. Those failing to do so bill at 50 percent. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, with the exception of B.C. trainees -- B.C. medically trained people can go anywhere in the province. The class that starts this year is grandparented so that they can go anywhere in the province without restriction.
J. Weisgerber: So the supply of doctors who would be affected by this would be doctors graduating from B.C. universities next year and in subsequent years. I'm unsure about that -- whether it's the group entering medical school or the group graduating -- because it makes quite a difference on how soon you're going to have an availability of locally trained doctors.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Students entering medical school this fall -- the '96-97 year -- will be affected by the physician supply agreement. Also, to give hope to the success of this, we have many doctors coming from other parts of the world and other parts of Canada who will immediately be subject to the designation.
J. Weisgerber: The only other thing I'd like to pursue briefly is some system of incremental stages. Has that been considered at all? I know the current fee structure allows -- for example, in Dawson Creek -- a ten percent extra fee for doctors practising in Dawson Creek. Those practising in Chetwynd or Fort Nelson or other remote areas get a 20 percent additional payment, as I understand it. At least it was that way at one point.
I'm curious to know whether there will be communities designated as being available for a full, 100 percent billing. How will that deal with the most remote communities -- the really difficult ones to service -- where doctors may well decide that underserviced but less remote communities could quickly be taken up or quickly serviced. You will still continue to need the one or two doctors in these very small communities, which, as I see it, are the biggest challenge under the system. I'm wondering if some incremental payment or some other mechanism has been considered to try to encourage people to go to those communities.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm advised that the top-up does continue under the existing arrangement. But you raise an excellent issue about how to get physicians into communities. Recruitment to those communities isn't necessarily affected only by wages or salaries; there are other factors such as family isolation, support within the community, etc. So we're taking that issue very seriously as well, and are hoping that through the eventual success of regionalization, recruitment into the communities will be done in a more community-oriented fashion, offering physicians the support of a broader, closer-to-home, community-based health care system. But also I know that the member may not be familiar with some recent initiatives around northern health, such as TeleCare initiatives and also teleradiology, where we're using electronic telecommunications to actually deliver health care to people in remote communities in a fashion that's quite revolutionary and which, I hope, will work very well.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: I'm sure it's fascinating and important. I don't imagine they take your appendix out that way, so the problem continues to present itself if you live in a remote community.
With the incremental initiatives, the top-ups, the 10 or 20 percent, the 100 percent
[3:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, hon. member. It's a good question, and I wanted to make
I've just been given some information about other initiatives that we do have in place to achieve that. There was a task force report on northern and rural issues around health care, and we have instituted many recommendations already: the northern and isolated travel allowance program, the travel assistance program. UBC now has a rural family-practice program and a psychiatric outreach program. There are other initiatives that assist in providing health care to rural and remote communities: pregnancy outreach programs, funding of midwifery services; and we've just increased the funding for home-support services.
I know that the hon. member may accuse me of avoiding the question, and he would be right in that I would choose to take a different approach to solving the problem that you so correctly outline.
J. Weisgerber: Without wanting to delay or extend the debate unnecessarily, I think we're probably looking at a period of two or three years, at least, where we may have communities in some considerable crisis until such time as some of these other programs start to kick in and fill the need.
[ Page 1932 ]
I agree: I think all of us would prefer to see doctoring done by Canadian doctors. I think there are often social or linguistic barriers between doctors from other parts of the world and their patients. Regardless of whether they come from South Africa or where they come from, they often don't understand, in the same way, the nuances of life in Canada, so there have been problems. I assume that's one of the reasons the minister is inclined that way.
However, we do have areas where I just don't think anything short of doctors immediately needing immigration are going to be able to fulfil that. In a community, two years is a long time. I find myself somewhat intimidated because there are others here who perhaps have greater experience. But in the communities that I service, once doctors fall below a kind of critical number, those that are left in the community suffer burnout. They wind up being on call literally 24 hours a day and often weeks on end. Finally, they just throw up their hands and leave, and the problem becomes ever worse.
We're not going to get an answer here today, but I just would encourage the minister, in the interim, while these other plans are evolving, to look very seriously at assisting or facilitating in some way the immigration needs of doctors for some key communities.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I accept that, and I'll do it.
J. Weisgerber: Ironically, one of the communities that I service, while they have a tremendous shortage of doctors -- this being Chetwynd -- one of the longtime doctors of the community is prevented from having hospital privileges because of a hospital bylaw which prevents him from practising after age 65. It seems ironic that the community is struggling desperately for doctors but find one doctor unable to practise who would be more than happy to practise there and has historically practised there.
I don't know if the minister has any comment, but simply to raise that issue may help us to find some resolution. I'd be happy to provide a copy of a letter if the minister is interested.
One of the other issues of considerable concern in the entire Peace region is the availability of a CAT scan. You currently either go to Prince George or probably most often, if you live in the Peace, Grande Prairie for those services. The community, in conjunction with the regional district, have now raised about 90 percent of the capital necessary to buy a CAT scan. There is lingering concern over the availability of operational funding for it once all of the capital is raised. I have committed, on behalf of many, many people who have
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a good point. There's no sense in putting instruments like CAT scanners in place and then not have the operational funding. In terms of balancing funding for this technology in the context of available tax dollars, it is the greatest challenge we face. This year we will be either upgrading or putting in place eight CAT scanners, and Dawson Creek is next on the list after that. So I don't want in any way to raise hopes, but I don't want to dash them, either. You're next on the list.
J. Weisgerber: What is that likely to mean in time frames? I take some
Hon. J. MacPhail: If I were to predict, I would predict next year.
J. Weisgerber: I'll stop while I'm ahead, I think.
The final issue I want to raise is a question of the relocation of a seniors housing project in Dawson Creek. It is referred to as the Rotary Manor redevelopment project, and it is really the movement of an old facility to a new complex adjacent to the hospital complex. There were concerns that it was going to be caught up in regionalization. There now seems to have been an agreement with the regional health agency that they would grandfather this because the initiative started prior to regionalization. Perhaps the minister could confirm that for me -- that if they have knowledge of this project, it won't get caught up in regionalization or the hold on regionalization.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, but I'm not sure that you should take much comfort in that. It is affected by the capital review -- the freeze and the capital review. The project, of which we are aware, is not even at the stage yet of being legally committed to, or whatever, but that is what is affecting it, and nothing else.
J. Weisgerber: Does the capital freeze affect planning money? I understand that this project has to go through the planning phase. Having been quite intimately involved in the Dawson Creek hospital project, I realize that there are reasonably long time frames. Do I understand that planning money will not be available until such time as the freeze is lifted?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Any funds that haven't been committed or provided yet will not be provided
J. Weisgerber: Finally, is there a time frame? Is there an anticipated time when we'll know where the planning money is?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is anticipated that the review will be complete within six months of its announcement. It was announced at the end of June, so we are looking at Christmas.
A. Sanders: I'd like to canvass the issue that the hon. member for Peace River North has already started on -- specifically, the north. There are some things that I think are important to put into perspective with the north, which the hon. member has alluded to but I would also like to enlarge upon that a little bit.
First, in terms of northern servicing, this has always been a problem in B.C. In terms of physician servicing in the north, this is nothing new; it has always been that way. Those who lived in the north in the 1900s will remember, quite commonly, British doctors; in the twenties, Irish doctors; in the forties, Scottish doctors. The present wave is South African doctors. What we are talking about in the north is nothing new.
[ Page 1933 ]
I personally have worked in the north, and I was one of three or four Canadian physicians on staff. All of the other members of the staff were of European or African extraction.
