(Hansard)
TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 2, Number 21, Part 2
[ Page 1947 ]
The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: First off, I would like to thank the minister for answering our questions in an open and forthright manner. I must say that I didn't always agree with all her responses, but she was willing and able to answer questions that we had about the north. I also want to take the opportunity to thank her staff, which I don't think I had the opportunity to do during estimates, for their time spent in helping the process along.
I just want to remind the minister that the roads in Peace River North are still in the same deplorable condition today as they were when we were doing her estimates. They haven't changed one bit. We are still in need of a 4-by-4 to negotiate many of our gravelled roads -- they're not paved, I might add. I'm still quite concerned that much of the TFA, which is under her
I'd like to give my colleague from Peace River South a few minutes of my time to finish off.
J. Weisgerber: Time's short, but certainly the estimates were interesting, particularly the debate around photo radar. I must confess that I remain unconvinced that it's anything other than an enormous revenue source for the government, and I guess that experience since we did the estimates has proven at least that photo radar can generate cash. Whether it will do anything to add to traffic safety is going to have to be judged a bit further down the road.
During the estimates, I encouraged the minister -- and I hope she'll give it a bit more thought -- to do a serious, comprehensive review of highway speed limits across British Columbia. That doesn't mean we necessarily have to increase all the speed limits, but I think we should look at speed limits everywhere. Lower them where that's appropriate, and increase them where traffic regularly travels 10, 20 or 30 kilometres above the speed limit. If people are driving that fast regularly, there's every indication that the road has the capacity for greater speed. I would remind the minister again that speed limits at 90 kilometres per hour were set back in the seventies and eighties, when the criterion was fuel economy, when the Arab oil crisis was on, when there was a belief that the answer to that problem was lowering speed limits, and it was not safety at the time.
B. Barisoff: I would also like to thank the hon. minister for her time and her staff's time in answering our questions. I would like to thank her for answering my questions and my colleague's questions. This was not a simple task, considering that many of the projects in her ministry are frozen due to the capital spending freeze. After many hours of debate, I am still left with questions for this government. However, I do hope that the estimates debate gave the minister an idea of what the public concerns are, and I hope some of these concerns are addressed over the next year, perhaps even before the next Legislature sits.
First I would like to address concerns I have with highway infrastructure in the lower mainland. Traffic congestion is a growing problem, and it is a problem that must be addressed before it gets completely out of control.
My second concern also focuses on the lower mainland. Three years ago this government told residents of the lower mainland that the Lions Gate Bridge would be a reliable structure for only five more years. This means that in two more years the Lions Gate Bridge will no longer be usable. Time is running out, and no plausible solutions have been found.
My third and fourth concerns are with the transportation infrastructure in the interior. I am concerned about the status of the Kelowna bridge and Highway 97, which runs through the Okanagan, and particularly the section between Westbank and Summerland and the section between Okanagan Falls and Oliver -- particularly that section of the Vaseux Lake corner, as indicated by the Okanagan Valley transportation authority.
Finally, the lack of funding set aside for highways maintenance in this year's estimates is unacceptable. It's time this government gets its priorities in order and puts funding where it's needed, before we lose our present infrastructure and the cost of upgrading and repair of roads become astronomical.
I would like to congratulate the government, though, and the minister on the partnership agreements this minister has established between the public and the private sector -- for example, the road to Mount Washington. This appears to be a successful project, and I encourage the government to join in more of these partnerships.
I'm pleased to see the establishment and enforcement of the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, and I hope this encourages more people to travel in groups and reduces the number of single-occupancy-vehicles in British Columbia.
I would like to make one final comment to the hon. minister. This is in regard to photo radar. I'm sure the minister is aware of the opposition's position on this issue. The B.C. Liberal caucus is opposed to photo radar if it is merely used as a cash cow to boost provincial government revenues. The government promised that photo radar would only be placed in high-accident zones, and yet it has been placed on straight, open roads, where the majority of accidents occur at intersections.
I thank the hon. minister for doing a good job of presenting the estimates to me. It's been a new experience for me, and I'm sure that in a couple of months, or when the House meets again -- in the spring, probably -- we'll do a better job of it next time, and we'll be able to cover a lot more bases.
[6:45]
Hon. L. Boone: Those are probably the nicest words I'll ever hear in this House. I do appreciate them. Over the estimate debate we heard many issues raised, issues of grave concern to a number of people, and I take very seriously the concerns that were raised by the opposition here. They demonstrate a high concern for, and a strong interest in, transportation and highways in this province, things that affect all of us. The high concern underscores the importance of a sound
[ Page 1948 ]
transportation system to support, enhance and shape our economy, and to preserve and enhance our lifestyle. The strong interest reflects the fact that the issues affect virtually everyone.
There's not one of us who doesn't have a transportation or a highways issue that affects us. Highways are crucial to our well-being as a province and as a collection of far-flung communities. Certainly we've heard a lot from the members from both the Peace River areas as to the state of their highways or the state of their roads, and I really do apologize that we haven't been able to fix all of those things in the two weeks since the estimates, member for Peace River North, but we will certainly try to do that in the future -- get those things fixed right away.
I'd like to thank the members of the House for their cooperation, which has permitted us to complete the debate in a relatively short period of time, considering some of the estimates that have gone on in this chamber and in the other chambers. I'd like to reiterate our pledge that we will do the best we can with the resources that are at our disposal.
During the debate, members brought up a variety of projects that they'd like to see implemented in their constituencies, Just for the fun of it, I asked the ministry to tell me how much those things would cost when we take a running total of all the various things throughout the constituencies that were raised, whether it be rehab, maintenance or what have you. That came to a grand total of $2.6 billion -- quadruple the Highways budget for 1996-97.
I know that each and every one of those projects are very important to each and every individual in this House, certainly within your ridings. But we are going to have to set some abilities and priorities, and, as you realize, we do not have $2.6 billion to spend on those. I certainly would like to. It would be really nice to be able do all those things, but we don't have that kind of money.
The investments that we make in our infrastructure, first and foremost, have to be affordable. We are bringing spending under control, and some of the members mentioned the freeze that is taking place. You are right, that is affecting a good number of our projects. That is what we've done to show that we have listened to the taxpayers out there, and we are trying to make sure that we've got our priorities correct and that every project that money is spent on is essential. I know that each and every project that you have brought to my attention is certainly considered essential by you.
We remain committed to planning, maintaining and building a quality transportation system that will take us into the twenty-first century. Through the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, we are continuing to make investments where they are needed, the most to improve safety and congestion -- investments in our future. I want to point out that it is not in the range of $2.6 billion, but it is in the range of moneys that we can afford and that the taxpayers can afford.
Of the roughly $400 million in capital projects that the Transportation Financing Authority has budgeted this year, about 20 percent are included in the review. So we are still proceeding with 80 percent of our projects. Building highways is costly, but they can't solve all our transportation needs. However, we have no choice but to make these essential investments, because not to do so would add to the costs in the future, creating a burden on our children.
We recognize the need for all projects we fund to meet strict criteria -- that they are genuinely essential and rational choices. I hope the opposition can help in this process by continuing to offer constructive assistance. I acknowledge that many constructive issues were brought to my attention throughout estimates and that I intend to look into some areas.
I thank the member for Peace River South for mentioning speed limits. As I stated in estimates, I am not averse to reviewing speed limits, provided that they take safety into consideration. Safety has to be the bottom line there. Certainly there are many areas in my community that I have been complaining about for years, saying the speed limit is unrealistic. I'm not averse to looking at those any more than I am averse to looking at some in the member for Peace River South's riding as well. We have to review these things from a rational viewpoint, to see if we can in fact increase those speed limits.
You've heard a lot about photo radar. I had a member from the media the other day refer to me as the minister of photo radar, and I thought this was a little much. But I am pleased with what is happening with photo radar.
We went through the busiest and worst month in terms of traffic deaths in this province, the long weekend at the end of July. Two years ago there were five deaths on that weekend; we came through that weekend with one death. A lot of it has to do with the fact that people were slowing down, that they were driving a lot more carefully and making our highways safer. So I'm really pleased that photo radar is working, that people are slowing down, that we're reducing the accidents on our highways and making things safer. You know, I've had a lot of people actually tell me that they really appreciate the fact that the radar cameras are out there. They felt that throughout that weekend driving on our roads was actually a sane experience, that people weren't rushing in and out to pass them.
If we don't issue any tickets, then we have been successful in photo radar. I appreciate the member's comments. This is not a cash cow. This is to keep accidents off our highways and to get people to reduce their speed in unsafe areas.
My parliamentary secretary will be going into the North Peace and the South Peace and throughout the province to get some issues on 16-foot-wide trailers and bring back some recommendations to me so we can see if we can address this problem in that area.
The Motor Carrier Commission is also an issue that was brought up. I'm surprised that nobody in the opposition mentioned it at this point in time, because it was certainly brought up in estimates by a number of people who were concerned about how the Motor Carrier Commission operated. I assured them that we would be reviewing some of the issues around the Motor Carrier Commission with regard to the deregulation that must be taking place in a little while. We will be looking at those things.
I do appreciate and want to take this opportunity to thank my staff as well, because they did put in some long hours in preparing, making sure that we had the answers and getting the answers to the members opposite. I appreciate the comments from the members opposite with regard to the staff.
The estimates process gave us an opportunity to show that our primary objective is not just to serve the people but to serve them well. I think that over the years, many Highways employees throughout this province have shown that they serve the people in this province extremely well.
[ Page 1949 ]
G. Wilson: In the short time we have to respond, I intend to comment only with respect to the B.C. Ferries portion, and I will then yield to my colleague from Peace River South for the balance.
With respect to B.C. Ferries, I think that the critical issue here is one of fares and rates, and making sure that when this government does attend to changing the tariff, the tariff recognizes that distinctions have to be made between those people who are travelling for work and for medical reasons, and those who may be periodically travelling for recreation.
Similarly, the routes have to be looked at in terms of the distance and time travelled, so that there can be a consistent measure by which tariffs will be assigned and so that all people who are dependent upon the ferries recognize that they have an opportunity to travel on them as an extension of our highways, not as a commercial enterprise. To that degree, I hope the government has heard from us, and I hope we can expect some comments from the minister forthwith.
J. Weisgerber: The estimates also provided us with an opportunity to talk about B.C. Rail and some of the economic opportunities that the railway represents for, and presents to, the people of the interior of the province. I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to focus on B.C. Rail as it relates to the Peace region, to the movement of grain and to the opportunity to develop, as a far more integral part of rail business, a grain market within B.C. Rail. It was also important to talk about the service to Fort Nelson and to the forest industry all through the system.
The estimates were also an opportunity to talk about Hydro, and we used the opportunity to talk about those areas other than the Pakistan connection. I was particularly interested in the affairs of Hydro as it relates to Williston Lake and the ongoing problems with the Bennett Dam -- the sinkhole and the discharge from Williston Lake and the loss of generating capacity as a result of the spill. I think the spill was very much necessary and very much justified; I'm not being critical of the spill. But the fact of the matter is that it's going to directly impact Hydro's capacity over the next year or so. I thought that brought into much clearer focus the need for additional generating capacity within Hydro's system.
We spent some time during the estimates debate talking about independent power production, wood waste cogeneration, coal waste cogeneration, small-stream generation and those areas of electrical capacity that have been overlooked in large measure, I believe, by B.C. Hydro. So that is a thumbnail sketch of some of the key issues we covered in a very large and somewhat extended ministry debate.
C. Hansen: I want to start by complimenting the efforts and the input by the many officials from the ministry and the various Crown corporations that came to assist with the estimates process in Committee A. As a new member of this House, I was somewhat dismayed, given that this is the ministry of everything and given the many officials that had to be on hand to assist with the estimates process, that so much of their talent was left waiting for the estimates process to proceed. I think it's something that is seriously in need of review, and we should look at how this process can be better used. There's a need for an enormous amount of cooperation between all members as to how we can make sure that the time of these officials is used to the maximum advantage. Certainly it's a process of accountability, and we want the accountability, but at the same time I think there's a way we can make sure that the time of those officials is spent most efficiently. We'd certainly be willing to work with the minister over the coming year to see that happen in the years to come.
The other thing that I think was emphasized in the debates and that certainly became apparent to me was the need for the activation of the Crown Corporations Committee, which is a far better vehicle, I think, for the accountability of the Crown corporations and the way that this House can seek accountability from the many Crown corporations that fall under this ministry. Again, I think it's an area in which there will be cooperation from this side of the House to see that process get underway.
In the debates, which were at times tense and at times seemed to have been drawn out, there were many times that really emphasized some of the philosophical differences that we have, and there were times when we just had to agree to disagree on issues. The extent to which debt should be built up to build infrastructure in this province and the extent to which taxpayers' money should be used to actually subsidize job creation in this province are areas where we did see some fundamental differences of philosophy. In the end, after considerable debate, we had to respect each other's differences as to our philosophical approaches to those types of issues.
[7:00]
Finally, in the area of economic development, we've heard a lot from the government, over these past weeks, on how we compare to other provinces in Canada and how British Columbia has one of the strongest economies. Certainly I recognize that; we do have a very strong economy. But as we pointed out during the estimates debates, if we were in the province of Newfoundland, we may not have the strongest economy, but as long as we were maximizing the economic potential and the economy of our province, we would be doing our job. I think that's what we have to look at in this province. It's not being the best of ten provinces; it's maximizing the economic potential we have in this province. I think there are some ways to go. We tried to put forward some constructive suggestions in that area, and we will certainly continue to do that. We look forward to working with the minister and his officials in the months and years to come.
Hon. D. Miller: I want to start by saying that notwithstanding the sometimes rigorous debate that took place in the estimates process and my occasionally responding to that, my view is that we have dealt with some of the fundamental issues that this province faces. I used a phrase during the estimates that I sometimes thought it was appropriate to say -- that Parkinson's law was in fact proven. Sometimes, I think it's appropriate to say, there was perhaps more heat than light shed on certain issues. But that's fair enough. That's political discourse, and I don't fundamentally disagree with that.
I do take the point of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena with respect to a process that could perhaps be more productive. I am interested in that, as well -- not from the point of view of avoiding political debate, which I love, but rather to have that debate, to the degree that it is possible in this place, be somewhat more of a rational debate. But fair enough; those are issues we'll undoubtedly pursue in the years ahead.
Turning back to it, I agree that some fundamental differences were defined during the estimates process, and I'm not sure that clarity with respect to positions is absolute. When you get beneath the surface of some of the political
[ Page 1950 ]
sentiments expressed on the other side, I suspect that you would find a willingness to acknowledge some of the efforts of this government with respect to the economy. I think that's true. Maybe I'm being charitable, maybe not.
Going back to some of the fundamentals, it seems to me that we are in a stage of our development in this province where -- I don't want to use a trite phrase, a cliché or anything else -- British Columbia is poised to some degree for a great leap forward. It's true that we have the most dynamic economy and, in some senses, the most interesting province nowadays, notwithstanding the general debates in terms of the national unity question. This is not to denigrate that at all, but it is my sense that this is in some respects a decade for British Columbia within Canada, and I notice that the pundits are saying that to some degree. In that respect, we may be in an unique position as a growing province with a dynamic economy to show some leadership on the national stage and to challenge the status quo. I mean that sincerely.
We have institutions in this province that have served us very well. They were institutions that by and large were created in the fifties and sixties in a very populist vein, and they have served the interests we're talking about, whether it's B.C. Hydro or B.C. Ferries. But the status quo can never, ever prevail, and the challenge for British Columbians is looking to the future, looking at the institutions that have served us so well and making the right decisions now so that those institutions serve us well in the future.
I know we've been engrossed in the debate around B.C. Hydro and the Raiwind project, for example, but to some degree, we avoided the really central debate around B.C. Hydro, and that is its continuing role as a state monopoly. That is a challenge we must face.
Similarly, but perhaps somewhat to a lesser degree, there's the role of B.C. Ferries. It is a marvellous fleet of ferries, built in a very dynamic period of growth in the sixties, which must now be replaced. A strategic decision has been made with respect to that replacement.