I think there are some very important things we have to look at in terms of the north. My prediction is that things in the next little while are going to get considerably worse for the north before they get better. Again, the hon. member was alluding to that in terms of the catch-up of some of the programs that have been put in place to repopulate the health care profession.
One of the things I'm concerned about -- and the minister has mentioned this at this
Hon. J. MacPhail: I made reference earlier to the Northern and Rural Health Task Force report, which I have been briefed on. I'm wondering if that is what the hon. member is referring to.
A. Sanders: Yes, it is. Is the minister aware of one of the very important things that I think is in that report, which is the average age of surgical specialists working in the north?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I recollect -- and I don't want to be an ageist here -- that it is older.
A. Sanders: The importance of this report -- and I would encourage this minister to spend some time on it -- is that the average age is 52, I think. We've cut back considerably on the number of people we are educating in this province in the surgical specialties, especially in general surgery. Also, it's a fact that it is almost impossible to come to B.C. now from another province if you're a new doctor, given the provincial barriers and balkanization that's occurred through different provinces' lack of incentive -- if it doesn't actually prevent other physicians from coming into the province. I think we're going to find, as time goes on, that in the north this will be a very serious problem. There will not be physicians who are able to practise because of the ageism aspect in the surgical fields.
[3:45]
There are some other things that I am interested in having the minister's comments on. How does this minister feel that the recent agreement with the B.C. Medical Association will affect populations of physicians in the north?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just make a couple of general comments about the agreement -- well, just one. I'm generally pleased with the agreement with the BCMA. After meeting with Dr. Smith, I actually view it as a breakthrough in the area of cooperation. Certainly, a part of that cooperation will mean, I hope, that our arrangements and our working together around physician supply management will assist in somehow alleviating the problems that you so aptly describe as being age-old on two fronts -- not only historically, but also currently. I know that there is always a balance between how one professionally restricts one's ability to carry out one's profession in terms of aging, and being able to continue to provide a valuable service and valuable experience.
I think that not only will the physician supply management arrangement assist with the new arrangements -- because there are substantial restrictions on people being able to move into the lower mainland and highly populated areas to practise -- but there are also initiatives that we're working on to recruit doctors, even at the local level, to deal with some of the issues that doctors face. I'm sure the hon. member knows much better than I could ever possibly know about family issues, housing issues and support issues within the community. We have a project to work closely with and to recruit doctors on that basis and assist in alleviating some of those concerns.
A. Sanders: One of the aspects of the recent agreement between government and the B.C. Medical Association that causes me considerable concern -- for the north specifically, and I'd like to reference all my comments to the north, not to the population in general -- is that in this agreement the medical practitioners have taken over utilization. What that means is that under the agreements for remuneration with the Medical Services Commission, the physician will be responsible for any increases in use to the system. So if we have a measles epidemic and people have to be treated for that, if there's a meningitis outbreak, if we have, for some reason, an outbreak of hantavirus, or if we have some natural disaster and more people are being treated because of trauma, then utilization of the system goes up. When utilization of the system goes up, what happens under this current agreement is that the individual practitioner is responsible for reimbursing government for that utilization.
I'll give an example in a different area. I am a teacher in school, and I am paid $100 per day, theoretically. I have 15 new kids in my class that I hadn't counted on. The principal comes to me and says: "Your paycheque has been docked commensurate with the cost of educating 15 more children because that is the utilization that's increased. Therefore this is your paycheque, and it is less." Whether that is a responsible way to do things, or whether it's a useful or helpful way to do things, is a whole other story, and I won't discuss that here.
But my concern for people in the north is that utilization is paid for across the board. What will happen to someone in the north -- the prediction from the Medical Association is that utilization may be up as high as 15 percent this year -- if they have to work very long hours, as they do, if they are the only person providing services, as they often are, and they are hit with utilization repayments, where they actually have to dig into their pockets and pay the government back because more people used the service in 1997 than they had anticipated in the province? This is a blow that you are going to find will clear the north out real quick. I think that this is something that this minister and this government should look at carefully, because there already is a crisis in the north -- and I do believe that is the correct word, having come from these communities. I think we need to do whatever we can to preserve the people who are there and make sure that they stay.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member's comments are interesting. I only offer this, because I don't carry the expertise in the profession that the hon. member does: this agreement around the issue of utilization and responsibility for utilization is an agreement between two parties. It was considered at length by members of the profession and was wholeheartedly supported. So it's in the context of having to rely on those who actually provide health care services and who are affected by the agreement that we proceed. But I also don't want to in any way undervalue your comments around the issues that may arise.
A. Sanders: I won't discuss the agreement at this point, because I'd like to keep the chain of thought that has come
[ Page 1934 ]
from the member for Peace River South. I think that's important because the north is an area that traditionally does not receive the same services as the south. There's no question in my mind, having lived and worked in the north, that it is a two-tiered system for those individuals who reside in the north. They do not receive the same services as the people who live outside of St. Paul's Hospital, just by virtue of their geography, if nothing more. In terms of this agreement, I think that it would be good for this minister to monitor what's happening in the north with respect to changing patterns and whether people are staying or going.
One of the things in the north that I was concerned about was a comment made by an assistant deputy minister -- in 1992, I believe -- in Penticton. It dealt with the north and with regionalization. What this assistant deputy minister said was that in regionalization, the concept of regionalization would say that for the north, the best way to spend the money was to have a regional facility at some place -- for example, Prince George -- and people satellite in to receive services from Prince George Hospital. The comment the assistant deputy minister from this ministry made was: "Is it realistic to be delivering eight to 12 babies in Vanderhoof every year, if that is the total number of babies being delivered there?"
Under regionalization, the momentum would be towards central delivery, so those people who lived in communities like Vanderhoof, McBride, etc., would have their babies in Prince George. My understanding is that this is in fact the case now in Lillooet, where babies are not delivered there anymore, at least for first pregnancies. I wonder if the minister has any comments on whether or not this concept was part of her or the ministry's analysis of regionalization, or whether that was just one ADM making a comment about what we were moving toward in terms of providing services for people in labour.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the hon. member wasn't present when I outlined the principles upon which we base our vision, and I'd be more than happy to refer her to those comments in the Blues from this morning around what we hope to achieve in terms of future delivery of health care. Also, I can't possibly speak for an assistant deputy minister that may or may not have said something four years ago, so I won't address that issue at all.
What I will do is discuss very briefly what regionalization and Closer to Home mean in my view. Where services can be delivered closer to home, they should be, and in a cost-effective and efficient manner. I say this only as a mom and nothing else. I claim no other expertise, but I would assume that at some point there is a requirement that there be a balance, that the service delivered in the community be able to be done on a basis that meets a minimum standard, and that that standard may be achieved by the frequency with which the service is offered. I am sure that the members of the health care profession would, from a lay persons point of view, agree with that. But that's the restriction, and beyond that, the purpose that we're trying to achieve with changes in our health care delivery service is: where you can, you stay home to have the service.
A. Sanders: My understanding from the minister's comments is as follows. First of all, I did hear the speech this morning, albeit on the voice monitor, and I do not recall anything specifically relating to this particular issue. However, I would be happy to review that.
Secondly, my concern is that Closer to Home and cost-efficiency often run into each other head-on, especially for small communities such as Lillooet, McBride and Vanderhoof. They do that very much so in the north, where small communities are very far apart in terms of their ability to reach a tertiary or secondary care hospital.
Is it this minister's understanding for labour and delivery services that in the next four years, or even this year -- and I'll use Lillooet as the example again -- we are moving delivery services out of small areas and into regional facilities?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that decision will be made by the people in the community who have the medical expertise to make that decision.
A. Sanders: Could the minister apprise me of the situation in Lillooet where first deliveries are no longer being done?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can get that information for you.
A. Sanders: Thank you.
In terms of the north, there are some things I wanted to point out, and I feel that these have been covered. Specifically, there is going to be an increasing problem in the north under the tenure of this minister. This will relate to the ageism aspects and the lack of incentives -- other than the supply of physicians -- for people to move to the north. What I am worried about is that with the utilization payback that will be implemented under this contract, we will find people not moving to the north or else choosing to move elsewhere. Then, as the hon. member for Peace River South pointed out, there's the difficulty in immigration policy that has occurred for foreign-trained physicians.
[4:00]
I'd like to just focus on two northern communities, but specifically at this point on Quesnel. As the minister is most likely aware, this is the community I'm very familiar with, having worked there for seven years. This month the community has just lost an excellent surgeon to my riding in Okanagan-Vernon. The hospital was built for 100 beds when I first came to it. It opened with 72, and it now has 44 beds. The services are quite sparse, and the hospital itself is being described by many of the patients -- I still see some of them in my office in Vernon -- as a war zone. I wonder if the minister is aware of the Quesnel hospital and has any comments on its present situation.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I am aware of the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital, and I am trying to get up to speed on all the hospitals that exist in this province. There has been at least one dispute with the medical profession there over delivery of services. But we are in the final stages, actually, of implementing quite an aggressive action plan in that hospital, and the plan will include effective monitoring of human resources, paid hours and sick time, and the financial position. There is no question that there has been some difficulty with this in the past. We are currently improving the monitoring processes, and I expect that the new board chair will continue in the capacity of being an effective leader who is greatly assisting management throughout this time.
A. Sanders: Just one final comment on physicians in the north. I see this as one of the very significant and severe problems that this particular government has brought in with New Directions. The regionalization process is another problem in terms of being a northern doctor. What has happened
[ Page 1935 ]
for many of my northern colleagues is that there has been very much a sense of being out of the loop, as the decision-making processes are under CHCs and regional boards. There is very little representation by physicians, except through one member who is appointed to that area. There has been quite a significant effort by this government to try and keep people in the know out of the decision-making process, supposedly because of a conflict of interest. I think that for northern doctors, who have to work that hard in that situation, this has been another thing that has really rung a death-knell for the practice of medicine in the north. I would certainly have this minister consider involving these northern doctors more in the decision-making processes of health care, specifically by giving them a vote, for example, on their own boards and community health councils.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Very early on after my appointment, I did meet with the B.C. Medical Association. I'm convinced, as well, that better communication is needed. There certainly has to be better input allowed from the medical professionals through to the regional health boards. It's also something that the B.C. Medical Association is discussing currently with the regional assessment team. I appreciate adding your comments to that, for weight.
S. Hawkins: When the minister said earlier today that some of the capital freezes would be reviewed earlier than others, we didn't realize that one was going to be reviewed and a decision given today. The Victoria General Hospital pediatric intensive care unit was frozen in the freeze, or delayed. Can the minister confirm to us now that the freeze is unfrozen?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can tell you what's happening there. There's language, and in certain circumstances it's important that we be careful with our language, so I'm going to try to do that with this. The Victoria General Hospital pediatric renovation is minor capital. It was not part of the freeze because it's not major capital. Only major capital is under part of the freeze. But, at the same time we put a freeze on major capital, we also did an assessment within each ministry of minor capital to ensure that we can, within the context of the reduced debt load, actually achieve our minor capital commitments. That process has been completed, and it's on the basis of that that this minor capital project can continue. But it was never part of the major capital freeze.
S. Hawkins: Apparently it has been announced by the Minister of Education that this freeze, or this minor capital project, has been lifted and that it's a go-ahead. It concerns me, because I understand there are other minor capital projects that are maybe just as critical as this one. I'm just wondering on what basis this decision was made over some of the other ones.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Perhaps the hon. member would have felt more comfortable if I had been out there in the scrum. It's hard to beat the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to a scrum, so my apologies for that.
Minor capital projects are those under $1.5 million. We have a minor capital budget, and within the criteria we assess that budget, and it's just on the basis that, with the close scrutiny of that project, it made sense to not
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can confirm if other minor projects, then, have also been approved, and which ones they are, or if this is the only one of X number -- I don't know -- that's been approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, not at all. There are lots and lots of projects going ahead, and I can get that list to you, but it probably will be later this week.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister give me another project -- one or two -- that have also been approved along with this one? It just seems strange that this
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to list some examples: the Abbotsford general hospital modular buildings are proceeding; there are several in the Aldergrove area attached to Jackman Manor; there are some in Burnaby -- Central Park Manor is going ahead;
An Hon. Member: Don't quit before K.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get you the list.
S. Hawkins: I would appreciate the list. I'm wondering if there's a distinction between the list that you read and this project. Are these all within the legally committed that had been held back, or are some of
Hon. J. MacPhail: The freeze isn't on the minor capital. Ministries are given a minor capital budget and a major capital budget, and the freeze applied to the major capital budget. However, the Minister of Finance did direct each and every one of us to ensure that moneys were available to continue with the minor capital projects. That's why we've been able to do that in a relatively short order of time. There's no freeze applied to it; it's just that we have to be fiscally responsible to ensure that the money's available. The pediatric unit renovation is part of that and part of the group that I just listed.
S. Hawkins: I guess the terminology is in the freeze. Everything was frozen, and now there seems to be a thaw for some of these projects. My question to the minister is: what criteria are you using to approve the minor capital projects? Is there a committee, and are there terms of reference?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance assigned less minor capital funding than was originally anticipated, and so it was in the context of the assignment of less minor capital funding that the ministry had to review it to ensure that projects could go ahead. That was the criterion: simply that we have the money to do it.
[ Page 1936 ]
S. Hawkins: Then how are some projects being approved over other projects? Say there is another one that's $1.3 million and this is $1.3 million -- how are you choosing between the two?
Hon. J. MacPhail: These minor capital projects are underway. We were asked by the Minister of Finance to ensure that the money was there to complete them and to see if there were ways of perhaps not committing the money. But the projects are underway; we've done the assessment, and they can be completed.
S. Hawkins: Do we have a total number of how many minor capital projects are now on their way? Obviously all of them were held. How many are on their way now?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's the list that I committed to giving you.
S. Hawkins: I think the member for Okanagan-Boundary has some questions.
B. Barisoff: I'd just like to ask whether some of these are in the planning? Is the planning money part of that money, too?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
B. Barisoff: I know the answer to a couple of my questions, but I want to bring them to the minister's attention. That's why I asked about the planning money that's been on the books for a number of years for the Keremeos multicare facility. I'm just wondering whether the planning money for that facility is on the books, because the multicare facility in Keremeos is having people move out of the community -- couples who have been together for years and years and one of them is at the stage where they've got to move into a home and the other can't visit. I wonder whether the minister could have a look at this and make it one of her top priorities.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is under review. We are looking at it.
B. Barisoff: Another local issue. Being a member from a rural constituency, we've got two smaller hospitals, South Okanagan General Hospital in Oliver and the Boundary Hospital in Grand Forks. I wonder whether the services that are presently provided in these two smaller hospitals will continue under the tenure of the present ministry.