These are indeed very challenging issues and questions, and I'm not saying that on the government side we have absolutely every answer to these problems. Rather, in a challenging or an engaging way, I am saying that these are the fundamental issues that this parliament will grapple with into the second millennium. The year 2000 is approaching, for those of us of my age, all too rapidly.
I do look forward sincerely, as a British Columbian and as an elected member of this House, to engaging members on the other side and on my own side with respect to some of these questions. The decisions we make in this term will have fundamental importance for the generations to come. There are good ideas. I don't think anybody has a monopoly on good ideas, quite frankly, and I'm open to those ideas.
As members know by now, I'm also open to the vigorous debate that occasionally surfaces with respect to political issues, and I always look forward to that opportunity. I want to congratulate the members opposite for the estimates process and the questions that were asked. I didn't agree with all the approaches taken, and at times I was probably somewhat rough or whatever the language is. If I did offend in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I certainly apologize for any offence that members might have taken.
Going back to the issues, I think I've sincerely tried to identify in a very general and simplistic way the kinds of challenges that all of us face here in this province, but believe me, the future is very, very exciting.
I'll close by saying I wish all of us well in the years to come as we try to deal with these very important questions.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call the summary of completed estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
G. Abbott: We had, in consideration of the Municipal Affairs estimates, a very useful and thorough discussion of issues which are currently of collective interest to municipalities and regional districts in this province. I want to begin by complimenting the minister and his staff on making the Municipal Affairs estimates a very productive process.
Among the most prominent of the various issues that we discussed during the Municipal Affairs estimates was, I think, first and foremost, the issue of the implementation of Bill 55, a bill which provides for reductions in railway taxation within municipalities and regional districts in this province. In my opinion -- and I suspect the minister might share this -- the fair and equitable implementation of Bill 55 is probably, perhaps undoubtedly, the most significant challenge currently facing the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
This bill aims to provide total tax relief to the railways of $7.5 million annually, while at the same time limiting reductions in tax revenue to any given jurisdiction to 6 percent or less. Those are the twin aims that are trying to be achieved through Bill 55, and I suspect it's not going to be easy to resolve the two. What is required, in effect, is a set of remedial measures customized to fit each jurisdiction -- a complex and, I think, time-consuming undertaking. The ministry has committed to completing this undertaking by mid-October, a rather herculean effort in my estimation. This process is also complicated by the fact that utilities other than railways -- for example, hydro, telephone, gas transmission lines, and so on -- have also been affected by Bill 55.
It appears that this was in large measure an unanticipated consequence, and certainly there are no remedial measures in Bill 55 to offset revenue losses. Losses, as we've discussed at some length, could be quite severe in some jurisdictions in this regard, and I trust that the minister and his staff will ensure that this problem will be speedily resolved. Most importantly, I urge that the implementation of Bill 55 be done well rather than hastily to meet particular deadlines. Proper consultation with UBCM and with the various local government jurisdictions around this province is essential.
The second major issue among local governments revolves around problems posed by the devolution of former federal airports to local authorities. There are some legislative provisions required in order to make this transition, and I'm satisfied that the minister will be advancing the necessary legislation in the next session of the Legislature to accomplish this aim.
I'm pleased also with the minister's assurances that he will introduce the legislation necessary to provide the Municipal Finance Authority with the authority to extend its leasing pool to include universities, schools and hospitals.
A final issue common among local governments is building inspection liability. I appreciate the ministry's efforts to improve the situation in this regard, and hopefully these efforts will bear fruit. There remains, however, a significant discrepancy in the way in which this issue is dealt with on the one hand in the municipal lap and on the other hand in the
[ Page 1951 ]
Vancouver Charter. I know this is a very tough issue to resolve, but I know equally that this issue is not about to go away.
In conclusion, I very much enjoyed the exchanges with the minister. Not only did we determine that we had a common admiration of the former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, but as well, we both noted that despite our rather obvious charisma that is so prominently exuded in discussions here, we had both gone through the agony of a mayoralty defeat. As well, and I suppose most importantly, we share a common admiration of the capable and hard-working staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
I'd like to thank the minister, and I'd like to thank the staff for addressing, in a straightforward and thorough manner, the many questions that we put forward.
Hon. D. Miller: One is tempted to wax philosophical at these moments. I'll try to avoid the temptation. I certainly am impressed with the calibre of the staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It seems to me that they are able and very adept at their task. I think, as a result of that, that the relationship between the municipal and regional levels of government and the provincial level of government is very good. I also want to pay some tribute to my predecessor in this portfolio -- the former minister, Darlene Marzari -- for the extraordinary efforts I think she put into the job.
But I also want, in the same vein as I talked in the last estimates, to pose a bit of a challenge. That is, can any level of government in this country today think that it is free from meeting the kinds of challenges that our modern economy has brought forward? The answer, in my view, is a very obvious no.
In British Columbia we have had to deal with the impact of decisions made at the federal level. This is clear when you talk about railways and about the impact of elimination of the Crow rate. We look at British Columbia's competitive position as an exporting province, and we are trying to take measures to ensure the continued economic health of those industries, both the railways and exporters, generally.
There are no simple answers to some of the very tough questions that we face in various regions of the province. In the northern regions, clearly that was evident around B.C. Rail. I say that with respect to the issues brought forward in the discussion. I do digress from Municipal Affairs for a moment, but there is a commonality of interest with respect to northern members, regardless of political stripe. As a northerner, I want to say that I want to engage all members in discussing those questions.
[7:15]
No level of government can hope to live in a cocoon and say: "Keep me harmless from the world and the changes that are going on around me." If there is a challenge for municipal and regional levels of government, it is just that question. They will have to deal with -- and cannot escape dealing with -- the economic reality of what's happening in our economy. Some of those changes are troubling. I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of both the provincial and municipal governments to deal with those challenges, including the very complex issue of the application of Bill 55 and the reduction in certain railway taxation. So I think the road ahead might not be paved and very smooth. I think, as we react in terms of what the federal government has done, we have to work with municipalities to deal with British Columbia's fiscal challenges.
I continue to be somewhat dismayed that when the federal government vacates the field -- as they've done with lighthouses, airports and so many other issues -- despite our best attempts to move in and try to work with municipal and regional governments, to try to assist them to put together plans that make sense, there appears to be some tendency to say: "The problem is solely one for the provincial government to solve." I reject that. That cannot be the case. We cannot, as a provincial government, simply say as a general policy statement that wherever there is a problem created by another level of government, we have the capacity -- or the fiscal capacity or whatever -- to step in and solve that problem. These are shared responsibilities. Anyone who thinks that sort of cranking up the heat on the province will get the desired result should really think again.
The challenge, I guess, for all levels of government -- and we'll have our scraps -- is to recognize the modern issues that we face in this economy, which are not easy, and to try to work in a reasonably cooperative manner to meet those challenges. So I do look forward to the events ahead -- September in Penticton is probably not too bad; I was up there today, and hopefully it might be a bit cooler -- and to meeting representatives of municipal government, which I have a background in.
Finally, I'd really like to congratulate the member for Shuswap. As a new member in this House, I think he's acquitted himself very, very well with respect to these portfolios, and obviously brings the kind of background -- in fact, a bit of a shared
Hon. P. Ramsey: Finally for this evening, I call the summary of completed estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
R. Neufeld: Although I didn't participate in all the discussions surrounding Small Business and Tourism, I did participate in parts of it, and I noticed that the minister became remarkably different during Tourism estimates. He tried to copy the previous minister, I believe -- Mr. Barlee -- in being so joyous and everything about the Tourism ministry. In fact, having talked earlier about cash cows from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I might remind the minister that the previous Minister of Tourism went to the north, to Fort St. John, and specifically made a speech, and he did say that the north was nothing but a cash cow for the south. So it all just kind of fits in, and I just want to bring that to the minister's attention.
There are certainly some difficulties with small business across the province of British Columbia, and there are also some challenges. Obviously, there are lots of businesses that are starting up, and on the same hand, there are a number of bankruptcies. In fact, British Columbia leads Canada in bankruptcies, and I guess that goes hand in hand with the fact that we probably have more incorporations than any other province in Canada also. So it goes both ways. But the taxation levels that the small business people talk to me about are definitely hindrances to small business and do pose a bit of a problem.
We have some tremendous opportunities in British Columbia in the promotion of tourism: a huge European
[ Page 1952 ]
market and, of course, the Asian market. Both markets are huge and will play a big role -- or a huge role -- in the province of British Columbia in the coming years in tourism. I think about $7 billion this year is expected. But that industry is also facing some difficulties in taxation and overregulation. It doesn't seem to matter what venue you look at, with this government, regulation seems to be the norm. It seems to be something that most small businesses and tourism operators say that they have some problems with -- the overregulation and some of the punitive taxation.
But I was pleased that the minister looked favourably at new ideas that other members brought forward, at how we could promote tourism or how we could make it more attractive for small business to move to the province to start up, and that he looked at women in small business and the role they play. I was certainly pleased to see that the minister was willing to look favourably at that, and also, specifically for the constituency of Peace River North, to look favourably at an agreement between B.C., the Yukon and Alaska in promoting tourism in that area.
I. Chong: Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that there was indeed a healthy and a productive exchange on the estimates in Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and I do appreciate that. The first item that we agreed upon, of course, was that the former minister was indeed a colourful and an enthusiastic advocate of tourism, and left behind big shoes to fill. So we do look forward to working with the new minister in the spring when she returns, and we wish her strength in her current struggles with illness.
However, I want to thank the current temporary minister and the ministry staff for their answers. The minister was certainly amiable, and for the most part supplied us with the information we requested.
We discussed small business and, in particular, the programs in place and whether they were, in fact, effective. We looked for program evaluations, and we will be following up to get that information from the ministry. We inquired about the commitments that this government has to offer to small business in providing them with more training and more access to capital and, of course, to continual communications with the small business sector so that their voices will always be heard.
Hon. Speaker, we touched on bankruptcies in B.C., as well, which the minister and I did not reach agreement on. He felt that bankruptcies were down, and he even produced one news article about that. But I was able to find at least six articles written since the beginning of this year stating otherwise. So as I said, we will just agree to disagree.
I know that the minister agrees that small business is vital to our economic well-being, but I find it amusing that this government was patting itself on the back when it gave a tax reduction to small business. How soon they have forgotten that it was this government that increased small business income tax in 1992.
On the matter of tourism, the minister was proud to take credit for the over $6 billion industry that this province enjoys, but he did forget about the other factors, such as our devalued Canadian dollar and the aftermath of the 1994 Commonwealth Games, which others have participated in as well. I know the minister recognizes that for tourism to grow, adequate funding must be available. When we asked for a commitment, he was not able to offer any assurance that this ministry would not be making any reductions in this area. We do recognize that due to fiscal restraints, cutbacks in some areas need to be made. But in this particular area, the more dollars spent, the more are returned to our economy. Simply put, the more you spend, the more you will make.
We only spent a mere six hours discussing the estimates, which did not allow too much time for a healthy debate on culture, but I do have to admit that I was comforted by the minister at various times throughout the estimates that there were, indeed, not to be any significant changes to the culture industry in this province. My colleagues on this side of the House will continue to work with the minister and the ministry over the next few years to bring forward good, sound, fiscally responsible recommendations.
Again I offer my thanks to staff for the professionalism they have shown during the estimates process, and also to the minister for the work he undertook in the absence of his colleague.
Hon. D. Miller: Certainly no discussion of this would be complete without some reference to the former minister, who left behind a lot of things, including a lot of quotes in Hansard. This minister will not be guilty of the same thing.
I thought there was some fairly good discussion relative to the issue of small business. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the members opposite. I guess, in looking at the statistics -- and I'm not trying to use this as a particular forum for anything -- surely it's worthy of note that in July, 19,000 jobs were created in Canada, and 16,000 of them are here in British Columbia. Someone might acknowledge, even in the smallest respect, that perhaps things are not going so badly here in British Columbia. Does it not occur to them that there should be some reasonable level of confidence about the business climate in British Columbia? Surely those statistics give a sense of pride for all members, whether they're on the opposite side of the House or on this side of the House, and they would not seek to look for
So at a time when a particular sector is doing extremely well, when we're leading the nation with respect to job creation and all the rest of it, I must confess that I was somewhat puzzled by the request from the opposition. It seems to contradict fundamental economic theory. I'm not an economist, Mr. Speaker, but surely when an industry is doing very, very well, when there is growth and new jobs and all the rest of
I believe there are economists of note -- John Maynard Keynes comes to mind, probably a few others -- who might argue that in those times, governments should reduce their spending. Why spend money when somebody is doing very well, when there are all kinds of areas in our province where people are struggling? Surely there is some relative sense of priority with respect to the opposition's request for this government to spend money.
My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways has in his catalogue a request from the opposition to spend $2.5 billion more than what's in the current budget. Mr. Speaker, did I miss something? I'm sure I heard the cries of criticism about government spending coming from that side of the House. It does create a puzzle in one's mind.
[ Page 1953 ]
I'm not the only critic here. I suppose the public is a critic. Really, when we've introduced tax reductions for the small business community, a reduction in the tax rate and a tax-free holiday for new small businesses starting up, how can members opposite -- and I know, I wrote their words down -- talk about the "punitive tax regime" for small business? Surely even criticism should be subjected to some criticism.
[7:30]
I would toss that back to the members opposite. When we've introduced regulation reform, one-stop shopping and a variety of ways to assist small business, surely there would be some, even small, recognition of that. Yet I find, in the vein of critics everywhere in the
I don't want to be negative, and I've not tried to be negative. I think I've tried, in a bit of a humorous vein, to illustrate that it's easy to be a critic and much harder to be responsible. Perhaps that is a bit of a lesson for all of us. I've been a critic, and I'm quite critical, but I think one should acknowledge where there has been some good performance, certainly with respect to new job creation and the role of the small business community.
On the tourism side, again, there are others who I think have done a superior job. Certainly the former minister, as a booster of British Columbia, was outstanding. I think he was recognized for that and will continue to promote British Columbia as one of the outstanding destinations in the world. There is no place -- and I've travelled somewhat -- place that can compare to British Columbia. We've got it all here, and we're going to continue to promote that. We're continuing to promote the development of things like the film industry, where we see the potential for huge new job creation in the film sector. Wherever there's an opportunity, we want to be there and work with the private sector to promote British Columbia and British Columbia business.
I think we're doing reasonably well, but I'll close by saying that the same arguments I've used in responding to the other critics' areas apply here. The world economy is so dynamic, so changeable, that we in British Columbia have
There are other economists that I won'
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That concludes the summary of estimates.
I call on the Government House Leader.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and I thank all members for their very thoughtful comments on the estimates that we've already concluded.
I'd like to call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we'll be considering the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. In this chamber, Committee B will consider the estimates of the office of the Premier.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On vote 8: office of the Premier, $2,409,000 (continued).
G. Wilson: I followed with a great deal of interest the discussion to this point with respect to these estimates, and I want to perhaps move the discussions with this Premier in a slightly different direction for a very brief period of time before I would yield to my colleague from Peace River North.
Certainly within these estimates, and recognizing the latitude of these estimates, it's clear that the jurisdiction of a Premier is spelled out fairly clearly with respect to the executive council and the degree to which the Premier has authority over government. I will it leave to other members of this chamber to question in some detail the Premier's role with respect to that. I want to limit my questions to a much more fundamental role that the Premier has as the first minister of this government -- that is, the role that this first minister has with respect to the people of British Columbia in relationship to the first ministers of the other provinces and to the federal government.
I wanted to ask, really, three lines of questioning. The first has to do with the degree to which the people of British Columbia are desperate now for leadership. They're desperate for leadership not just with respect to how this province is going to fare but right across this country with respect to the overall well-being of this nation. I do have some questions on the degree to which this Premier is seen by the people of British Columbia to be -- and indeed has a capacity and role as -- the first minister of this government, and on the degree to which the Premier has a responsibility in that regard.