[4:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure the hon. member isn't trying to trap me, so I'm not going to take it as a trap. Let me just say that part of regionalization is that the local community determines what services are delivered where. The hospitals you mention will be a major part of your RHB and your CHCs. So I won't be determining that; they will be determining that -- with your input, I hope.
B. Barisoff: That's great -- if that's the situation, where the area decides what's provided there. There's been a concern amongst constituents of both areas, the Boundary country and the South Okanagan, that as time went on the smaller hospitals would be phased out and most of the things would be pushed to places like Penticton or Kelowna or, in the case of the Boundary country, into the Trail area. There's great concern that the smaller hospitals are needed, and my concern is why we would be building new facilities in these areas and underutilizing the facilities that are present in these areas of South Okanagan and Boundary? So I think that if the minister is confirming that those will come from the regionalization part of it, that's fine.
One other question would be the status of Sagebrush Lodge in Osoyoos. Over the last couple of months, seniors were already being moved out to prepare for what was taking place and somehow everything stopped.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm advised that this is a minor project that isn't underway yet. We are reviewing it still. We're making a commitment to those that are underway now, but it's at the planning stage, so there's no construction commitment. It is under review under that basis.
B. Barisoff: Hon. minister, I think that it wasn't underway but that the tenders were completed and what was happening was that patients or seniors were actually being moved out in anticipation of what was to take place in July or somewhere around that date. But I think tenders were already called and actually came in, so it's more than
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll look into it further for you.
L. Stephens: While we are on the minor and major capital projects, I want to talk a little bit about my area in Langley. The hospital budget allocation for '96-97 with an increase of 1.51 percent is gratefully received and accepted. I know the minister knows that Langley is an area that is growing and that we are struggling to provide the services to the people in Langley. I am sure the minister also knows that the CEO at our hospital is working to help make regionalization work. She has been very active in the process, and I think brings a very high degree of expertise to health care.
We have a couple of minor projects in our hospital. One is the emergency department expansion and the other is the Maple Cottage Detox Centre relocation. We are anxiously awaiting some verification on whether or not these two programs will be able to proceed for us. Those are the two minor programs that we are waiting word on, and we haven't been able to get any answers. I hope those two are on the list that the minister is going to make available to us, so I would just like to note those.
The second issue is the planning funds for phase 3 for the hospital development. A significant part of this phase 3 is comprised of elements of phase 2, and I know the minister is aware that there are phases 1, 2 and 3. As you move through those phases, one has a direct bearing on the other. With the putting on hold of a number of these initiatives, it appears that we are going to be spending more money than we absolutely need to do. If the goal of the New Directions strategy is that the acute care services should be 80 percent of the population, we are at about 60 to 65 percent. We need to proceed with our phase 3 in order to get the planning in place to make sure that the various initiatives we are undertaking will proceed. One of them is that we need another 133 acute care beds, ambulatory-care space and diagnostic imaging services.
This particular initiative has been ongoing for quite some time with the ministry. We have had numerous conversations
[ Page 1937 ]
with previous Ministers of Health, and while they have been helpful in putting forward a number of policies to help us work through this, it's a problem that continues to go on. In my view, it is costing us more money, as opposed to proceeding with these programs in a timely and efficient manner. The delays simply add more costs all the way around.
The other answer I would like is whether or not the review of buying of equipment over $100,000 is something the ministry is considering taking another look at.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate your comments about the pressures on Langley Memorial Hospital. I just want to assure the member that yes, lots of good work is done in the hospital with the ministry. It seems to be one of the more cooperative working relationships that exists. I don't want to disrupt that in any way. As of January of this year, there's going to be a reassessment of the workload within the hospital to ensure that there are adequate resources available, as a result of phase 2 and as we contemplate phases 3 and 4.
I do just want to say, though, that the detox relocation is actually a major capital project, and therefore it is under review right now. It won't be on the minor capital list, because it's not minor capital; it's major capital, and it is under review.
On the point around capital equipment, we did increase capital equipment funding this year to $13 million. It was $1.5 million last year, and it's $13 million in this budget. Actually, it's part of
L. Stephens: I apologize for not having been here or read the Blues. Could the minister perhaps explain who has the power to make the decisions and where this allocation will go -- out of this $13 million? How will it be allocated? What would the process be to access a portion of that $13 million?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the committee of industry people, like the unions and hospital administrators; it's the industry participants. They have a funding methodology committee that is a ten-step process. They themselves apply the ten-step process to determine the allocation of funds hospital by hospital. The methodology itself is reviewed every year. It's a group of peers assigning money to the various hospitals. The $13 million will be determined for allocation to hospitals on a percentage basis by the funding methodology committee.
L. Stephens: I have a question around continuing care. I'm not sure whether this has been canvassed, as well. Multilevel facilities are, I believe, what the ministry is looking at when they talk about continuing care and making facilities available for seniors who don't have to be uprooted from one facility to another as they progress along the health care path. In a growing community like mine, where we have a large number of seniors, we have run into difficulty at Langley Lodge. This particular facility is very old and doesn't serve the needs of a large number of seniors. What I will ask the minister is whether multilevel care facilities are being considered and whether there are some examples around the province that have been built, and how they appear to be working.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm doing this from memory. Actually, it's an interesting issue, and I'm sure the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale will also be exploring this issue.
Again, a general comment: multilevel care works and it certainly is a direction that I wish to pursue more vigorously. I have some examples. I refer to this as the Italian home -- my apologies for that -- because it's attached to the Italian Cultural Centre and is multilevel care. There are some examples in the Qualicum-Parksville area. In this area, there's the example for veterans in Broadmead. But I can actually get you a more complete list of the examples. Of course, we are also planning for a much greater level of multilevel care in this province. Some projects, though, are under the freeze for the capital review.
L. Stephens: I want to thank the minister for the information on the numbers of facilities at the moment that offer that kind of care and where they are.
People who speak to me, the children of seniors, have their moms and dads in these centres. It's really difficult for both seniors and for children to uproot the family members. Perhaps they're not even able to get another bed or another room in an area, in a facility, that's close to them, that they can get to.
[4:30]
One of the issues that I've spoken about before in estimates is the Abbeyfield homes in Britain, where there are private homes that can take four, five, three -- whatever, pick a number -- individuals. The facility is like a private home where people have a family setting, if you like, that they've become used to. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether that is a concept that she's considering or has given much thought to. Perhaps of some of the choices, if you like, for seniors in the province of British Columbia, that might be one.
[C. McGregor in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Interesting. I expect to become much more fully cognizant of all of these issues as I carry on in my role as the Minister Responsible for Seniors. I'm glad to talk about this. We do have family care homes now that are kind of like the model you described. I'm not familiar with the term Abbeyfield homes, but people in the community can offer up to two placements within their home for people so that they can stay in their community. They work very effectively. Certainly if the member is advocating that we perhaps should look into exploring increasing those options, I'd be more than happy to do that.
L. Stephens: I think we should be looking at the choices that are available. What may work for one or two or groups of people may not work for others. I think the more choices that we have available to people, the better off we are.
I have a question about the established homes -- the seniors' homes -- and this one in particular. As the minister knows, as people progress, they must get a waiver from Continuing Care in order to remain there if their level of care increases. Each year they must go back to Continuing Care to get a waiver in order to stay. A lot of stress and a lot of time and energy is expended trying to keep their family member in a particular facility. This is playing out all around the province.
Again, we go back to the concept of multilevel care. I have seen a diagram where you have a centre core facility that has all the medical facilities that residents may require and then you have a sort of a separate entrance-level facility for people who are very aware and are able to do everything for
[ Page 1938 ]
themselves. Then you have intermediate care and another level of care, all on the same site, so that the individuals do not move to a separate site; they simply move to another portion of the facility. It gives stability and assurance of security. A lot of these people have a great deal of difficulty as they get older and become a little less healthy.
Is that a concept the minister is considering? Have some pilot projects been initiated? Is something like that being contemplated around a facility?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's my understanding of multilevel care, and that is what we are pursuing, yes. In terms of the projects that we're anticipating proceeding with, they are multilevel care projects. I think that's what you've described.
L. Stephens: Have any of them begun? Are there any that
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to say in any way that I'm giving you the projects that are exactly like the architectural planning that you talk about there. Certainly I can give you a couple of examples of where we are proceeding to achieve the same concept. They are the ones I just mentioned to you previously. There's Buchanan Memorial Sunset Lodge in New Westminster. Actually, we're moving from a 43-bed facility to 112 multilevel-care beds. There is also the Kiwanis Lynn Manor multilevel-care facility in North Vancouver, and then there's an addition in Quesnel to Dunrovin Lodge that will be for multilevel care. Those are just a couple of examples that we are proceeding with right now.
L. Stephens: I'd like to move on to some health issues dealing primarily with women. I'd like to start with women and HIV. This is something that is becoming much more prevalent among women, and it concerns women's health today. Apparently 70 percent of all new infections in women are among 15-to-24-year-olds. I wonder if the minister could perhaps talk a bit about what kinds of programs the ministry is contemplating around reaching these 17-to-25-year-olds to educate them and to perhaps talk about how they can take responsibility for their health in this area.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll start by trying to give just you the general details. We have increased AIDS funding generally to $7.5 million in the province. When we took over government, it was less than $500,000. I speak on this almost from the perspective of a local MLA, because women affected by HIV are actually greatly in the downtown east side, because there is a correlation between drug use and contaminated needle use and women becoming HIV-positive. That's the method by which the infection is generally transmitted.
Again, I consider it very important to ensure that we protect against its increase among women and at the same time understand that they're still a minor part of those being infected with the HIV strain or those actually suffering from AIDS. But we have done a great deal of work in terms of needle exchange. We don't charge IV drug users for needles anymore. This, in itself, is controversial. You and I can discuss it in a rational fashion, but out in the community this is very controversial amongst those who would not have us provide the free needles, but we've done that. We are also on the verge of implementing the provincial AIDS strategy, which has been worked upon by all of the community groups, the health care professionals and those who are HIV-infected or suffering from AIDS. One of the major proponents of the provincial AIDS strategy will have an educational component to it which begins at the elementary school level. Again, I'm sure that will be controversial. Nevertheless, so be it. I anticipate that it will not be necessarily more targeted toward young women, but we may have to do that in light of the recent statistics.
Let me just tell you here that we are actually, then, funding specific projects for women's groups in this area. For instance, the Okanogan Womyn'z Alliance and the Positive Women's Network are a couple of examples. I know that many of the PWA groups now have a major targeting of women amongst them as well in terms of their programming.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
L. Stephens: It's true that this particular disease has really begun to make inroads into women's health. It used to be primarily a gay man's disease, but it's now spreading into the rest of the population and women. It's sexually transmitted as well as transmitted through needles. It's becoming more sexually transmitted than transmitted through drug use. A lot of what the studies have said around the issue is that there needs to be some prioritization done for public awareness, education, treatment and research. I know the Women's Health Centre in the Women's Hospital has had some additional funding to look at those kinds of areas. I wonder if part of the amount of money that the minister talked about -- $7.5 million -- is going to the Women's Hospital for treatment and research of HIV.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I will check specifically on the funding for the Women's Hospital. Of course, the Centre for Excellence in HIV-AIDS will be getting $4 million this year, and some of that funding will be targeted specifically to women with HIV or AIDS. I will get that information for you.
L. Stephens: Women with HIV are having children born HIV-positive as well. Apparently one baby in five born to HIV-positive women in Canada is infected with the virus. So I wonder if the ministry is developing initiatives around this particular area to help mothers deal with not only their own illness but also their children's.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I guess this goes to the point that HIV-AIDS is a 100 percent preventable illness. It's from that perspective that we concentrate to rid society of it completely. That, of course, goes to the education programs targeting young people early enough in that area. I actually am aware of programs that exist in this area from my previous responsibility. There are many initiatives amongst groups that provide larger supports to target specifically vulnerable potential moms in this area to assist in ensuring that the baby is not born with HIV-AIDS, but we're often not successful. The continuing care of HIV-AIDS babies is part of the larger strategy of dealing with AIDS.
[4:45]
L. Stephens: I think if we look at women's health issues, the same things keep recurring, the same sort of underlying facts continue to come forward. There have been a number of recent studies, and I know the minister is aware of them: the provincial health officer's report, the recent Canada-U.S. conference that was just held in Ottawa and the B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre Society report. Also the province, through the Minister of Women's Equality, has just released a
[ Page 1939 ]
report that shows the significant costs to the health care system in the province of British Columbia and in Canada.
There are four areas that come up time after time, and they are in every single one of these reports. The top of the list is poverty, the fact that a lot of lone-parent families live in poverty, and their children live in poverty. The second one is the impacts of violence and abuse -- drug and alcohol abuse and family violence. And then there is the need for social and emotional supports, those kinds of community services that many communities are doing a good job of making available to individuals in their community -- some are, and some of them are not able to deal with the tremendous demand that is there for these kinds of services.
I wonder if the minister could perhaps talk about what her ministry is proposing to do in the coming year -- or what programs may already be in place -- around women's health and children's health, with those areas in mind, where poverty and violence are huge costs to health care and the social and emotional support programs -- and perhaps with a view to prevention and early intervention, because it's my view that those are the only two things that are really going to do much good. I wonder if the minister could speak to those two.
Hon. J. MacPhail: These are the kinds of things we could discuss at length for days, so I will try to be very succinct. Just in the area of
In the area of prevention, let me just talk about a couple of things. So many of our health care dollars don't go toward prevention or intervention; they go toward, as you and I know, making us comfortable in the final weeks or months of life. Some of the programs that we do have, though, are targeted towards pregnancy and parenting programs, such as the Nobody's Perfect parenting program and the pregnancy outreach program, so that we're assisting a child at the early stages.
Another controversial outreach program -- I didn't think it was going to be controversial, but it turns out it was -- was the breast-feeding initiative that our ministry participated in. Anyway -- whatever -- we will suffer the consequences of the controversy around that. Also, we have major initiatives around nutrition programs targeted specifically at pre- and post-natal nutritional education and, again, toward moms at the lower end of the economic scale. Regarding family violence initiatives, I accede to this as a jurisdiction of not only the Ministry of Attorney General but also the Women's Equality ministry. On close examination, I expect that our record stands up to the test of investments in dealing with family violence initiatives.
But there is so much more to be done. In terms of the care of our children, many of the issues that we face now also involve issues around not only child abuse but family abuse and the intergenerational connection between those two issues of child abuse and previous family violence that the abuser may have experienced, and we're investing a great deal of resources in that area.
Interestingly enough, as we move toward regionalization and services closer to home, I hope that community support services that are seen as social services can be delivered in conjunction with services that are seen to be health services, and I look forward to the day when that integration actually happens.
L. Stephens: Integration and cross-ministry roles and responsibilities in delivery of service is what needs to happen, because a lot of the services the ministries provide tend to be focused in their area, and they could be doing the same thing that Social Services is doing or providing the same program in a slightly different fashion. That is replicated in Education and in a number of other ministries. We end up paying money perhaps across three or four ministries, for services that aren't being delivered in a manner that is effective. So I would argue that that kind of initiative has to take place.