Notwithstanding the rather entertaining commentary that we heard earlier on from the Premier with respect to the well-being of the province financially -- I don't take issue with much of what was said, as I think we can recognize that the province is doing well financially -- it is clear to me that the country seems to be floundering on a number of issues. The first one has to do with the seeming inability we have to knock down trade barriers that exist within this country and to come up with some kind of understanding of the shared power relationship that we should have with the federal government and the province. As a result of that seeming inability to knock down those barriers, given the fact we are moving toward a continentalization of our economy, the federal government seems to be moving us almost hell-bent for leather into a harmonized economic and social and possibly political system with our North American counterparts, Mexico and the United States. Somewhere we have to have leadership that starts to address these issues in a more fundamental and perhaps more philosophical way than we have seen.
[ Page 1954 ]
I wonder to what extent the Premier sees that role in his office, and what the Premier's thinking is with respect to that role. The people are desperate for this. They are clearly not getting it on the national stage, and if we don't start to take charge, I really fear where we are going to end up if we allow this continued continentalization to occur. I wonder if we could hear from the Premier on that.
Hon. G. Clark: In response to the member, it's tempting to go on at some length. It would be very hard for me not to do that, because I think the member has hit on what may be one of the fundamental issues that we face. I'll try to give -- not at great length -- some brief comments with respect to that.
What has happened with the Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney revolution is a fundamental rewrite of the rules of the game. In fact, public policy has not caught up with those changing international rules -- neither, I would submit, has public opinion or the average person. There is a kind of hegemony of opinion leaders that all this free trade is a good thing, and there is an unquestioning view of conventional wisdom that we should move in this direction. While that may or may not be correct, they don't realize that it has fundamentally impacted on the government's ability to intervene in the economy. Some may say that's a good, in its own right, but I say this much more carefully than that.
Democracy is being subjugated to the mobility of capital to an extent that has never been the case before, probably in history. With technological change, the mobility of capital and the lack of requirement to physically locate manufacturing and other operations in a particular locale, with the sort of increasing footloose nature of the means of production and the ability of capital to move quickly, it means that there is an inevitable view. Again, the inevitable logic of this is that we must drive down living standards and harmonize our laws, taxes and rules to meet the competition in this new global environment where the limits on the state, to protect industry and workers, is much more restricted than probably at any time in modern history.
I think those are the facts, and that is the big challenge for government, in particular a social democratic government who wants to work in a market way with the market but also wants to try to protect our social programs, our environment, our quality of life and other things. On the other hand, many of the public -- and I think this is a good thing, not a bad thing -- are questioning: why can't the government fix this problem? Why doesn't it just intervene? They haven't caught up, literally, to this revolution in trade policy that has been wrought by elites and politicians -- particularly right-wing ones, but really everybody -- in the western world. Let me give you a local example, and this is one that is not entirely on point.
For most of our history in British Columbia, up until the mid-eighties or early eighties, we used to have a policy that said that if you are bidding on government work in British Columbia and you are within 5 percent of your competitor and you are from British Columbia, you got the job. It was called the 5 percent preference: we are going to give a preference to British Columbia firms that bid on government work. That is technically illegal. Maybe that's too strong a word. That contravenes every way the western world is moving in, the entire direction -- which is to eliminate that.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, they still do it in the Yukon, and I say more credit to them. Perhaps we should look at these questions. That flies contrary to every single major policy initiative by governments and all of the major powers, certainly in North America -- but really, this whole change. So government's ability to intervene, to protect domestic industry, domestic workers, the quality of our environment and the quality of our things, is hampered by the subjugation of democratic rights to the laws of the global marketplace.
All of that has not been a subject of public debate -- not just in British Columbia but anywhere. So the public is increasingly alienated from government which seems to have less power than it had before and the public are demanding action from governments. Meanwhile, governments, in another guise, aided and abetted by the media, by business leaders and by others, have given away their ability to intervene in some of these areas. I could speak for a long time on this, but I really do think these are fundamental questions which are very challenging indeed and inevitably lead, increasingly, to a global or, at least at minimum, to a continental harmonization of environmental standards, taxes and standards of living.
This is inevitable, because how can we in British Columbia have higher environmental standards than our competitors in Washington State? How can we in British Columbia have higher taxes on the rich and on corporations than we have in the states immediately to the south of us or in Mexico? How can we in British Columbia have a social safety net, a medicare system and others, paid for by tax money when our competitors don't have them? How can we have tougher pollution control regulations on pulp mills here in British Columbia than in Mexico, when we're competing in an increasingly global environment?
[7:45]
That, I submit, is the fundamental challenge for Canada and for governments, particularly the social democratic ones, and also for working people and the middle class in terms of protecting the kind of Canadian values and institutions we have built up. It's not with a global marketplace or by subjugating the collective will of the people of Canada to the global competitive marketplace. Rather, it's the reverse: Canadians, regardless of political party, banding together democratically and choosing to do something differently and collectively in this country -- different, say, from our neighbours in the United States and from other parts of the world, and completely unique.
What we have tried to do -- these are the questions -- is say that the rules have changed, and we have to carve out a different agenda. That's why we're investing more in education, so we can have a globally competitive workforce. That's why we've invested more in infrastructure than many people would who were concerned about debt -- to make an efficient transportation system. That's why we've invested more than ever before in our forest resource, because it isn't mobile and is something where the capital can continue to be harvested in a sustainable way over time. That's why I want control of fisheries, so that we can, in fact, husband and invest in that resource in a way which makes it sustainable. That's why we've been trying to pursue a modern economic development strategy in the face of the changes happening all around us. By the way -- not to give a commercial as I did earlier -- we've been quite strikingly successful in doing so in the face of the changes taking place in the global environment, in the global economy and in the global rules that we're now facing.
So, the question the member asked is, really: can we as a province, or can I as a first minister from the richest and increasingly the most successful province in Canada, have an
[ Page 1955 ]
influence on the national debate in such a fashion that we don't follow the inevitable course that I think flows from these changes over the last decade, and that is to drive us down to the lowest common denominator. I think the short answer is that we hope to try to do that. I think the honest answer is that it's going to be extremely difficult to do so in the face of the fundamental changes that have taken place -- NAFTA being the most prominent, but more than NAFTA, even the GATT rules and everything around the role of the government in trying to do things in the interest of the public good or the common good in the face of competitive pressure internationally.
I think we have made some progress in that. To tie it into the constitutional area, I have been saying that if we don't save institutions like medicare and say these are Canadian values and Canadian traditions and things that we are going to stand up for in the face of pressure for global harmonization and a reduction in our standards, user fees and the like -- things that the Liberals campaigned on in the last election -- then we undermine the role and the legitimacy of the national government in the face of other pressures -- namely, the separatist pressure from the government of Quebec.
Again, I'm sorry I've segued into this, but I know the member has a passion in this area. If this country does not represent something different, if this country does not have a national standard with respect to health care and a national program, if this country does not represent high-quality education, some national standards around what it means to be
If we undermine the government's ability to have those kinds of programs which Canadians define as part of their national identity, and if we lead to an inexorable decline in our standards, moving down to harmonize with, say, the United States, then I think we undermine very fundamentally the legitimacy of the country. I think not just Quebec but other Canadians will start wondering what this country has to offer if all of the national symbols which we've built up collectively as a country, regardless of political party, start being undermined by this drive to harmonize our standards and to eliminate the ability of government to intervene -- which is really the product of many of those changes over the last decade.
I for one intend to try to pursue quite aggressively -- hopefully not in quite as academic a way as I have here -- at the national level the need for Canada to develop on its own and to support systematically the kinds of social programs which Canadians want to protect and which in the end give people an identity as a nation and give people a reason why the country is worth saving. I think those kinds of issues are tied together, and I fear that with the country just kind of drifting along, not just constitutionally but economically, and with the fiscal agenda of the federal government -- with the rules of the game changed -- then we are going to drift into a situation where we undermine our national institutions and our social programs, where we have a separatist threat in Quebec, and where the federal government and other governments lose the moral authority, the moral legitimacy of government, to pursue that agenda which Canadians actually want to see pursued. That, in fact, will potentially -- not to be apocalyptic about it -- lead to the undermining of the country.
G. Wilson: I don't take issue with much of what the Premier said. I do want to try and pull this back a little bit, specifically to the question of the estimates and where the Premier, in terms of his role as first minister, may find himself.
In response -- and I'll be very brief -- I think it's fair to say that if we were to turn the clock back to 1867 and look at the conditions that exist today with respect to the overwhelming drive toward continental influence and continentalism and the so-called free trade, which is anything but free, Canada would not exist as a country today. This country was built by resisting those continental influences and by making sure that we built, from coast to coast, a representation of what this country is all about.
I do lament that in this Legislative Assembly we don't have the opportunity frequently enough to elevate the debate to talk about and debate these issues, because I think we should. I think the people of British Columbia expect nothing less from us -- to not always be so focused on the nitty-gritty of whether we spend a hundred dollars here or a hundred dollars there, which we tend to get into. If you go back through Hansard, one question in the estimates is about how many napkins were actually sold on the B.C. ferries or given away on B.C. ferries or whatever. The public does want to know, philosophically and in principle, where we're coming from and how we're going to address some of these critical issues.
The first minister is going to have an opportunity to take on some of these very critical issues in the very near future, because there is a first ministers' conference coming up in Jasper. One of the issues on the agenda -- and this Premier will be representing all the people of British Columbia, not just the government -- is a redefinition of the relationship between the federal government and the provinces with respect to a whole host of arrangements that we have made throughout Confederation.
I bring to the Premier's attention something that is very specific with respect to the erosion, if I can use that word, of responsibility that has occurred by the federal government. You talk about national symbols and the need to protect national symbols. This is the federal government and the Prime Minister that allowed the very symbol of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Hon. Chair, I realize you're wondering where this is going in terms of these particular estimates.
The Chair: As long as it's not Mickey Mouse.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, you're quite right; this is not a Mickey Mouse issue. I couldn't have said it better myself. This is a fundamental issue, because in Fort McLeod they tried to build a statue to one of the forefathers of that particular community, who happened to be a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When they wanted to build a statue so that individual was there in full uniform, they had to write away to Anaheim, California, to get the Disney Co. to give them permission to build a statue. That's a fact! You know what? From Canadians there was barely a whimper, because we've become so immune now -- because we're constantly pounded away at by this notion that somehow the Americana of Canada is now an accepted format -- that we forget there is a real need for us to have consistent national policies.
So I come to the Premier and ask him, in light of my comments, how we can avoid the kind of off-loading we're
[ Page 1956 ]
seeing now. This Premier will have an opportunity, when he goes to that first ministers' conference, to talk about this redefinition of power relationship.
How do we stop the next destaffing of lighthouses, clearly a responsibility that the federal government should be and is not maintaining? It's going to put people out of work. What's our option? Our option is to increase the tax on the people of British Columbia, who are already taxed enough, to pay to the federal government the money that's necessary to keep those light stations staffed. The federal government simply says: "No way, because we've got an automated process; we're now going to shift our responsibilities into central Canada."
This is a big issue. This Premier speaks for all British Columbians. I believe that if you were to poll all British Columbians right now, especially those who live on the coast, who make their livelihood off the sea and spend time on the sea, they would almost to an individual say we must maintain a number of staffed light stations on this coast. The move to this automated weather-predicting system is not going to be good enough. So I ask the first minister: what is there in this role of Premier that might be done about that?
Hon. G. Clark: Not to be glib, but this is the fundamental question that we face. I look to members from all sides of the House for advice on it. I give you my view. As I think British Columbians know, I have been very forthright in my demands on behalf of all British Columbians on some issues with respect to fisheries. Again, some of the eastern media outlets were offended by the way in which I handled it, and I understand that. I'm not happy about that.
My view is that we've got to get their attention to the fact that British Columbians demand fair treatment. As they off-load their responsibilities, whether it's fisheries or lighthouses, they have to be held accountable by British Columbians, their government and their members. We've got to try to work to make sure that while the federal government must cut back -- and we all agree with that; we understand their fiscal pressures -- they must do it in a way that doesn't unfairly single out British Columbia. Too often that has been the case.
If I can answer, though, in a slightly more heretical way, I do think that it would
That's the abstract question. The reality is that right now we have an untenable situation. The federal government got involved in a lot of areas of provincial jurisdiction -- lots and lots of areas -- in the sixties and seventies. They did it through their superior spending power. They bribed the provinces -- that's too pejorative; they worked with the provinces -- to cost-share programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. They are now withdrawing funding sort of universally, but trying to retain their influence and control over every single area that they used to fund. As they withdraw their funding in every area, the system isn't supportable. The centre cannot hold, as they say. They cannot continue to demand national or federal standards in areas of provincial jurisdiction in every area as they withdraw funding from every area.
[8:00]
What I would suggest to the federal government -- and I say this is heretical -- is that they should say that they will not fund some things at all: "Provinces, they're all yours. We'll get out entirely." Then, in other things, they should say they are going to fund them at 50 cents on the dollar and ensure that we have national programs which meet the test of high-quality standards in national programs that Canadians expect. My answer to them would be that they should fund medicare sufficiently and significantly, and they should ensure that very high national standards are worked out with the provinces. They should fund it all at 50 cents on the dollar.
Then, in other areas, even if it's painful for British Columbia, they should maybe say: "We're not going to fund universities. Sorry, that's a provincial jurisdiction." They could say they can't afford it or that they aren't going to fund some other thing, or whatever the reason is. They should decide which areas are national institutions that Canadians want funded. They should ensure that there is requisite funding for those. In other things, they should probably -- and it may be unfortunate, frankly -- get out of it and leave it to the provinces.
What we have now is not tenable. They have their fingers in every single area. They are withdrawing funding universally in every area and are continuing to try to impose unrealistic federal standards on every single area of public life. There is no more fundamental re-examination of our federation to fit our fiscal cloth. There is no real engagement of the people and the governments of the provinces to redefine our federation in a way which works better.
Frankly, that's what I will be pursuing. That's what I pursue privately and will be pursuing publicly, as I am today. It may not be popular, but I believe that the only way we're going to deal with it is by getting the federal government engaged in some things and getting them completely out of other things. Where they are engaged, let's make sure we have some significant progress so we can then go to the people of Quebec or the people of Canada and say: "This is something which, regardless of where you live, regardless of your income, regardless of whether you're employed or not, regardless of your age, you're going to get, because you're Canadian and because the federal government and the provinces are funding it jointly."
That's the kind of initiative, in a broad sense, that I'm going to pursue very aggressively. I do think -- I more than think; I believe -- that this current drift and this current approach from the federal government are not sustainable and are going to lead to consequences which I don't think any Canadians want.
G. Wilson: More than simply the pursuit of the kinds of initiatives that the Premier is talking about, certainly what I'm hearing and what I witness as I travel around the province is that people are desperate for leadership with vision. They don't even have to buy into 100 percent of what that vision is; they just need to know that somebody out there cares, that somebody is going in some direction that is clear, that they have a goal, and that they have a view of what this province is to be in a new and renewed Canada. They want to know what that is, and they are vitally interested in getting into that debate.
Notwithstanding what we might hear from federal politicians who say that Canadians aren't interested in that, they are
[ Page 1957 ]
critically interested because most of them are deeply caring about this country and want something done about it and are lamenting the fact that nothing seems to be taking place at the federal level. We have an opportunity -- the first minister in this province has an unparalleled opportunity -- to take forward to the national stage a vision from this province. I don't need to go back in history and talk about how that has been done in the past, but Premier Clyde Wells, who I am fortunate to have as a friend and who I have talked with from time to time and continue to talk with from time to time, took a view from his province's perspective and became an exceedingly important national figure, notwithstanding that he has never held federal office.
I would say that Gary Filmon has had a similar role to play with respect to Manitoba and has become a very important figure with respect to Canadian life. To a degree, even Frank McKenna has demonstrated -- although I haven't always agreed with the direction or policy that Mr. McKenna has taken -- a taking on of that role. Yet we have not seen that from a first minister from this province for a long, long time -- probably not since W.A.C. Bennett, who, frankly, thumbed his nose at the feds and said he wasn't going to any of their meetings, that he was going to stay home and build British Columbia, which is exactly what he did. He said, "A pox on the federal side of it. We'll do it alone in British Columbia if we have to," which is going to be our only alternative if we don't start to get engaged in what's going on at the national level.