When we talk about violence, this report that was just tabled makes that point very clear. This is from the Ministry of Women's Equality, and it's called Paying for Violence. Some of the costs of violence against
These cross all ministry lines. There's Attorney General, Health, Women's Equality and Social Services. So I would like to encourage the minister, as I did the Minister of Women's Equality and the Attorney General, to look at one of those root causes, if you like -- domestic violence and family violence -- that makes these kinds of costs in other ministries such a significant amount. I would like to
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I will very briefly. Then I also want to touch on a prevention program that I forgot to mention when the hon. member asked me. Also, I'm sure the hon. members are aware that we have a women's health bureau that's part of the ministry, and the funding for that is increasing this year as well. The women's health bureau has a publication that actually is useful, and I think that bureau isn't highlighted enough in the ministry. I haven't told anybody about this yet, but I want to do something about that, so I'm glad that the members opposite are putting that on record as well.
Yes, there is a role for the Ministry of Health to play in breaking down the barriers amongst ministries and to get at this root cause of violence against women and kids. We take
[ Page 1940 ]
the issue very seriously, particularly in the area of mental health services, and try to do some prevention and education through mental health services. But I also confess that we're jammed to the rafters now in dealing with the victims of violence, but we are working with the other ministries that you listed to do prevention and education, and I will continue to advocate that more work needs to be done in that area.
The area I just want to talk
L. Stephens: Yes, it is a very complex issue, because then we get into advertising and all of those issues around women's images of themselves and what they think that should be. But we won't have that discussion today.
I want to talk just a little bit about the report from the office of the provincial health officer, because I think it's an excellent report, and I think he did a very good job and highlighted some issues that I think we need to be aware of and try to do something about. I just want to read into the record some of the difficulties that he sees. He talks about income, employment, social support, housing, education, and good early childhood education, as the key things that affect people's health. He says that the more we understand and accept this, the easier it will be to take action to improve health.
I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to look through the recommendations -- I know it was just March 4 that this release went out -- to see whether or not there are some initiatives that perhaps she may want to introduce as a result of this report, or whether there are some that have already been done.
Of course, child poverty is at the top of the list of the recommendations that he does make here, and he emphasizes the importance of early childhood care. I think one of the ways that we could utilize that is that when the babies are born, perhaps the public health nurse or some other medical
Developing better information systems to make sure that we have the desired
So I wonder if the minister could speak to this report and whether she feels there are some worthwhile recommendations there. Secondly, what mechanisms for reporting and accountability are in place in the ministry around the women's programs, and are those being met?
[5:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, this report should be circulated far more widely; it's an excellent report. I've met with the provincial health officer. You've actually just flagged this report to me again. We should be looking at how we can distribute this far more widely. It's eminently readable, as well, for young people.
I just want to say one thing on the provincial health officer recommendations on provincial health goals. We expect those soon from the provincial health officer. I expect the matter to be before cabinet soon, which will include recommendations around a process for holding the province accountable, and which will include holding us accountable for implementing women's programs as well.
Two other things. There are some public health initiatives targeted specifically at prevention and intervention around women's health. More needs to be done, no question about that. In the area of labelling alcoholic beverages, I signed a letter this week reiterating this ministry's commitment to pursue that matter with the federal government.
L. Stephens: I have just one final question and comment, and that is around early intervention and prevention. What we seem to have in
I wonder if the minister would perhaps consider that when a child is born there is, then, a relationship with perhaps the hospital, Social Services or another entity, but that the family then is able to access counselling, parenting skills programs or a number of community services that would help those individuals become better or adequate parents. Around nutrition and all kinds of issues, so many times it appears that the problems get so far down the road that a lot of children end up either in care or worse. So I wonder if the minister would give some consideration to perhaps talking with other branches of government to look at coming up with some kind of an initiative like that, where everyone works together, and they're focused around children from the time they're born.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You're quite right: the earlier the intervention, the better the success rate of having healthy children later on -- and productive children, even from an economic point of view, for the contribution to the economy by a trained workforce, etc. So I absolutely accept what you're saying.
We're not standing still on those initiatives. We do have initiatives now around parenting from birth onward by identifying children who may be high-risk or in high-risk families. In my own community, there are several programs that operate -- with great success, I might add. But I think you've
[ Page 1941 ]
touched on a good point around the overlap between the Ministry of Social Services, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Women's Equality. The Ministry of Health is an active participant with the office of the transition commissioner in achieving exactly what you say, and we will continue to be an active participant as we move toward implementing Judge Gove's recommendations around those exact matters.
S. Hawkins: I'm just wondering if the minister has the ambulance person available now. Maybe I'll just finish that up and then he can go.
This is in reference to what we were discussing this morning: reduction in services. My information after lunch was that there was a tenth collective agreement in place that did not allow for any jobs to be permanently voided. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The collective agreement says that there will be no forced layoffs, so all moves will be voluntary.
S. Hawkins: Apparently there were no layoffs, but some jobs aren't being filled. I want to know how many jobs need to be filled, or how many jobs were vacated that weren't filled.
Hon. J. MacPhail: None have been vacated yet, because it is voluntary. As positions are vacated, they will be reallocated for training for the rural areas.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can tell me how many communities have no full-time paramedics and have part-time paramedics filling in.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are over 80 stations where all of the paramedics are part-time.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if Mackenzie and Armstrong are among the communities that are being staffed by part-time paramedics.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Mackenzie is currently part-time; Armstrong isn't, but it is a community that will, with attrition, move to part-time.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can tell me what the call volume has been. Has it increased or decreased in those communities?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's consistent.
S. Hawkins: If the call volume is consistent, why are we only supplying them with part-time paramedics?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Part of the agreement was a staffing model that's provincewide. Just the staffing model is based on the calls per year. That community falls into a level of calls per year that requires part-time staffing. But, as part of the agreement, the move will only be through attrition to fulfilling that model.
S. Hawkins: I understand there is now an eleventh collective agreement in place. With the eleventh collective agreement in place, there is agreement, I guess, that jobs may go or that there will be some downsizing. Can the minister confirm that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the staffing model is part of the eleventh agreement that we're just talking about. So the change in staffing levels will be through attrition.
S. Hawkins: Has there been any new hiring done since the eleventh collective agreement has been in place?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there have been some hirings.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister confirm if these are full-time or part-time people?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Full-time.
S. Hawkins: In what parts of the province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Vernon, Mill Bay and Central Saanich.
S. Hawkins: Again, this afternoon I posed a question to the minister. My information was that the call volume has increased approximately 10 percent over population increase. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's 2.5 percent per year.
S. Hawkins: Has the service delivery kept in line with the call volume population increase?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
S. Hawkins: Does the ministry have any plans in situating new stations?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
S. Hawkins: Has the ministry done any studies that require any new stations to go anywhere?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is something that we monitor carefully, but the population distribution so far hasn't required the creation of any new stations.
S. Hawkins: Has there been any consultation with the dispatchers with regard to the need for any new stations?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, yes. It's in the ongoing consultation with the labour-management committee that this monitoring occurs.
S. Hawkins: Who makes the final decision about new stations and their need?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Treasury Board.
S. Hawkins: I understand that there is a need for ALS, which, as we talked about before, is advanced life support, in some of the areas. There are just some that come to mind, I guess. Abbotsford, I'm told, is busting at the seams and needs ALS. Nanaimo has been asking and needs ALS. Apparently the ambulance service in the capital regional district has three ALS units. Surrey has one ALS unit, and apparently the population is comparable to the capital regional district. I get conflicting reports that Vancouver has two, maybe three. One seems to be used in Burnaby. Now, this doesn't seem very coordinated. I'm wondering if the minister can give me some information on this and tell me how it's decided which community gets ALS.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just tell you that advanced life support units are allocated based on call volume and work-
[ Page 1942 ]
load factors. Right now there are seven ALS units in the GVRD and three in the capital regional district. At this time, within the context of the budget, there are no further ALS units planned.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can just elaborate and tell me what the call volumes are, then, in the areas that she just reported.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That requires aggregating some stats. We'll do that for you and make those available to you.
S. Hawkins: Thank you, because some other questions might come out of that. Apparently there seems to be a need out in the front-line workers -- call volume has gone up, and the service delivery hasn't kept in touch with the need. Apparently, two years ago there was a commissioned report, prepared by Vince Ready. It was looking at all the areas of ambulance service. I am wondering if the ministry has received that report, and if they have, if they would make it public.
[5:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we have it. Almost all of the recommendations have been implemented. The eleventh collective agreement is actually based upon the Ready recommendations.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister would make that report available to us. I'm also wondering what community profiling is being done before services are provided -- what kinds of things are done.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Services are allocated on the basis of call volume.
S. Hawkins: I should maybe elaborate a little. Again, it's sketchy information, because I get it from different groups that are concerned. They probably come in the form of a letter to you and me as well. So I try and take what I can out of them, and try and address the issues.
I understand that there is a significant difference between services that are delivered in an urban setting and services delivered in a rural setting. Certainly people who live
I guess this is where the context of this question comes in. What kind of community profile is being done? What kinds of standards are being set between the urban and rural areas? People who live outside the lower mainland feel there is a reduction of services; perhaps the minister can comment on that. Are there studies being done in the rural areas to address the needs of the rural population?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There hasn't been any reduction in services. I am aware of a letter-writing campaign by the union to various mayors saying their members were being reallocated or reassigned to the lower mainland. But that isn't accurate. There has been no reallocation.
S. Hawkins: Does the minister see any studies forthcoming to address the needs of rural versus urban ambulance services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The study is ongoing. It's based on call volume and response time. But we also, in the context of this last agreement, did implement the requested training initiatives for part-timers. Perhaps the rural areas that have more part-timers will particularly benefit from that increased training.
S. Hawkins: Just on a note of interest, do you have any statistics on the response time, urban versus rural?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I'll get those for you.
S. Hawkins: That's all I have. I think the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale would like to ask some questions.
K. Whittred: Is this a convenient time to start on seniors?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sure.
K. Whittred: Okay. I'd like to preface my questions by saying how delighted I am to be rising in the House to speak on behalf of seniors. It is a personally rewarding assignment and one that I am looking forward to very much. I can't wait to get out into the field and visit some of the seniors' complexes and meet with some of the seniors' organizations.
It is the fastest-growing segment of our society. In fact, by the early twentieth century -- or by 2010 approximately -- seniors will comprise about 25 percent of our population. I was interested to read in the news, I think it was yesterday, that we can look forward very soon to a life expectancy of 87 years.
One of the most pleasurable experiences I have each year is when I go to visit my mother, and she takes me to seniors' bridge. I never cease to be amazed by the perspective of our seniors. One thing is that time seems to stand still, and I'm greeted each year as though I had been there only yesterday. I'm also continually impressed by the diversity of skills and what not in the group, as well as the age -- the fact that what we call seniors actually spans an entire generation, using even the most modest of goalposts.
I suspect that our goals regarding the mandate of the office for seniors are probably not very different. I suspect that both of us wish to see a process that contributes to government providing the best kind of infrastructure that it can toward seniors living independent and productive lives. I am reminded by simply thinking of my parents that today's seniors matured at the end of the Depression; they then went off to fight the Second World War. As I have been preparing myself for this task, I have been impressed that the success of seniors' programs is focused not so much on care but on the foundations that we put into the various programs that provide, if you like, the infrastructure.
I believe, and the vast majority of our research and literature tells us, that when we have proper housing and proper nutrition, when we have mobility looked after and socialization in place, then many of the issues that we consider of
[ Page 1943 ]
interest to seniors simply disappear. That is the nature of my focus. I'm viewing what I'm introducing here as kind of a syndrome of issues. I believe that if we look at economic status, we have shelter issues, issues about owning or not owning property, issues related to self-image and this whole concept of ageism and self-perception, issues surrounding safety and security, care issues and issues of belonging. I've tried to sort of put these issues into clusters. Hopefully, that is the nature of what our conversation can be.
I want to add just a little sidebar to the introductory statements of my colleague this morning, when she gave us the little history about Tommy Douglas and the introduction of the health units in the Swift Current health district. I was a school child in Swift Current at that time, and I can very vividly recall the truck that used to come around. They used to set the dentist's chair up in the classroom, and we got our teeth fixed. I really can't remember what else the truck did. There's our little bit of history.
Moving on, I thought the first thing that we would look at is simply the mechanisms, if you like, for this office for seniors. I have gone over this office for seniors quite carefully. I think I understand it quite well. I am interested to note that the office for seniors was established in March of 1989. I was interested in the remarks of my colleague from Langley in the conversation a few moments ago about integrated services, because I think this is an example of an integrated service.
The first question I would like to ask is: do you think that the position, the relative status, of seniors within our society has improved in the last seven years since the establishment of this office?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll answer that in two ways. One is in terms of the relative attention that seniors garner in the context of governing, and my answer would be yes. Government is paying increasingly proper attention to the issues faced by seniors. But also, the relative economic well-being of seniors has improved within the last seven years. I would say that there is more room to proceed on improving the economic well-being of seniors, particularly women.
K. Whittred: The first mandate -- and believe me, I'm not going to go through each of these, just the odd one I want to query -- says that the role of the office of seniors is to provide administrative support to the Minister Responsible for Seniors. How many people actually work in this office?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are five FTEs.
K. Whittred: I learned a long time ago that when there is something in a term of reference and it does not have any money that goes with it, it really isn't worth very much. Therefore I would like to ask where it is in the budget that some of these mandates are addressed. For example, I will choose just the last item in the first section, where it says: "To dispel ageist and misinformed attitudes towards aging and the elderly." Another one further down is: "To carry out research and prepare reports." Where, in the budget -- I'll just use those as examples -- do we find backing for those endeavours?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the budget for the office for seniors is $650,000 for 1996, and that provides the support. That answers the second part of the question. The first part is: "To dispel ageist and misinformed attitudes towards aging and the elderly." In terms of our government, we operate on the basis that this is a check that each and every government policy must be viewed against.
When we make decisions around the cabinet table or government decisions that involve our caucus, there is a list of checks and balances. For instance, there is a check against how this impacts on women, or there's a check against how this impacts on seniors. Those checks are there to
K. Whittred: My guess would be that there would be money from other ministries as well. For example, in talking about attitudes toward aging, is there money that would come from communication budgets, for example, in perhaps Social Services? In terms of research, I just have trouble believing that the amount of money that is budgeted for this department can achieve all of these things. That is, really, where I'm going with this.
[5:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: You're absolutely right. Sorry, I should have understood what you were saying. The office for seniors operates as a coordinating function to implement those, but also to coordinate the initiatives for seniors across government service. For instance, I think $200 million of the Pharmacare budget is for seniors and seniors alone. When we get into the issues of housing, multilevel care is mainly targeted towards seniors. In the Ministry of Social Services, there's a particular initiative targeted specifically toward seniors, adult day care programs, and there are seniors' counsellors -- many initiatives in that area. There's even an element of our post-secondary education that's targeted specifically toward seniors.