I give this next question to the Premier in light of those remarks. We need strong national leadership. One issue I raised today in question period, which didn't seem to be of much interest to the opposition Liberals but which I think is of critical interest to the people involved in the lumber industry in British Columbia, has to do with the Ontario Liberal caucus's position to deny the opportunity for us to base our tariff-free sales on a historical record of sale.
There are some people in the industry in British Columbia who would like the issue of what the proportions will be and the degree to which some of the smaller companies can get access to that tariff-free lumber to be debated at home, but from a provincial perspective, if the Ontario lobby works in Ottawa, we are in serious trouble in this industry here. We're talking about billions of dollars now. I realize that might not be as politically sexy as talking about whether somebody fudged on a number in an election campaign, but it is more critical to the well-being and long-term stability of the economy of British Columbia. I need to hear from the Premier that we have a handle on this issue and that this first minister in this first ministers' conference is going to engage with the other Premiers to make sure that that agenda is not advanced on the national stage.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I essentially agree with everything the member said. I think this is an issue which British Columbians won't tolerate. I've made that point known to the Prime Minister. As you know, members of the opposition party were asked to sign correspondence with Members of Parliament. I will be raising it at the premiers' conference. I want to be clear that it is a premiers' conference, not a first ministers' conference in the sense of federal-provincial.
There will be some discussion. We are looking for alliances with other provinces. Obviously the issue likely to be in conflict is the one of B.C. and Ontario in particular, or other provinces and Ontario. The Liberal caucus from Ontario is the one pursuing its agenda item, which is to act politically in a very important matter like this.
If I can be positive for a minute, I think we are making progress, because people know that British Columbians are united. I think we are making progress on the fisheries issue. I don't want to overstate that, because we only have some processes in place, but we're making some progress. The federal government and the Prime Minister in particular are becoming more sensitized to British Columbia. I am concerned about the influence of the Ontario Liberal caucus and their attempt at playing naked politics with this issue, but I also remain somewhat optimistic that with the united front from British Columbia, we can in fact influence and impact on the decision in a positive fashion.
One of the things that I think is a challenge for me, in keeping with your remarks -- as I said, I agree with them -- is to ensure that British Columbia's agenda is not just a reactive one or one which appears to British Columbians and to the rest of the country as simply an attempt to exercise greater power or jurisdiction or to complain so that this magnificent province, which is so wealthy and is generating all of the jobs in the country, isn't perceived to be simply demanding more -- the spoiled-child-of-Confederation notion. The challenge is to pursue these agendas in a very forthright fashion and stand up for British Columbia in a tough way, but also to try to pursue some of these other national issues. We can hopefully play a constructive role in ensuring the survival of the country and in providing some leadership -- perhaps where the federal government isn't -- in some areas which I think British Columbians want us to pursue. Medicare is a good example of that; so are others.
That's a bit of a balancing act for me, I'd say to all members of the House, because clearly my stance on the fisheries issue, which I feel is appropriate and I will continue to
I think it's a question of pursuing and prioritizing British Columbia's concerns and commitments. When we get some success in terms of working with the federal government, we should not hesitate to say that -- to talk about it, to celebrate it, if you will -- and show that the country is working for British Columbians when we stand united and together, and also to pursue in a constructive fashion some of the national issues of the day. That's a challenge over the next few years: to try to participate in a way which does not minimize or compromise my strong views or British Columbians' strong views on issues, but in a way that leads to constructive dialogue and constructive nation building in the country.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena rises on a matter.
C. Hansen: Hon Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Hansen: Hon. Chair, in the gallery this evening are two residents of the wonderful constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena. I hope the House will welcome Mr. Gerald McGavin and Mr. Bob Young.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the indulgence of the House on some of these questions. I think these are critically important issues to British Columbians. I only really have a couple more questions, and I would then yield to other members.
It seems to me that the Premier hit upon a real chord when he suggested that there was a balance and a problem
[ Page 1958 ]
with the sort of spoiled-child concept -- something that Quebec has been labelled with, because they have been very much in the forefront of: "It's our way or we separate or we quit or we leave or whatever." That may or may not be a fair analysis of the reality of what it is to the people of Quebec, but clearly people do want to know that there is a national plan and that there is some kind of agenda at work that is going to work in our favour.
Hon. Chair, I raised to the Premier that not only do we have that challenge with respect to the other provinces within Canada but we also have the problem that we have -- I know for certain -- the largest unprotected border of any nation in the world with one of the largest and most influential trading partners right to our south, which has an economy that dwarfs ours by many hundred times. Good Lord, the GNP of California is greater than that of the whole of Canada. The combined populations of New York and Newark, New Jersey, are greater than the whole of Canada. Let's put in perspective what we're dealing with in our trading partner to the south. That's the reason that every single legislator in this House and in every legislative assembly across this country, in every province, including the federal government, should be extremely mindful of the vulnerability that we face as a nation, given NAFTA, FTA and now this movement to the continentalization of our economy. We are really seriously in jeopardy, hon. Chair.
I don't mean to overemphasize or to inflate the importance of the Premier, but the Premier is the first minister in this province. As a result of that, an enormous amount of responsibility sits with that office in taking forward a vision of what this province should be in a renewed Canada. If we don't stand up and start to fight for this country pretty soon, I firmly believe it's going to be gone.
It isn't going to happen overnight with a bang and a great invasion or some military action, as might have been seen in some European countries. It's happening by degree every day. I give by way of an example the fact that in our post-secondary institutions now -- as I'm sure the Premier is aware -- the majority of teachers who are upgrading from BAs to MAs are doing so through American institutions offering American courses in Canada. They're being trained on American curriculum. They're not being trained through our universities, because they're finding the opportunities easier to go through Oregon or through the California model or through Texas. This is a big problem, because these teachers are teaching our children. And what are they teaching them? They're teaching them through a doctrine that is being advanced by a culture south of the border -- not within this border. And that's a problem if we want to keep Canada as a nation that is strong and proud and what it used to be.
[8:15]
So there is a responsibility here. I would argue that with the World Trade Organization now and the previous rulings on GATT -- whether it was on the landing of Canadian fish or it's on the threat now to our marketing boards -- we have a problem. We cannot compete, given the free trade agreement and NAFTA, on a simple exchange, when we are using American trade law to determine the level and ability of that competition within our own boundaries.
The Premier mentioned that there is a trade policy revolution; I think those were his exact words. And I agree; there is a trade policy revolution, and I believe that it is threatening the very fibre of what it is to be Canadian. Each of us as legislators in this assembly has a duty and a responsibility to stand up and combat that which will undermine the very nature of what it is to be British Columbian and Canadian.
One of the biggest obstacles to it is the impediment that exists within the country because of trade barriers between the provinces. We do not have an opportunity for a greater degree of freedom to trade between the provinces. We need to remove interprovincial trade barriers to a greater degree. I'd like to ask the degree to which the Premier sees his role in this first ministers' conference as not just to set up national standards on things like health care, which I think is an excellent objective, but also to provide national standards with respect to the movement of goods tariff-free in Canada, so that we can start to exchange with those economies, which would allow us a greater freedom to trade between Canadians, as opposed to having our products so heavily driven south of the border.
Hon. G. Clark: At the risk of a debate breaking out -- because I have agreed with everything the member said today -- I totally disagree with his last remarks. I understand the logic of what he's saying. He's saying -- I think, if I can paraphrase -- that for the country to work and to resist the north-south pull, we have to make sure that the east-west pull works better. Here's the problem, in my view: the same pressure to harmonize north-south that the member talked about exists across the country, as well, and I have grave concerns about it.
Let me reel myself back in a little bit. I, in general, agree with the elimination of trade barriers across the country, conceptually. Look, when we build B.C. ferries, we are going to build them in British Columbia as long as I'm the Premier. Let's make no mistake about it. That was one of the principal issues on the table for internal trade barriers from the Maritimes and from Quebec. They demand the free movement of goods and services and the right to bid on B.C. ferries. They do that, in many respects, subsidized heavily by the federal government in all of their operations, getting all of the procurement from the federal government for all of the shipbuilding. They then want the right to use their subsidized shipyards to bid on B.C. ferries work, and I'm telling you that we're not going to do that. We simply will not do that.
Similarly, we use B.C. Hydro and our Crown corporations, in part, as tools for economic development. We have B.C. Hydro, which spends $500 million a year in minor capital. They invest it all in British Columbia, and they're required by government policy to utilize British Columbia workers and British Columbia businesses and British Columbia suppliers. That is on the table on internal trade barriers because of provinces like Alberta, which doesn't have any Crown corporations, and others. Because this province is doing better than anywhere else, everybody wants to compete for access to procurement in British Columbia from our government here in B.C. That is the drive for internal trade to allow those provinces to compete here in British Columbia. I suggest to you that if our taxes are higher than Alberta's, for example, and we don't want to harmonize with Alberta -- let's say we want to have a different social safety net or medicare system which is funded better than Alberta -- if that's our decision, then it should be British Columbia's decision. We can't compromise that decision by allowing businesses in
The Island Highway agreement -- I know members on the opposite side, particularly the Liberals, don't agree with this -- required the employment of British Columbia unemployed people first. Unabashedly, B.C. first. Unabashedly, we say our tax money is going to build that highway. We want unemployed people in B.C. to get access to that work and
[ Page 1959 ]
training on that highway. Those are the only trade barriers left that really exist in this country, and those are the focus of attack.
We've looked at the issues, which I support, on beer and wine, for example, and we've looked at issues with respect to milk and agriculture where they discriminate against B.C. We're going to continue working to reduce trade barriers. I just caution the member that the same drive to harmonize that we're seeing north-south because of the trade rules is the same logic that is being pursued by those who want to harmonize across the country.
While as a nationalist I understand the argument the member has suggested and I generally support the notion of free movement, the few tools left to government in British Columbia to promote economic development -- namely, procurement and some of the Crown corporations and procurement therefrom -- I think we have to be very hesitant indeed to simply give away or to allow the Maritimes or Quebec or others, often subsidized companies, to compete with British Columbians for access to the kinds of goods and services that their tax dollars buy. Remember -- and this is important -- this internal trade question is only a government issue, essentially. It's a government-to-government issue. It's to remove government's ability to intervene to protect taxpayers or domestic industry. There's nothing about the private sector's freedom of goods and services; it's really only an attack on government's intervention, and therefore it's the same logic that we're seeing with NAFTA and everything else.
One last point on this. Remember as well that if we sign an internal trade agreement, then because of NAFTA every single thing in that internal trade agreement is also available to Americans, Mexicans or, soon, Chileans. If we eliminate the ability of the B.C. government to say that B.C. ferries are going to be built in B.C. because of an internal trade agreement, we then must also allow Mexicans and Americans to bid on B.C. ferries work on exactly the same rules. That's what happens now, because we're part of an international agreement. If we're part of a national agreement, they automatically become party to it. So I hope the member will understand my less than enthusiastic endorsement of eliminating what very few tools are left to government in the face of all these other changes which have eviscerated government's ability to intervene in the last decade. This would simply do that even further in British Columbia, and we have the most to lose, because this province is doing so well, because we're the place people want access to and because other provinces want access to the bidding and opportunities which government provides here in British Columbia.
G. Wilson: I'm going to resist the opportunity to get into a protracted debate on this, but it would be an interesting one to get into. I don't entirely disagree with what the Premier is saying. However, I think there are ways in which we can protect labour and development with respect to major capital expenditure in construction in British Columbia and still have relative freedom to trade in Canada. I'm fully aware of the complex problem we run into because of NAFTA. NAFTA is a terrible deal for Canada from many, many points of view. I think that needs to be addressed in another forum, perhaps. I'm not sure what we can do about it at this point, except that I know we have to do something.
I do want to finish up my questions tonight to the Premier. Again, I come back and emphasize, in the role of first
The Premier alluded to this matter of national standards, and I want to reserve my last comment for the fishery, an area in which this Premier has demonstrated a considerable amount of leadership. To that extent, I think British Columbians should be pleased. I think it is clear, for those who advocate that somehow the province should take over the entire fishery, that it's simply not on. I don't think that anybody who has studied or reviewed this issue would recognize that taking over the entire fishery is a possibility, because we have to enter into international agreement, like it or not, with Alaska, Washington and Oregon, potentially, and with the United States. Of course, on the international front, in the old days when we had the INPFC and the international agreements with respect to the Japanese and the Russians, we had problems with the deep-sea offshore fishery as well. I'm assuming that when the Premier says he wants to take over the fishery, he is talking about a shared responsibility and that we must look at our role in terms of the inshore fishery and habitat management, predominantly, and some modern enhancement of those kinds of programs.
But in my last question to the Premier, I come back to the problem with the lighthouses. Expectations have been created with the fishery now, which British Columbia cannot afford to not deliver on. We have to, in this next hundred and however many days are left in our 200 days of dealing with this issue, make sure that the committee, however it's struck, travels to communities and has an opportunity for people in those communities to have direct input. I haven't seen anything come from the government yet that makes a commitment to that effect. I know the Premier has been very vocal on that question. So I would like to get a commitment that those coastal communities most affected by the Mifflin plan will have an opportunity in the next number of days to have some input to this committee, so that this government can in fact solicit from those who know best -- that is, those who know the industry best because they're engaged in it -- and that those who are sport and recreation fishers and conservationists have an opportunity to give reference to it. I would also like the Premier to commit again tonight that he will do everything in his power to make sure that the light stations remain staffed in British Columbia, because we simply cannot allow those staffed stations to be eliminated.
Hon. G. Clark: My short answer is yes to both questions. First of all, with respect to fisheries, there are, as you know, two processes we've agreed to. One of them is a shorter one to deal with the impacts of the Mifflin plan, and with mitigation and alternatives to the Mifflin plan. We have made Bill Lefeaux-Valentine -- I don't know if the member is familiar with him -- our representative to the federal government. We have not yet agreed on a third party. Time is ticking, but we are exchanging names, almost daily it seems, to pursue that. The intention is for that study to engage coastal communities. That is my intention, and I give you that commitment. It won't be possible for that committee to travel to every single coastal community and hold hearings, simply because we are pushing hard on the time frame. But they will have some hearings, I'm sure of that.
With respect to the broader review of overlap, duplication and jurisdiction, etc., it would be a shared jurisdiction. I take a very pragmatic position not to pursue constitutional change necessarily -- although as I said, I'm not opposed to some of that -- but I'd rather a pragmatic, shared jurisdiction
[ Page 1960 ]
where more power would be devolved to the provinces, recognizing the legitimate federal government role in international treaties and the like in working with the provinces. I think there are lots of examples where that does work and can work well. We only have to look at the United States to see the role of the states and the power they have to manage their fishery, even though there is an international treaty that the U.S. has signed. So I think we can work on that, anyway.
On the lighthouse question, briefly. Actually, the lighthouse question troubles me a lot, because I feel very strongly about the staffing of lighthouses. I've made my points felt. I've indicated that repeatedly in the media and elsewhere and to the federal government. I've raised it with the Prime Minister at the first ministers' meeting. The unfortunate and frustrating thing, of course, is that it takes two to negotiate. The federal government does have exclusive jurisdiction. They are in control of the lighthouses, and they are proceeding -- as is their right, one could certainly argue -- with their decisions. They are difficult decisions, they might even argue, but they are their own decisions -- which I disagree with. We have tried to engage them, along with the lighthouse keepers themselves, who -- these are very low-paid people; this is not a high-priced occupation but is very modest indeed -- have an incredible role to play, I think, in our coastal province. They have been very constructive in how they can save money and how they can work on doing it.
[8:30]
You can put forward all these ideas and these studies and you can engage them, but you need a response. We have been unable to secure the kind of cooperation we need to try to pursue that. One could argue -- maybe even criticize the government -- that we have also been resolute in our view that the province of B.C. is not going to simply pick up costs dumped by the federal government. We have said: "Let's work on this." Can we find different ways of doing it? Can the province play a role? Are there ways in which we can get out from under the yoke of Ottawa and all the bureaucracy? Can we do something more modest -- maybe even a privatization initiative that can work more effectively -- short of the government of B.C. simply opening up our tax dollars and picking up their problems?