I don't know whether we have a
K. Whittred: Moving on now from the description of what the office for seniors does to the interministry
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to make sure that I understood what you were saying: that's from Dr. Fulton's report, her model, that you're using that phrase?
Anyway, I'm advised that that model is not formally in place. But I want to tell you, informally -- well, if you call cabinet informal, which it isn't -- that that model does exist at the cabinet table in that there is no hierarchy in issues that take priority in government. All issues that face a particular segment of the population are examined by the executive council as a whole group in a holistic fashion.
K. Whittred: I think I'm getting some conflicting information -- if I can find the right sheet of paper -- because I
[ Page 1944 ]
believe that I was told that this interministry committee in fact meets regularly. Could I get this cleared up? I mean, does the committee meet? Does it work? Does it have minutes? You get the idea.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm referring to what is not in place as the interactive systems model. The committee is up and running and functioning fully -- the interministry coordinating committee on security for seniors. It does operate. It's the 12 ministries and the three Crown corporations. No, it meets, etc. You referred to a model. Do you recall? The
K. Whittred: Yes. I apologize. I was assuming that the interministry coordinating committee was an example of an interactive model. That was my understanding. It's really not important.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
K. Whittred: Okay. That's fine, then. Thank you.
Could you give me an example of an interactive model, if this is not one?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, it would be my view that, for
K. Whittred: I'll now move on. That concludes my questions surrounding the setup of the office. I'll move on to my first cluster of issues. I guess it really doesn't matter in which order I take these. Perhaps I will take housing first, as this has already been brought up by my colleague.
In perusing the literature, hon. Chair, I find that the housing needs of seniors dominate every single solitary public forum. When we talk about housing needs of seniors, we're talking about a wide range of things. We may be talking about the home that the seniors own, or a home in a care facility. I think that when we're talking about seniors, we have to keep in mind that we're not only talking about those who are in care facilities; we're talking about the whole range of seniors. In fact, I think that close to 70 percent of seniors own their own homes. Of course, each group of seniors has a particular set of problems.
My colleague made mention earlier of the need for a variety of programs. I'm wondering whether the minister can provide me with just a couple of examples of pilot projects that may exist in different areas -- different examples of different kinds of housing.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is the minister responsible for housing. I certainly don't claim, in any way, any expertise that goes beyond what has already been discussed in those estimates late last week. So both the hon. member and I, and all members, can examine the record around housing issues.
Just in the area of housing provided by Health, health-related housing for seniors is what the ministry is directly responsible for. We have discussed that in the context of multilevel care, etc., but there's also extended-care housing, and housing targeted specifically for seniors who are mentally ill.
But let me just say that in the context of housing initiatives that our government has generally pursued for seniors, we're basically the last province in the business of building housing for seniors because of the fact that there is no more cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government in that area. But we continue to build housing for seniors. I would have to get that information for you from the Ministry of Housing in terms of the different kinds of housing that are being pursued. I know in my own community there's the housing that is not related to health: independent living.
K. Whittred: Perhaps I could ask if we could sort of divide the types of seniors housing into the two areas and call the housing that the Health ministry looks after -- I think it is referred to in the reports of the Seniors Advisory Council as supportive
But before we go to that, could I just ask a question about the other and how the minister perceives her role as Minister of Health? There are a number of recommendations that come out of the task force on shelter for seniors. A number of these are simply in the form of recommendations. They simply recommend that the ceilings for SAFER grants, for example, be reviewed. They recommend, for example, that home equity conversion plans with financial institutions should be further investigated. They recommend further looking at the core housing need. They recommend that there be ongoing training for building managers and so on. I'm aware that these are not direct responsibilities of the Health ministry. But whose responsibility is it to initiate initiatives, if you like, in these areas?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Municipal Affairs.
K. Whittred: Referring to that last recommendation, it worries me a little bit that the ministry that carries the umbrella for seniors' issues is not also concerned about the umbrella of initiatives. I'm particularly interested in this one particular recommendation that says that there should be an ongoing training program for building managers, caretakers and other appropriate site personnel in senior housing projects to enable these personnel to better provide information and so on. Now, a couple of weeks ago, you will recall, hon. Chair, that we had a very serious situation with a woman virtually starving to death. To put that in another context, the home where she lived was advertised in a seniors housing information brochure and had been available to her with the belief that this was advocated by something very legitimate. Of course, it wasn't that at all. I'm simply suggesting that having trained personnel is a very small thing and could perhaps save a great deal of distress. Perhaps the minister could comment.
[5:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to reiterate that the role of my responsibility for seniors is as a coordinating role among ministries. It is not to usurp the role of other ministries, nor would the Seniors Advisory Council recommend that. It was never in any way the intent of the government that established the office for seniors that all programs for seniors be delivered out of that one point; it was to make sure that issues affecting seniors were coordinated across government.
In this area, and I'll refer to this only as an example, the woman who was affected by that private apartment building was
[ Page 1945 ]
not a senior. It is an issue of housing that affects all of us, particularly low-income people. That was a private apartment complex. This is the first I've seen of the advertisement. I'd be interested to see that, and I appreciate that, if indeed that was included in the seniors housing complex information, there is a role for intervention on my part in that area. I do know, for instance, that the building is not on the referral system for people being deinstitutionalized. The issue of housing, as it is, is within the mandate of Municipal Affairs, and I myself discussed the issues around housing within the context of the responsibility by that minister.
K. Whittred: I have perhaps one final question in this area, then, and we'll leave it. Suppose that someone wanted to initiate a high-level conference on alternatives for seniors' housing. Who would be the person to do that? We read here in the report from the Seniors Advisory Council that they would encourage housebuilders and municipalities to develop supportive housing options, such as Abbeyfield homes -- these have been mentioned -- granny flats, flexible-use housing for seniors and so on. These things require a great many initiatives, often as partnerships between the public and private sectors and sometimes totally private sector. Sometimes it's a change in municipal bylaws, when we're talking about granny flats. I want to know who would initiate such a thing.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The best advice I could give is that there are many in the community that can and do initiate it. There are some community activists in our own caucus who have participated in conferences around housing and alternatives to seniors' housing. How I can best answer this is that if there's a government role to play, the government role would be led by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
K. Whittred: I'm sorry, I told a fib. I have one more question before we leave this area. That comes out of another recommendation of the Seniors Advisory Council and has to do with long-range strategy. I alluded in my opening remarks to the increase in the size, if you like, of our seniors population. We're all very much aware of that. I'm wondering what the minister has in mind in terms of a target, a long-range strategy, to meet the needs of this very quickly growing segment of our population.
The Chair: Noting the hour,
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I'll answer this question, hon. Chair, and then move to rise.
Again, this is an area where the office for seniors has a coordinating role across government service for strategic initiatives. But in the Ministry of Health, let me just talk about our initiatives around long-range plans for seniors. That is in supporting as many seniors as is possible to stay in their own homes and support themselves in the context of the environment in which they're familiar. That's for increased home support services, etc., but more for adult day care programs into the community. That's our goal. It makes sense for a quality of lifestyle. It proves, in terms of maintaining health of seniors, to be very cost-effective as well.
In terms of the long-range planning across government services, each and every decision for spending involves population demographics. Of course, the major factor of our population demographics is the aging population of British Columbians. That's a factor across all spending decisions.
Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.