So that is the avenue we have been pursuing. We have not been successful; they have not been cooperative. Even if we were to open up our tax money up and say we'd take them over, I don't think, actually, we'd still have success. They have been resolute in their view that this is their jurisdiction, and they are making their decisions come hell or high water. It has been frustrating for me, and we are going to continue working on it. But we also don't question the federal government's jurisdiction in this area and their clear determination in the face of overwhelming public sentiment in B.C. -- of the government and of members like the member there -- to proceed.
G. Wilson: I'll conclude with this comment. I think that expectations were created, rightly or wrongly, by the Premier with respect to the staffing of light stations. There are those on the coast who have the belief that there was a commitment made that the province would intervene in some way. I hope the Premier acknowledges that that is there, and I certainly offer my services, whatever they may be. There are others working with me who would certainly offer their services to work with this government to try and reverse this federal position.
Let me say, finally, that the whole matter of leadership and the extent to which this province must start to take a leadership role on the national
To that extent, I appreciate this opportunity to question the Premier, and I certainly hope that we can, in the days to come, spend more time in this Legislative Assembly debating these issues, because I believe they are vital to the well-being of our province.
R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions to canvass with the Premier. To take off a bit from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in talking about lighthouses -- and I'm not diminishing the fact that they're important; they are -- but I would like to know
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: No, we don't need a lighthouse in my constituency, but we do need some weather stations. It's specifically the same issue, and I am sure the Premier is well aware of it. Weather stations, whether they are in Fort St. John at the airport, which was just
I have some difficulty with that, the same as I do with automating lighthouses, although I can tell you I am not familiar at all with lighthouses and the process. But having spent a lot of time in the air in small aircraft, I know the importance of weather stations, specifically in the north, as they deal with pilots. We have a tremendous number of pilots that fly from the lower U.S. to Alaska in small airplanes every year and need weather stations.
In another town in my constituency, Fort Nelson, a very sophisticated weather station -- in fact, one of the most sophisticated in northern Canada -- was decommissioned down to one and a half staff. Now they just do upper atmosphere. Fort Nelson may be a small community, but its significance to air traffic is something a lot of people don't know. Transcontinental flights use Fort Nelson as a beacon to come down to and then go south. In fact, if you look on any globe, you'll probably see Vancouver, Victoria and the community of Fort Nelson on it. That's consistent on almost every map, other than Tourism B.C.
It's an important weather station, and that goes -- and I'll just take it a little further -- for airports and what's happening with the removal of responsibilities from airports. Vancouver is fine, obviously, because of the high traffic, but there are many airports through rural B.C. that are having some big difficulties in trying to figure out how they are going to continue to operate. They are an integral part of the well-being of the community for many things, whether it's business, tourism, accessibility to health care services or a whole multitude of things.
I think Fort St. John is probably doing not bad, but Fort Nelson specifically has some problems. The questions about lighthouses brought those issues to mind, and I'd like the Premier to respond on ways we can look at that as a province. I'm not saying that the province should just come in and fund
[ Page 1961 ]
everything, either; I'm not trying to say that. Somehow, collectively, we have to sit down and say that even though it is in the north, we are responsible -- you are the Premier, and you are the government -- for looking after those areas also.
Hon. G. Clark: I think those are excellent comments. I say that right at the outset. The federal government is doing exactly what we've seen elsewhere, and the province in the past has been guilty of this as well. It's all very well to look at restructuring, to look at cost-savings from your comfortable position in Ottawa, without understanding the impact in places around Canada, particularly rural and remote areas of the country and places like British Columbia. I couldn't agree with the member more. I would bet you money that there are hardly any cuts in staff dealing with weather reporting and weather services in Ottawa, but they will close all the little facilities that are fundamental to Canada and to the economies and the way of life of people in communities. Again, I don't want to overstate that particular issue here either, but this is a pattern. It's easy to close a lighthouse.
Let me just put it in the context of lighthouses for a second. A lighthouse keeper makes about $25,000 a year, essentially minimum wage. They get room and board, if you could call it that, in incredibly isolated circumstances. They are paid very low indeed. Just sort of abstractly or intuitively, Ottawa is going to close them down and install multimillion-dollar computerized equipment there, and even on their own books the upfront cost is way higher than the cost of maintaining staffed lighthouses. Maybe 20 years down the road, they'll save money by this initiative. It may cost lives. I don't say that lightly, but without that human factor on the rugged coast, it may cost lives. But they may save money. It's a really easy decision to destaff lighthouses in British Columbia when you're sitting in Ottawa or even in Vancouver.
It's a really easy decision to say that they don't need a weather station in Fort Nelson if you're sitting in Vancouver or Toronto or Ottawa, but these are important pieces of infrastructure in terms of the country and making it work. When you look at the savings the federal government is making from all the small cuts in things like weather stations throughout the north of Canada, but particularly in British Columbia, it's nothing. It's a rounding error for these huge bureaucracies governed by the federal government, and it doesn't make any sense to me.
In a general sense, this is symptomatic of the way in which they're going about their program review. We're going to try, in British Columbia, as we look at programs and downsizing and making government more efficient, not to penalize communities in the north and in regions and to make sure that we in fact protect those services.
First of all, on weather stations let me say to the member -- seeing that he has raised it, and I agree with him -- that if he'd be interested, I will have staff meet with him personally on this particular subject and see if we can at least register British Columbia's position and concern and work on this in a more proactive way than this government has to date. I think it's a very good point in terms of its relationship to lighthouses and other things that have got more attention.
With respect to airports, I'd give a slightly different answer in the sense that the federal government is pursuing that. It's well on its way in terms of devolution, and I, in general, support the thrust of devolution. But here's my problem again, and I hope the member agrees with me. Vancouver Airport pays $35 million a year to the federal government in rent. No other airport in Canada pays rent or lease payments to the federal government. It's $35 million a year. The entire subsidy to every airport in British Columbia from the federal government is $25 million a year. So what I propose -- and I hope the members would support me -- is that we say: "Okay, pay as you go." Fine, I understand that. Let's rationalize things. Let's set up a B.C. airport authority, and the revenue generated by the Vancouver Airport goes to subsidize all the airports in British Columbia. "And you can even make a profit on it," I say to the federal government.
This is another urban bias or another Toronto-or-Ottawa bias. A huge volume of traffic at the Vancouver Airport is generated from small airports in British Columbia. If you want to go to New York from Prince George, you've got to come through Vancouver. So the Vancouver hub benefits economically and financially from the network of all the airports in British Columbia. Airports in regional British Columbia are vital to the economy of those regions and indeed to the continued development of those regions. This is 1996, and air traffic is a critical component in the location and success of businesses, the ability of individuals to travel and of consultants to get around -- everything it is to have a modern economy. To jeopardize that is fundamentally shortsighted. To be sucking $35 million out of Vancouver and then saving $10 million or $15 million at the end of the day, but meanwhile fundamentally jeopardizing, by their shortsighted policy, the viability of some airports and arguably of some communities -- at least in the medium and long term -- is not only unfair but really dumb. It's not rational; it is not thought through. It's a bureaucratic or urban perspective driven by a fiscal agenda.
I agree with the member that we have a fiscal problem in the country; I understand that. These airports do have to cut costs, and we do have to make them more effective. Local control clearly can be more effective. The Vancouver Airport is a good example of a real success story of the private sector operating an airport. I think the city of Fort Nelson can do a better job than Transport Canada and Ottawa. With a little bit of thought and by getting some of the revenue generated by airports in Vancouver -- the one airport that generates revenue -- and by setting up a system of working with small communities, we should be able to have a first-class system in B.C. which actually enhances the airports around B.C. and doesn't detract from them.
We have not been successful. They are continuing with their pattern in the past. Some mayors have worked very hard, and we've worked hard as a province to help mitigate it, but we have not been able to pursue the kind of bolder and more significant public policy initiative which would be good public policy and good for British Columbia. I invite members, if they feel this way, to work with the government to pursue what I think makes sense for airports in B.C.
[8:45]
R. Neufeld: I completely agree with much of what the minister said about finally getting some money out of the south to penetrate back into the north and into rural B.C. I don't care if it's the north or just rural B.C., because I'm sure Quesnel, Williams Lake and many of those places have many of the same difficulties that the airports I represent in my constituency have. I agree with the Premier on this and would work closely with him. I will get some information to the Premier in regard to our weather stations being manned out of Kelowna. Many times in the north, ambulances are dispatched in Fort Nelson out of Kelowna. Centralizing all those things into the lower mainland or into the Okanagan isn't always the answer when it comes to efficiency.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
[ Page 1962 ]
I want to go back to the FRBC and the Premier's discussion earlier with the member for Chilliwack in regard to what is enough and how much you think should be there as a backup fund for future years. I want to bring it to a northern perspective again, and you could also probably talk about it in a rural way for other members. We have a lot of money that flows into FRBC from the north, from mills in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Fort Nelson, Taylor and all over. It's a tremendous amount of money, but the money that's been expended in the northeast by FRBC is minimal. In fact, it's almost shameful to think how much money we're really putting back into the forests in the northeast compared to what we're taking out.
Many of those problems are related to the fact that we can't get enough people, and that's a fact. We can't get the trained staff. What happens specifically -- and I'm not being critical here -- is that the government of the day wants to respond to an issue on Vancouver Island or specifically around Vancouver or in the Okanagan, and all these wonderful jobs in the lower part of British Columbia open up. People who have just been hired in Fort Nelson or Fort St. John apply, and poof, they're gone -- to Cranbrook, Victoria or wherever the case may be. In fact, I think Fort Nelson has the highest turnover of forest workers. It's not because they don't like the community, but because they come from some other part of Canada. They spend a few months there, and they're able to transfer out.
Specifically, the two main areas that I represent -- Fort St. John and Fort Nelson -- don't have the required staff to look at all the issues and proposals. And if they did approve them, they wouldn't have the people on the ground to look after them and make sure they're happening. Ever since Forest Renewal was put into place, I've said that instead of putting money into general revenue to fund deficits, maybe we should be looking specifically at Forest Renewal B.C. to start funding some of those programs in the north. If it requires hiring consultants or full-time staff who are going to stay in the north, let's do it. No one wants to hire more people because of the FTEs and all the trouble, I guess, that you get from that point of view, but in the north we need some more people in the forest industry if we're going to apply that money back into the forests where it belongs.
I don't care whether the specific sum is $400 million, $800 million or $1 billion. That money was raised specifically to go back into the forests in order to enhance forestry. I don't think we're spending the money that we should be spending on forestry in any region, other than in the big triangle down here. I don't mean that in a facetious way; I mean that from the bottom of my heart. It just doesn't happen. Somehow we have to get around that so we can spend that money in the north instead of bringing it down here. That's what happens with much of the revenue. Whether it's B.C. Hydro or the oil and gas industry, it comes down here into what they call the big hole of Vancouver, and it disappears -- and the north goes begging.
Those are some specific ideas that I think the Premier or Mr. McArthur can take to the board of FRBC. I've talked to them many times, but they don't seem to want to do those kinds of things. They should look at starting to expend some of that money in the north, because there are many areas in the north where we can start putting money back into forestry instead of just continually taking it out.
Hon. G. Clark: Other than some of the comments the member made about the surplus, I agree almost completely with what he said. As the member knows, I was in Fort St. John when I was running for leader of the NDP. Unfortunately, I didn't get up there during the election campaign, but I hope to go there again soon. Clearly government has a responsibility. Earlier I was attacking the cavalier attitude of the bureaucrats from Ottawa and urban Canada in regard to what they're doing. That kind of critical analysis has to apply to the province as well. I know that there is incredible alienation, if you will, around British Columbia in reference to Vancouver, Victoria and the way in which things operate. I think we have to take that more seriously, and I intend to do that. I say that very seriously.
Forest Renewal B.C. has been increasing its expenditures in a phased way. I say this in its defence, if I can for a second. I was in Prince George when we announced the regional allocation of how much was going to go back, and it is significant. It's not enough, we aren't there yet, and there's not enough on the ground -- I agree with all of what the member said -- but it is moving in that direction, and we're going to drive hard to do it. To the extent that my government can be more responsive to areas, like the Peace River country, that don't feel they've been getting fair treatment from a distant government in Victoria, I'm going to try to do that. I think we've set up enough systems, and they are in place now. In the case of FRBC, there are resources there, and we have to make sure that they're invested in the right way and not simply, yet again, put into the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island.
R. Neufeld: I'm amazed -- and I should be, having worked with the Premier over a number of years -- at his willingness to talk in estimates about specifics in the north. But I hope that what the Premier says is that we can start working together on some of those issues to help the north. I know the amount of money that was projected for Prince George-Omineca through Forest Renewal B.C., but the Premier has to remember that much of that money is spent south of the mountain range. When you get east of the Rockies, specifically where Peace River South and Peace River North are located, not too much trickles back. It seems to have a hard time getting back over the hill there, to get back into the constituency. So I look forward to working with that.
In fact, when the Premier talks about starting to look at northern British Columbia in a way that we would expect Ottawa to look at British Columbia -- I've used that rationale many times -- I think it's high time. It's not just this government. Governments in the past have done the same thing. They've totally ignored the north in many areas and just took it for what it was. I guess Minister Barlee, when he was minister, quite correctly called it a cash cow. It's been used that way for a long time. Unfortunately, it's starting to show, and it's starting to show badly.
So I'd like to take to the next issue, and that's roads in the north -- infrastructure. The Premier talked about how Vancouver Airport gets much of its revenue from the small airports around the province. I want to say that many of the products or resources that are sent out of the north make Vancouver what it is today. If you took rural B.C. and quit shipping to Vancouver, we certainly wouldn't have the port that we have today and those kinds of things. So it all plays a part. But it's hard to get that message across, simply because of the number of people that live in Vancouver and the number of people that live in the north.
We've got some real problems with roads in the north. Rather than every year have to try and battle with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, or what I'm doing now with the minister -- we've got a bit of a plan for how roads should
[ Page 1963 ]
be developed or upgraded in the north -- I would rather that we look at something over a longer period of time, five or ten years, and say we're going to spend over that period of time $10 million a year or whatever the magic number is, and I'm not saying that's what it would be, but some figure on a consistent basis so that number one, it does provide employment, it generates a lot of money in the north that's obviously spent, people get good wages and those kinds of things. It's something that I know we can't do overnight. But I would like to see a program that's put in place, even for a five-year term, where we look specifically at the northeast.
If we have to apportion part of the oil and gas revenue to it, fine. It devotes about $400 million to $450 million a year into the coffers, at very little cost to the government and people of British Columbia. Maybe we have to start looking at some of that money and saying yes, with the activity that's taking place, because if you're going to have more activity, obviously the infrastructure's going to get used more. It's no different up there than it is here. It's just that up there there's hardly any infrastructure left. I'm not fooling anymore. It's gotten to the point in some cases where total reconstruction is needed, not just an upgrade.
Those are real issues that I would like to get some commitment on, or at least a commitment from the Premier that he would look favourably at that kind of program -- instead of trying to expend a whole bunch of money one year, to do it over a period of time on a program that's set up about how we're going to look at all the roads and upgrade them to a decent standard.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the member appreciates that I'm not going to give funding commitments here today, but I will say that I agree with the member generally. It's not just roads; the member could make the same speech on sewer and water infrastructure and others. As I say, having been there fairly recently and having met with the mayor and the member, who was up there, and others, I have a lot of sympathy for the comments the member made.
I also want to recognize, quite candidly, that we have some fiscal challenges provincially. It would be easy for me to simply say that we'll fix all your problems, but that's a big challenge. My reading on people in the north, people in that member's constituency, is that they wouldn't want me to say that. They understand the fiscal challenges of the province -- and they want us to fix them, by the way. They want us to deal with it. We are going to deal with it. If we can engage the member and people in that community in ways in which we can also work in, maybe, a longer run than everybody would like on solving some of these problems, then I certainly am open to that idea.
I find that in dealing
[9:00]
I think the member will agree that we made some progress, notwithstanding concerns on some roadwork that was done at significant expense on a per capita basis for the member. It's necessary work that made sense at Beatton River crossing and others. So we've made some progress. One of the largest infrastructure grants in the province went to Fort St. John, and that was also important. We're working on the industrial tax question and others in the north, with some mutual agreement, I think. So we've made some progress. I agree with the member that we haven't made enough. I look forward to the next four years of working on some of these issues and really having a better relationship and dialogue with the people of that member's constituency and others around B.C.
R. Neufeld: I guess you give credit where credit is due. I'm not going to dispute the fact that the government of the day did go in and release the contracts to finish the Beatton crossing. There's no doubt about that. Both Fort Nelson and Fort St. John got, I believe, their fair share out of the infrastructure grants.
In the same breath, I know that I've taken the liberty of beating the government up for its debt at different times and will continue to do so. Had a lot more of that debt occurred in the north on infrastructure, I may not have been so critical of the government.
When I look at the Transportation Financing Authority book and see all the projects that are taking place, they're specifically right down here in this little corner. The further north you go, you see the odd little dot. Prince George has got one. Then we get to the Pine Pass, where there's one that has been there for quite a number of years. Anybody who drives north and goes through the Pine Pass will know exactly what I'm talking about. In the north when we do detours, we seem to just leave them. However the equipment has left it when they leave the site, that's what people have to travel over for the year. In the south or in the Okanagan, they pave the detours. Those kinds of things are not lost on people from the north, because the people from the north travel much more than they ever did before, and they start seeing some of the things that have happened.
They've also seen the royalties on the lease sales go up dramatically, because there has been some record drilling. There's no doubt about that. Along with that, they don't say they want everything. Specifically, that's the way the people from the north are. They're fairly direct, too -- I know. They'll tell you fairly quickly what's acceptable and what's not. They say -- and rightfully so; I have to agree with them -- that when the economy was going good and the government of the day was showing some surpluses, regardless of how you want to talk about accounting, those surpluses were contributed to by much of the revenue that came out of the north. But they didn't see the same kind of drive to do any of the infrastructure work in the north. It was just kind of: "Let's take it all and leave it."
I look forward to working with the Premier over the next four years in trying to develop some plans, in conjunction with local politicians, for the priorities that we should put on different things, and to going on from there.
I have a few other questions about mining. One of them relates to the Tatshenshini and to -- the Premier spoke about it earlier -- Peggy Witte and Royal Oak. The Premier gives me the thumbs-up. Is he satisfied and happy with the arrangement or the procedure -- I guess not with the compensation, but with the arrangement made with Royal Oak
[ Page 1964 ]
-- and with what has taken place? Maybe the Premier could just give me a thumbnail sketch of what he thinks of the deal that was cut with Royal Oak over the Tatshenshini.
Hon. G. Clark: Having been the minister responsible who negotiated it, I'm hardly going to argue differently. I think it was an excellent arrangement. Let me just in a very broad way characterize it the way I think it should be. There was some compensation owing with respect to the Tatshenshini park. Rather than pay out the $20 million or whatever that would have been owed -- or, if you believe the lawyers for the aggrieved party, the hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation -- we didn't do that.
We negotiated with Royal Oak a win-win deal in which, yes, they were going to be owed some compensation, but we linked it to investment in new mining in British Columbia. We've essentially unleashed $300 million to $500 million in private sector investment, with some assistance from the government, in a package which eliminated once and for all any claims on the Tatshenshini. We accomplished, I think, a nice fit. Rather than just pay out compensation and be done with it, we linked the two and managed to lever significant investment from the private sector.
I don't know where it's actually at today. I know that they're still negotiating details, etc., and that copper prices are fluctuating and all that. I'm not sure whether they've finalized the actual legal contractual arrangements. I know the arrangement we came to, because I was a party to that and was, I guess, the negotiator with Ms. Witte, who is a very bright and capable individual.
I think it was a good symbol for the mining industry to show that, while I don't expect that many of them voted NDP, and I don't recall any large financial contributions from mining companies in British Columbia -- not that we would have accepted them, in any
I think that an equally important symbol was the arrangement we came to with Royal Oak, and some of the other arrangements we've made in the mining industry. I hope and suspect that this is a strong signal that -- notwithstanding our differences on the Tatshenshini and notwithstanding that we'll have other differences, where the government will have environmental standards or labour standards or others that the mining industry won't like or taxes that they don't like -- we are prepared to see mining operate in B.C., and we're prepared to work with the mining industry to try to expedite mines like the Royal Oak.
R. Neufeld: Actually, I went through a number of other estimates and asked some questions specifically about the Tatshenshini and compensation issues. I'm pleased that I have the opportunity to ask the Premier, who negotiated the deal with Royal Oak. Maybe the Premier could tell me why his government or he left those small placer miners -- there's quite a number of them -- who were in the
As I understand the Expropriation Act, the requirement for government is to adjudicate or decide what the value of the expropriation is and pay that money up front to the person, persons or business, who have the option of either accepting or appealing. That's right in the act. In fact, I don't have it in front of me, but I know it fairly well by now. So far, that particular business is having quite a time even trying to get some response from government, whether it's the AG's ministry or Employment and Investment.
I've gone through both those estimates asking many of the same questions. We seemed to look after Royal Oak quite well. Whether they agree with everything or not, I think it was probably a good deal. But we've left many of the smaller ones -- people who don't have the capital to hire lawyers to fight government -- kind of swinging in the breeze. There are some fairly big companies that do that kind of mining, but there's also a tremendous number of small, maybe two- or three-people operations, maybe a family that has gone in there and done that kind of mining. They simply can't afford to fight government. So far, from all the information I've received, government has not looked after the interests of those people. It is not responding in any way. I'd like to have the Premier explain to me why we looked after the bigger ones in the way we did and left those smaller ones, shall I say, twisting in the breeze.
Hon. G. Clark: I thank the member for raising this issue. I haven't been
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the Premier's response. I want to tell you that it's been the most positive so far through the estimate process with regard to this issue. I understand that there are going to be competing interests, and there may be issues that come forward that I'm not aware of right now. There are certainly lawyers involved, and that's probably a big part of the difficulty.
Still, from 1993 to 1996 is plenty of time to live by the Expropriation Act. That's a statute of the province, and I see no reason why we as a province shouldn't abide by our own statutes. We expect those people who drive the highways to abide by the statutes, or individuals to abide by the statutes to pay their taxes, so governments should abide by the same statutes.
I have a couple more issues, and they should go fairly quickly. The Premier touched briefly on revenue-sharing in the fair share program in the north. I had a note about that to ask the Premier about the fair share program with the regional districts of Peace River, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and such. You talked about some negotiations taking place again. I know the process was set up, and I want to give you credit for it. Your government did return $2 million from revenue to the north, matched by $2 million taxation from industries, so I want to give you credit for that.
Is there a process now where we're going to
[ Page 1965 ]
revenue to the province from the north increases, specifically the oil and gas revenue? The Premier talked a bit about this, and maybe I'm reading something into it or not, but I'll listen with interest.
Hon. G. Clark: I think you're probably reading a bit more into it. I was referring to the negotiations that arrived at the $2 million from industry. I haven't done anything about it, but I'm aware, from that visit to Fort St. John and from the meeting with Steve and others and yourself, that there is a concern. I also met with members of council at that time. There is a concern about this being a good, positive first step. But we needed to work on it further with a more formalized way of dealing with the issue. I'm sorry, I'm not the right person to ask -- it's Municipal Affairs -- but I'll see where that's at. Given the fiscal challenge, we want to see if we can accommodate what I think are the legitimate concerns of the communities of the north, but I don't really recall whether there were further negotiations or discussions taking place.
[9:15]
R. Neufeld: I'm almost on a bit of roll with the responses I'm getting from the Premier. You can hardly blame me for trying to hit almost every issue we have in the north. I neglected to tell the Premier that I will forward to him the material I have on the issue in the Tatshenshini with the miner, so that he has it first hand, and we can look at it.
One other issue that affects my constituency is the collection of taxes -- sales tax, fuel tax and those kinds of things -- because of our close proximity to the border. I'm not advocating that we set up something at the border that stops every individual and asks them about what they've purchased in Alberta, but we have a big influx from Alberta every year, specifically in the oil and gas industry. I think there are two people who work in Dawson Creek and cover almost the whole northeast in looking at tax collection.
It's not that they shouldn't be looking at businesses that operate right there in the north and operate only out of British Columbia. I don't say they shouldn't be looking at that, but I don't think they spend enough of their time looking at areas where actual equipment and all that kind of thing is coming from Alberta into British Columbia. We almost turn a blind eye to those things. In many cases, the difference between the bids from Alberta companies and the British Columbia companies is a small amount. It cannot always be completely attributed to the sales tax and fuel taxes, but that certainly plays a part.
When you look at the oil and gas industry along the border, north and south, all the way up to the Northwest Territories border, Alberta has paved highways to within 50 miles of our border. In the wintertime, it's quite easy to push a winter road through. I can tell the Premier that, many times, there are all kinds of equipment and supplies that come out of Alberta -- directly north out of Edmonton and Grande Prairie, north through Peace River, through Rainbow Lake and north of Fort Nelson, north of Fort St. John.
Our businesses, our people that live in and pay their taxes and employ people year-round in British Columbia, are trying to compete with those individuals, and it becomes very difficult. It's a matter of interest that the industry has asked me to bring this up with the Premier, that we should maybe look at better ways of trying to collect the taxes that are due. I know that we can't collect every dollar, and I don't expect that we should go out looking for that. But I think we should be spending as much time looking at those businesses that come from Alberta into British Columbia as we do at our own British Columbia businesses. What we are doing right now is penalizing, double jeopardy almost, those that operate in either Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Dawson Creek, while we let those from Alberta -- not always, but almost -- come home free into British Columbia and compete and not pay the going rate or the taxes.
Hon. G. Clark: This is getting a bit much, but I agree with everything the member said again on this issue.
R. Neufeld: Come
Hon. G. Clark: I'm already over there, brother.
This is a difficult question. I can tell you that when I was Minister of Finance we had special audit teams go into Alberta head offices, and much of the auditing was done, really, in Peace River country. The staff in the Ministry of Finance are excellent public servants in the sense that they really took pride in recovering tax money which was owed to British Columbians from out-of-province companies. I used to get little memos, you know, with little stars on them, saying: "We got another million dollars from this company."
The auditor general recently has criticized the government for not having an adequate number of sales tax auditors and making sure that
I'll raise that issue again with the minister. I don't know whether the ministry is putting more staff up there or whether it's sending more audit teams in to follow up on it or whatever. Possibly the member is correct again, though, in suggesting that we should think about actually putting more staff on the ground up there rather than flying people in periodically to do audits. So I'll take that under advisement and raise it with the Minister of Finance.
B. Penner: I rise now to enter a discussion around the Premier's responsibilities for youth. I know that he is quite fond of calling himself the Minister Responsible for Youth, so I look forward to entering this phase of the debate tonight.
I referred earlier, when I was discussing the matter with the Premier, to a flow chart. Now, I'm not sure if it actually did come from his office or whether this is a flow chart put together by our research department. Upon reflection, I now think perhaps it's from our research department. It still looks rather complicated to me, in any event.
I'm just going to start by asking the Premier to describe for us and for the House how many people he has working in his office -- that is, the Premier's Office -- that are directly related to his responsibilities for youth. I believe it's referred to as the youth secretariat within the Premier's Office. I'm wondering if you could describe to us the number of personnel associated with the youth secretariat, and the budget.
Hon. G. Clark: I can answer generally, but I think that those answers are easily available. I can provide the information for the member. I don't have that kind of detail here. But I think we have a couple of people working on it, and we are developing a strategy around youth. For the Premier's Office
[ Page 1966 ]
itself, the last time I checked, I think we had two people in Vancouver working out of the cabinet offices. I'm not sure if we have one or two more, but I suspect that at the end of the day, we will have a small contingent working in the Premier's Office pursuing youth initiatives throughout government and driving hard to make sure that the ministries are responsive to the broader needs. That kind of detailed question might be more appropriate for either the order paper or for simply asking, rather than consuming the business of the House today.
B. Penner: Before I leave this particular issue, I wonder if the Premier could confirm a reference just for my sake, in case I'm going to write to him. Is it appropriate to refer to the people employed in that capacity as belonging to the youth secretariat, or is there some other title that you are using in the Premier's Office?
Hon. G. Clark: Youth secretariat under the CPCS.
B. Penner: That's CPCS? It's also known as cupcakes, I believe. I'm glad to learn that there is the beginnings, anyway, of some kind of infrastructure around the youth initiatives that the Premier has been announcing over the past while. It has been my observation that most of them seem to relate to employment directly or indirectly, either through announcements having to do with job creation projects or, alternatively, training and educational aspects related to those announcements.
The reason I am pleased to see that there is some form of infrastructure now beginning to form is that according to a communications plan I have for the Ministry of Employment and Investment dated 1995-96, the author -- I presume it was a confidential memo -- was very frank and candid in their assessment and indicated as follows: "The job creation ministry does not have an endorsed macro-job-creation strategy. The ministry and its Crowns have made a number of major and significant commitments and announcements in the absence of a broad job strategy. This is akin to hanging many coats on a hanger without the hanger being present" -- i.e., there's nothing to hang the initiatives together. So I am pleased to hear some commitment from the Premier that there is going to be an infrastructure put together to hang some of these initiatives on, which he has announced over the past few months, and to try to orchestrate and organize them.
I think it would be useful at this stage just to review some of the most recent employment statistics. I note that unemployment amongst all age categories in British Columbia compares relatively favourably with the rest of Canada. However, sadly, that is not quite the case with respect to the youth category. In fact, in the past year, youth unemployment in British Columbia has increased by about 2.5 percent. I believe it was around the 15 percent level, and it is now around 17.5 percent. I also note that this seems to be a trend across Canada: many provinces are seeing a creeping-up of youth unemployment, even as other categories of unemployment are going down. Obviously there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and it is a very serious one. I wonder if the Premier could outline at this stage some of the initiatives he feels will benefit youth and what kind of hope his government can extend to the youth of our province, who are facing an increasingly difficult time finding employment.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the comments with respect to job strategy were valid a couple of years ago and, in fact, it is analysis like that which spurs the government to respond. After that report, we worked on and completed a major economic development strategy for the province called the jobs and investment strategy, which I am very proud of -- I was the minister at the time they produced it. Under that came a series of initiatives around how to create jobs in B.C.
With respect to youth unemployment, this is a problem not unique to British Columbia. In fact, the western world generally has high structural unemployment amongst young people. It is not a problem that we can simply solve here in British Columbia, particularly as we have an open economy and people are moving here in record numbers. Young people are moving here, not surprisingly, because the opportunities are better for them individually and for their families. As long as we have open borders across British Columbia, we are going to have people moving here looking for opportunities. I support that, but it does mean that unemployment is higher than it would otherwise be, given the dynamism and strength of the B.C. economy.
What have we done with respect to young people? It's not all job-related. Well, I guess you could argue that it is, but it depends on your definition. Some of the principal issues we've pursued with the Guarantee for Youth, as we call it, are the tuition freeze and the significant increase in funding and spaces for post-secondary institutions. That's not a short-term job creation issue, but if we want to give people hope and opportunities for the future, access to colleges and universities is critical. We've done that like no other government.
Obviously, the opposition members have a fundamentally different view of post-secondary education and access to education, and that was a principal cleavage in the last election campaign. I understand the opposition party's view on this matter, but it's completely opposite to mine. That's a big part of our appeal to young people and our sense of commitment to giving people hope for the future, and it's going to continue. I fully expect it will be a principal cleavage in the next election campaign, given that we are now, for the first time, making progress in participation rates for young people and that tuition fees will likely be the lowest in the country for the next few years. Given the way your friends in other provinces are pursuing their aggressive, American-style agenda, I know that that will keep coming up in this province, as well.
Aside from the post-secondary initiatives that we've really been pioneering, we do have two other areas; one is the Youth Works initiative for young people, giving them entitlement to training. That starts in September. There will be problems with that, I predict, even though it looks very good, simply because creating 10,000 or 15,000 training spaces which heretofore government has not created -- even though it's all private sector, working with private companies and private agencies -- is going to be a big challenge for the government to marshal and to be able to provide for young people. That's the commitment we've made. I think that also holds significant promise for the future.
[9:30]
Beyond that, there were five specific job creation initiatives. Let me see if I can do them from memory. One is the 50 percent funding for more traditional summer jobs programs for university and college students and others. That had 100 percent take-up; it's doing extremely well. It's the largest wage subsidy program for young people B.C. has ever seen -- I'm quite sure of that -- and creates several thousand jobs.
Secondly, we have the First Job in Science program, which only creates, I think, 150 jobs and is virtually fully
[ Page 1967 ]
subsidized. But it is very significant in trying to have a breakthrough, because young people who want to be scientists and have professional degrees or university degrees can't seem to get into the science field without some kind of experience. That's been a really interesting project which is going to have some real success in the long run.
Thirdly, there are the environmental youth teams, another real success and, by the way, an excellent program with the Mennonite community in Abbotsford or Chilliwack, I believe. It's a very exciting program where there's some government subsidy or mostly government subsidy. A lot of them are cost-shared initiatives to deal with environmental initiatives as well as promoting training and jobs for young people. That is going to have a 100 percent take-up by the time the year is out. Right now it's running right on track for a few thousand jobs with lots of opportunities.
Then there's the Opportunities '96, which is the private sector non-subsidized program, and that has not been a spectacular success. There is absolutely no government subsidy, but we wanted to challenge the corporate community to do their part for youth unemployment, and there's been some problems in terms of developing that program in consultation with the business community. I've had lots of dialogue with them, and I think we're making some progress. We've seen several hundred jobs from the corporate sector, and we're challenging them to do more. We have to learn from that one, because it's the only one of the five programs that's not really fully subscribed, or at least subscribed at the rate which we had expected. Have I missed one?
An Hon. Member: Crown corporations.
Hon. G. Clark: Oh, Crown corporations. The other one is to challenge the government Crown corporations to do their share in providing leadership for youth unemployment. That one has had some success, in spite of a downsizing environment. B.C. Hydro laid off roughly 10 percent of their employees. We still challenged them to see if they could do something on the youth side, and they've actually made some progress. B.C. Ferries have done well. Of course, the largest short-term job-generator is the PNE. This is potentially the last year of the PNE, but it has about 3,000 or 2,500 temporary jobs for young people, some of them very temporary and others not quite as short-term.
So all and all, in the Crown sector we're basically on track with the commitments we made, and we will be by the end of the year. We're on track with the Summer Works project, we're on track with environmental youth teams, and we're on track with First Job in Science. The only project of the five that has not met expectations is Opportunities '96, and we're having some progress now on that. We have to keep working at it. We're not going to give up on the non-subsidized corporate community in challenging them to do their part for youth unemployment. The lesson is that we've got to work closer with them to try to make sure that this is a success. We're continuing to work away, with, I think, some positive news to report in the near future.
B. Penner: I think the Premier doth flatter me a little too much by suggesting that I have many friends in different provinces. I wish it were true.
I'll just get a little more specific about some of these programs. In fact, I count six different ones. Perhaps I shouldn't help the Premier out too much, but I've got Student Summer Works '96, Opportunities '96, Crown corporation youth employment, environmental youth teams and the First Job in Science, as the Premier indicated; and the sixth one is the youth entrepreneurship program.
Now, just to put the Premier and his able deputy on notice, I'm going to be asking for updates at this stage about where we are in terms of job creation. I know that when the press releases went out several times during the last six months to announce these programs, it was stated that the goal was to hire about 11,500 young people for at least a certain period of the year. I'm just wondering where we're at in those six different areas. I did meet with some staff who are working on this on the part of the government, and they gave me an update as of a few weeks ago. But I'm just wondering if you have the latest figures in those different categories.
Hon. G. Clark: Gee, a few weeks ago is pretty good, I think. I don't know if we've got anything more recent than that, although I'd be happy to get it for the member. I think if you've got the ones from a few weeks ago, you can see that what I just said is correct: we're on track in every category except Opportunities '96, the non-subsidized private sector one. We're hopeful about that, although that one may come in under what we projected.
On the entrepreneurship program, I forgot to mention that this is a very good success story, although a bit hard to quantify in terms of how many jobs are created. One of the interesting things about young people today is that unlike young people of even my generation -- and I always consider myself a young person -- they understand and know, sort of instinctively, that the economy is changing very rapidly and that the old days of going to work in a big factory or going to work somewhere nine to five, working there all your life and having a good pension are increasingly rare. So, increasingly, young people themselves see the dynamism of the small business community, of the business community itself, as a way of generating their own job. That's not really been the case in the past, to a great extent, so we established a program to give some fundamental, basic training and business plan training, and to work on ideas.
I've been amazed at the take-up by the number of young people who want to get into the course work, and I think we're going to see some real success stories coming out of it. We can't claim that the government has been the success here. The government is really just acting as a catalyst, an educator, a trainer, a facilitator, to try to encourage young people to see if they can't create their own job or create jobs for other people. From what I understand, it's been a significant success beyond what we had forecast.
It's a bit hard to quantify how many jobs have come out of that, but I think it really does show you the interest and the way the government can play a fairly modest role with a fairly modest budget to really provide some of the tools that young people need to create their own jobs. I mean, this is the first year of the Guarantee for Youth and the employment program, and I think what we have to do is learn from it.
I'll just say something on the record. We haven't made this policy decision, but we had such an immediate take-up of the 50 percent job subsidy from the private sector -- 100 percent, boom, all gone, 3,000 jobs, full budget allocated -- that it tells me we shouldn't be subsidizing at 50 percent. Maybe we can subsidize at 25 percent, have more take-up and not cut the budget but expand the number of jobs with some subsidy program. I think it is warranted in terms of summer jobs, in terms of training, in terms of getting people in and trying to break the cycle of unemployment. I think what we
[ Page 1968 ]
might want to try to do next year is cut back a bit on the rate of subsidy but still have a program and see if we can generate more jobs that way. It also says that where there was zero subsidy, we had a very poor response to the government program. Partly, we have to learn from that. There are ways we can develop and ways we can work with the private sector. Also, the First Job in Science program has been a real success, but that's 100 percent subsidies. So you could argue, "Well, gee, no wonder it's a success" -- there's that part of it -- although it's a unique niche program.
On the entrepreneurship one, I think, again, we'll wait for the evaluation, the review. But my intention next year would be to really try to learn from it, if we can, and to change the design of the programs -- eliminate programs if they're not successful or alter programs, but come up with a package which can continue to deal with and create the jobs we've indicated we believe we can create, and continue to build on those programs and on that success without costing the taxpayers more money.
I don't want to stand here and pretend that we're going to solve the incredible structural youth unemployment problem that the western world has through these kinds of initiatives. But government does have a role to play, to see if we can't do better than we've been doing. I can tell you that we have several thousand young people working who may not have been working if we hadn't structured this initiative in this way.
B. Penner: I'd just like to just focus in, in a moment, on the youth business development training, also known as the youth entrepreneurship program. Just before I get to that, I'll indicate to the Premier, not wanting to help him out too much in his role as Minister Responsible for Youth, that the figures I was provided with indicate that, in fact, 2,991 summer jobs are attributed to the Student Summer Works '96 program, according to the briefing I had with his officials, which is more than the 2,550 which were projected. I do also find it interesting that there were 3,048 applications from different employers under this 50 percent subsidy program. Again, it does suggest that employers are very interested in hiring people when the costs are low. I think there might be something else to be learned by the government there in terms of reducing the cost to employers of hiring employees. We can see the very direct effect it has in terms of the number of people that are hired.
Just to move to the youth business development training, also known as the youth entrepreneurship program, in going through the old press releases, I noticed that when this component was announced, the government claimed they could create about 1,000 jobs. The Premier has indicated that it's difficult now to quantify, but I'm going to ask him or his officials to do that if they can, because certainly they seemed to be able to quantify it when it came time to issue a press release. I wonder if he can give us some idea how many jobs have been created. I note that they projected 1,000 jobs. I wonder if the Premier could tell us over what period of time this program runs. I take it that it's not simply a summer employment program. I wonder if this is an annual program and if it's ongoing. I will sit down after leaving the Premier with this: my information is that between 30 and 50 individual business startups have been attributed so far to this program. But that falls quite short of the 1,000 jobs projected.
Hon. G. Clark: The member has had a detailed briefing, so I'll defer to him on where we're at with some of these programs. You're quite correct: most of the programs, other than the Summer Works program, are not summer programs, and I think some critics have not recognized that. The entrepreneurship program is not designed to get summer jobs to students. It's designed, arguably, for those not going to school who want to create a job for themselves, who have some ideas and energy, and who can see that there are opportunities in the private sector but haven't got the sort of elementary skills to put together a business plan, to approach the bank, to work on a program or to go about starting a business. Those are the kind of soft costs, if you will, that government is absorbing to try to get these people on their feet.
I think the member is correct. We have 50 or so business startups, many of which have more than one employee. So we're still optimistic that we'll meet the target. I think we've had over 1,000 people through the program in the first four months of operation. In a sense, it's been a success in terms of giving people that training. Whether it's a success in terms of actually creating long-term
Next year, when we come back here, I invite the member to go through it. I know he will and all members will. If we haven't reached the targets we've mentioned, we hope to be very close. I remain quite confident that we will. Then the question is to design the program in such a way as to deal with the shortcomings and to redesign it in a fashion which better meets the needs of British Columbians. I invite members opposite to make recommendations on how we can better make these programs work. If there are some that you think are a complete failure, or that really don't deserve government support, then I'll certainly pay attention to that. We're not trying to design programs for the sake of designing programs. We're trying to deal with a specific problem.
Lastly, one of the things I'm trying to do -- I haven't done it in the last few months -- is get out and talk to young people more about the role of government and what we can do to deal with some of the cynicism. I'd like to make sure that the programs we've talked about here for the last hour or so are also relevant and are working and that there is some critique from the participants of what we could do better. I know there is some follow-up evaluation from people who participate in the entrepreneurship training, for example, and we have to be guided by that, as well.
I don't want this to be seen as base program funding which is simply going to go on and on and add to the cost of government without really being tough-minded about the design of these programs -- literally jettisoning those that aren't working and enhancing the ones that aren't working. Just from my monitoring of it, and not having had a detailed briefing recently, the entrepreneurship one, even though we may fall short on the jobs -- although I don't think we will -- is one that has already exceeded my expectations in terms of the interest and the support and the dynamism of the program. It's one that I think we might want to continue to build on.
[9:45]
B. Penner: In my briefing with the officials, I was advised that the youth entrepreneurship program is primarily advertised through small ads placed in various newspapers, as well as a 1-800 phone number and some very modest radio advertising. I consider myself a news junkie. I read as many newspapers as I can come across. I do have some chance to
[ Page 1969 ]
listen to the radio, although not very much. I must confess that I try to put myself in the shoes of youth who would be looking for this kind of information on how to access it.
My concern to the Premier is communicating the existence of these types of programs to our young people in an effective way. I'm not necessarily convinced that what I've heard so far, in terms of the way it has been promoted, is the best way to go about it. It strikes me that we've got a large pool of young people we're trying to communicate with and connect with. It strikes me that part of the problem here is contacting those youth who are not necessarily scanning all the local newspapers for a tiny ad placed at the back of that newspaper. That's one comment I have.
The other is that I appreciate the Premier's comments that he wants to be tough-minded about some of these programs and certainly doesn't want them to simply carry on year to year as part of the base cost of government. I'm wondering what objectives or criteria he has for the youth entrepreneurship program, as well as the other five youth employment programs that have been announced. How will his government determine a year from now or three years from now whether these programs are working and whether they're worthwhile? Are there some objective criteria that he's going to measure these programs by?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me say to the member that I couldn't agree more that we need to advertise this government initiative more. It's a wonderful initiative. People have to know about it, and we need to make
On that point, I will say seriously that while it's true that the entrepreneurship program has been targeted and focused on that -- and that's been deliberate, really, to save money -- there has been a bigger initiative on the Guarantee for Youth, which was criticized by members opposite. It provided a phone number, and when you phoned that number, you got the package, which included all the programs. People had the choice to look at it -- with a message from the Minister Responsible for Youth, no doubt. We have done some advertising, but to take your criticism seriously, it may not have been the most relevant advertising for this initiative. I think that's where government, again, and bureaucracies and people are not necessarily as attuned as we should be to communicating with the young people that we are really trying to deal with. Advertising in the Vancouver Sun, for example, is probably a dumb idea, and advertising on Z95.3 is probably a good idea. Obviously we are doing some of that, but perhaps we need to, and should, focus it more, in keeping with the member's comments.
In terms of evaluation and criteria, there are going to be objective criteria. I don't have them before me, in terms of evaluation. One of them is kind of obvious, and that's the number of jobs that are created. Did it meet the target we set for it? And if not, then clearly we have to look very rigorously at it. If it met the target, we should still look rigorously at it. That's the first objective test: did it meet the job target? The second test is: can we meet the target? If we did, can we meet it in a more cost-effective fashion or can we increase the target, with some adjustments? Third, if it didn't meet the target, should we jettison the program or redesign it so that it in fact can meet the target? Or was the target unrealistic in the first place?
Those are the obvious general evaluative things. Beyond that, there is, it seems to me, some subjective review which we have to make and which I have to make as the minister responsible. I'll have to appear before Treasury Board to argue the case for further funding. Believe me, in that process, including for the Premier, it will be required that we demonstrate the effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness and the success of this program as we go forward. Because of the profile of it, I expect that the member opposite will be here next year ensuring that we can justify the expenses we have undertaken and will hold us to account. I expect to have an evaluative framework that I can share with members, and I can have excellent briefings again with members on all the evaluations of the programs that we have embarked upon. Hopefully, in a genuine non-partisan way, members opposite will share the decisions we make with respect to the success or failure of the program and the continued funding, or not funding, of various elements of the Guarantee for Youth.
B. Penner: I would also hope that by next year the Premier will have an evaluative framework to judge these programs by. In fact, it was my hope that this government would have had an evaluative framework prior to announcing and implementing a program. It seems to me incumbent upon us, in these days of limited tax dollars and limited resources, to have a way of measuring our goals and our successes prior to spending the money. I am a little taken aback that the Premier would say that next year we'll have an evaluative framework but not this year, when the money is being spent. I would have thought that before the program was announced and implemented and the tax dollars were committed, we would have stepped back and ask how we were going to measure this -- before we ever get started. That's one comment.
Perhaps I'll take this opportunity to sharpen the focus of my comments with respect to the way the youth entrepreneurship program was advertised. I didn't mean to suggest that bigger ads in newspapers was the way to go. In fact, many young people don't read newspapers on a regular basis. I can speak to that, because I'm only 30 years of age myself. I have a couple of suggestions around that. The program should be advertised, I would say, through the Internet, which is certainly a common way for young people to access information these days, as well as perhaps at community gyms -- there are often notice boards for that purpose -- and through community colleges, high schools and the regular employment centres across the province. By doing that, you could probably advertise this program at a lower cost and more effectively. It seems to me that the one-size-fits-all solution -- i.e., we have a government program, so let's advertise it like every other one -- doesn't work when we are dealing with young people.
I take the Premier at his word that he is genuinely interested in the concerns of young people. That means that we have to try to put ourselves into the mind-set of young people and think about how they perceive life and how they get around in today's society. It doesn't necessarily mean the Vancouver Sun or even their community newspaper. It probably means the local fitness centre that they go to, community centres, employment centres and community colleges, which are, I would submit, relatively well known among young people as a convenient place to check notice boards for job opportunities or other programs that are available.
I'd like to move on at this stage to Youth Works. I think that's the new name for the welfare program. Of course, the Youth Works component pertains to youth. I believe the age
[ Page 1970 ]
category there -- and I stand to be corrected -- is 17 to 24. I want to address the Premier about my concern -- because he is the Minister Responsible for Youth -- which is the seven-month delay or waiting component in the program before the unemployed person who has applied for welfare receives any meaningful training.
We've heard the Premier tonight and throughout the last few months speak quite eloquently -- I'll give him that -- about the need to help our young people in these difficult times, and that the real way to do that is to give them the skills and tools they need to get on with their lives. If we are serious about that and about giving these other kinds of programs which we just talked about -- enhanced training, the First Job in Science and ensured placements in post-secondary education -- then it seems to me that if you compare that approach, it doesn't fit very well with the approach we find under the Youth Works program, where our youth have to wait seven months, collecting welfare, before they are offered any meaningful training. Try as I might, I have a very hard time imagining what the rationale for that is. If anything is going to discourage our young people, it is having to wait seven months before anything happens.
Again, I think I can say this, because I consider myself to still be a relatively young person. I don't have much patience, and I don't think young people are known to generally have tremendous amounts of patience, especially not seven months of patience. I am going to ask the Premier for his comments. Perhaps he can enlighten us and tell us what the rationale is for making people collect welfare -- albeit they are forced to look for jobs during that period of time -- and wait seven months before meaningful training or skills enhancement is offered.
Hon. G. Clark: Forgive me, hon. Chair, but this is a bit much, isn't it? They had to wait seven or ten or 17 years before any training; there was no training. Now 15,000 young people on welfare have to do a supervised job search for the first seven months before they get access to training; that is a huge improvement. I didn't hear any members on the opposite side debating this question.
There is no training. You've got access to money, to stay at home. That is what welfare in this country is; it doesn't work. Every province has it. What provinces are doing in the face of the growing number of young people on welfare is cutting rates. We've cut some rates, too, by the way. What they are doing is cutting people off or using a variety of simply reactionary initiatives. Instead of doing that, we are going to have a supervised job search and to force people, if you will, to do a job search for the first seven months. Then we are not giving them money. They don't get entitled to money; they get entitled to training. The government has an obligation to provide that training, and that is going to be a big challenge for government indeed. But it is a huge fundamental shift in our welfare system and a very positive one, I submit.
The other point I want to make on the other side of the coin is that there are many, many people who go on welfare and who stay on for only a couple of months, because welfare is the income of last resort for people. People don't want to be on welfare; young people do not want to be on welfare. What we want to do is encourage people to get off welfare and to work, and many of them will. A supervised job search will do that. But those who, after a supervised job search, don't get off welfare -- probably less than half of those who go on in the first place -- will then get access to specialized training in order to give them the skills they need to get a job.
There's a little bit of carrot and a little bit of stick in that approach, but I think it makes perfect sense. It would be extremely expensive and not good public policy to automatically give people training the minute they want to go into it. We want to encourage people not to rely on government at all, but to get a job. As I said, the majority of people on welfare, in the first few months, actually do that. This initiative is designed to encourage that even more, and it's designed to move those who aren't successful in the job search into entitlement to training, so that they can get some of the skills they need to get back into the workforce.
B. Penner: I did a little background reading to get ready for this debate, and I came across a reference to "cycles." I didn't know what that meant until tonight. Cycles refers to people in our welfare system who keep coming back. They get off welfare for a short period of time, and then they get back on the system within perhaps a one-year period.
According to the figures I have seen, produced by B.C. Stats, some 62 percent of the people on welfare in British Columbia are referred to as cycles. That is, in the last year they did have a job, but now they are back on welfare. I would submit that over the long haul, the cost of these people continually coming back on welfare, even if it's for a few months a year, is perhaps greater than the cost of providing them with the skills and training they need in the first place to go out and get meaningful employment.
The same statistics indicated that the typical welfare recipient in British Columbia is male, single and employable, and has less than a grade 12 education. That's the average. I believe the figure I was given was a grade 9 or grade 10 education.
[10:00]
The Premier seems to disagree with that. I'll offer this and make myself a witness to these proceedings for the benefit of the Premier and of this House. In my previous capacity, prior to becoming elected on May 28, 1996, I worked as a lawyer in Chilliwack and had the opportunity to interview many people who had been charged in the criminal process. Almost to a fault, they had at the most a grade 10 or grade 11 education. These people all fit a certain profile: not only did they have a limited education, but the vast majority were beneficiaries of the good graces of Social Services. That's not at all suggesting that people on Social Services are necessarily related to the criminal justice system. But in my experience in the criminal justice system, almost all the people that I dealt with were two things: on social assistance and with a very limited educational background. I made it my practice, whenever interviewing a client, to ask them specifically: "What is your highest level of education?" I personally found it interesting. I can count on one hand the number of people who had a grade 12 or better education and were also receiving social assistance.
I'm not entirely clear why that link was so strong, but I submit to the Premier that the link is there. So I am making the comment that perhaps another look at this rationale might be justified, because I am curious about how this figure of seven months came about. Where did that number come from? There must have been some study, I would hope, that came up with why we say seven months instead of six or six and a half. I'm just wondering what figures the government has to back up that proposal or that policy.
Hon. G. Clark: Obviously we do need to review the whole B.C. Benefits package, and I'm committed to doing that. I want to be clear: this is a major dramatic rewrite of the way in which we govern ourselves with respect to the social safety net in B.C. The waiting period for training may be too short or
[ Page 1971 ]
too long. The residency requirement gives lots of concern to me and to everybody -- dealing with the family bonus and how that works in terms of the cheques going out, the whole program to deal with people with disabilities, the program to deal with families, all of these. We've completely rewritten the social safety net, and I'm very proud of it. There are elements of it which are really pioneering, and they're going to do a lot to deal with poverty in this province and with the restructure of the social safety net. I've been very upfront about this, and I'll be upfront again in this chamber. Because we're doing these kinds of major initiatives, there are going to be problems. There are going to be unintended consequences; there are going to challenges. There are going to be ways that we can improve it, and over the course of the next few years, we're going to try to do that. I don't hesitate to say that.
I do say, though, to the member that it's hard for me, in a way, to be civil with respect to this line of questioning. I'm struggling with it, because this is a significant and profound change which your party disagreed with in almost every category, and it just ran an election campaign criticizing it. To say now that we should increase the training component for welfare, that we should deal with this, when most of the savings that you said you were going to get were coming out of the welfare system, I find very difficult. I can take criticism from people on welfare, but I really have a hard time taking it from members of the Liberal Party on this subject. I have a great deal of difficulty with it.
I don't know how you intellectually deal with this kind of debate when we're engaging in this complete rewrite of our system. We haven't seen any support for these radical initiatives. For you to ask questions in the House today which potentially could cost hundreds of millions of dollars in more costs to government, in the face of your own stated policies and
B. Penner: I'd suggest that what the people of British Columbia would have a hard time taking seriously is the Minister Responsible for Youth, who is showing his age so badly, particularly by the fact that his own hearing seems to be going. If the Premier had been able to hear at all through the campaign and in the last few months leading up to the campaign, he would have heard about our platform -- which I think he essentially borrowed from quite heavily -- which was to require a job preparation contract prior to people being allowed to collect welfare and which would commit them to receiving training or skills-upgrading in return for Social Services benefits. That was our platform; it's very clear. If the Premier is trying to ignore it, he's only got himself to blame for that. We made it very clear. It's in our library, if you want to take a look at it.
I suspect that in fact this Premier did take a look at it -- or his people did -- because to a certain extent, the proposals that were contained in the B.C. Works legislation mirror our proposals quite closely, save and except for the seven-month gap. I believe I'm correct in stating that. Certainly we support the concept of making people responsible for improving themselves and improving their own abilities in return for support from the state -- in this case, the province of British Columbia.
To move to the issue of training, the B.C. Works program, although not legislated until quite recently, was introduced and implemented as a policy in January of this year. The training spaces were not initially provided or arranged for. I've got quotes from the Minister of Employment and Investment, saying that those spaces would be in place -- that all those training spots would be located -- by October 1996. I wonder if the Premier, in his role as Minister Responsible for Youth, can advise us whether he believes all those training places will be in place in October 1996, as previously committed to by the Minister of Employment and Investment.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
B. Penner: I wonder if the Premier could tell us how many training places that is.
Hon. G. Clark: It would be more appropriate to ask the ministers responsible, but the last time I looked at the numbers, I think it was about 13,000 training spaces which we anticipate being required. It's a demand-driven program, as we had some discussion about earlier in my estimates. We don't know how many people will be required to take training. We know that they are now going to have an entitlement to training, and therefore the government has an obligation to provide that training. We estimate that it will be in the range of 13,000, and that's what we're prepared for. If it's less than that, we'll be doing well; if it's more than that, which we're not forecasting, we'll have some challenges.
Again, I don't want to be defensive, but I'll say that there are now literally hundreds of training initiatives to create the 13,000 spaces. Some of them are going to be outstanding successes; some of them are not going to be outstanding. We're not setting up a state or government bureaucracy to do training. We're contracting the non-profits, the profits -- companies -- private individuals and private companies, in a whole range of initiatives, to make up the training spaces. They'll be bid, and they'll be competitive in many cases. They'll be moved around and changed, and contracts will be taken away and added as we need to. But we have the apparatus in place to fully provide the spaces that we anticipate we need to fulfil the guarantee for the training that's in the Youth Works legislation.
B. Penner: To keep on the topic of the Youth Works initiative, the Premier said earlier that he has a hard time hearing criticism from, I take it, a person such as myself and would have an easier time taking criticism from people on welfare. Unfortunately, a lot of those people aren't able to get elected and come to Victoria to address the Premier directly, and that's why I'm attempting to do that here tonight.
It's not just me who has concerns about this project. The government's own youth and family advocate, Joyce Preston, stated this summer, in response to this initiative, that she has grave concerns about it. In her words: "The government presents a very confused
I don't know if the Premier has bothered to go and take a look at what people get under Youth Works for the first seven months, but I did. For the first seven months that young people are looking for work and requiring assistance from Social Services, this is what they get. It's basically a glorified pamphlet on how to write a résumé.
The Chair: Hon. member, we don't use exhibits of that sort in the House.
B. Penner: I keep forgetting I'm not in the courtroom.
The Chair: No, you're not.
[ Page 1972 ]
B. Penner: In any event, perhaps I could, just for the Premier's benefit, indicate some of the topics that appear in the table of contents. Again, I stress that this is essentially what young people get for the first seven months they're on social assistance. They get a pamphlet that describes B.C. Benefits and that talks about the unemployment roller-coaster. I had the opportunity to read those paragraphs, and they attempt to make a person feel fine about not feeling very good because they're unemployed. It talks about how they need to go and look for work and be diligent in doing that, and it tells them that they need to write a résumé and gives a sample résumé. Then there's a title, "Getting Ready to Meet Employers," and it quite surprisingly tells them that you need to wash your hair and put on a good suit of clothes before you go out for an interview -- that's assuming you get one.
I bring this to the Premier's attention because I really don't think that's adequate for young people who are receiving social assistance for seven months. Granted, the rate has been reduced, but even if it's only $500 a month, that's $3,500 that the province has paid to these young people. The only concrete assistance they've been given is a brochure on how to write a résumé. I would hope that we could do better than that. Perhaps I'll let the Premier respond to that.
Hon. G. Clark: Again, I'll try not to engage in partisan debate, but let me clarify my remarks about why I have difficulty with this line of questioning.
The member is a member of a party that is now saying: "No cuts to health care" -- this is what I'm hearing, anyway. They're saying that we shouldn't cut any money on health care spending; we shouldn't cut any money on education; we shouldn't cut any money for universities and colleges; we shouldn't cut any money for welfare. I'm hearing that we should spend a couple of hundred million dollars more. That's the line of questioning I'm hearing right now -- that about a billion dollars more should be spent for highways in this province, that there should be a massive tax cut for the rich and for big corporations, the largest tax cut for rich people that we've ever seen in Canadian history. That's what you campaigned on, hon. member. So to stand up here and say that we should spend more money on welfare and to try to say you're representing welfare
There was no training for young people in this province, and there isn't in any other province. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, which your party fought against, to train young people to get them off welfare and into work. Yes, we did cut rates. Yes, we are trying to drive them to work. Work is the value, not training for the sake of training. Many people will go to work without training. We don't want to spend money training them; we want them to get work. If training helps lead to work, we'll do that. If they can get work without government assistance, we want that. That's the objective here.
I just can't sit here very easily and hear this kind of argument that we should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars. I won't take it from the Liberal Party, because it's not what they represent. It's just not credible. I'll take it from welfare recipients, whom I deal with, who are struggling to get by and who are demanding more attention of government than they've been given and who have criticisms of this program, but I won't accept it from this member.
[10:15]
B. Penner: I concur that the Premier is becoming very defensive. Perhaps it's just the late hour and he is growing short of temper.
I think I need to make it deliberately clear to the Premier -- and perhaps he is deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying; I hope that's not the case -- that it is an improvement to offer some training to people in receipt of Social Services benefits. That's why our party started calling for that more than a year ago. We put that out far ahead of the Premier's initiatives. We started by laying out our platform for a job preparation contract, which would mean that in return for receiving benefits, people would have to enter an agreement to receive upgrading and, if they didn't have it, skills training. We were prepared to support that.
The fact that the Premier seems to have been so blind to that gives me grave concern. If this is the person responsible for youth, then I think the youth of our province have some cause to be concerned. For example, I just pulled out a little business card that I put together more than a year ago, in April 1995 -- after I was nominated to represent the B.C. Liberal Party in Chilliwack -- and it states: "Barry Penner and the B.C. Liberals will cut government spending and cut debt, to protect health care and education." The Premier is saying: "Now you're saying you're here to protect health care and education." We're here now, and we were here before, to do that, and we say that the way to do that is to put your priorities straight and not to look after your friends and insiders first. This was available in the public domain for everyone to read, including the Premier. The fact that he seems to have been ignorant of this for more than a year gives me great concern.
Who is qualified or able or entitled to speak on behalf of people who are the poorest of our society is, of course, open to debate, but the Premier simply doesn't have a monopoly on that turf. For the last several years, the vast majority of the people I've been servicing are the very poorest people in my riding. I would just indicate to the Premier, although perhaps he's not concerned, that a significant number of the people working on my campaign were in fact the poorest people in Chilliwack, and they continue to be my strongest supporters. They're the people I've gotten to know and been able to help in some way over the last number of years. Certainly I bring their concerns and their interests not only to this chamber but to our own caucus meetings and discussions.
I'll just carry on a little bit here. Perhaps the Premier doesn't like taking criticism from people duly elected by the people of British Columbia to present that cause. However, there are other individuals who are also critical of the government, particularly in this seven-month period. I'm referring to a person who would normally, I think, be considered a friend of this Premier -- or at least of this government -- and that's a researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in Ottawa. I know that this government is certainly fond of referring to reports or studies from that entity when it suits their purpose. This is what they had to say when contacted for a comment by the Vancouver Sun in response to the Youth Works initiative: "If you've got an NDP government bringing in this kind of scheme, it does not bode well." In fact, the researcher, Ed Finn, said that this government should, rather than restricting training and access for young people to welfare, help industry create jobs.
I really think that that's where we need to be looking in the long term. We need to provide the necessary training and
[ Page 1973 ]
skills-upgrading to our youth at an earlier stage, before they become too disenchanted. In the long term, we need to make sure that there are decent jobs for them to go to. As indicated by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, that can only be done by encouraging industry to create those jobs. That means assisting them by getting off their back.
Interjection.
B. Penner: I understand that the Premier would now like to make some comments on the record, so I'll sit down.
Interjections.
B. Penner: I understand that the Premier is quite steeped in his own rhetoric and political ideology.
Interjections.
B. Penner: I'll carry on over the Premier's heckling.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
B. Penner: Would you like to make those comments on the record, Mr. Premier?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, sure. I don't know how a member can stand up in this House and purport to be concerned about the poor and young people and quote me their compassion for the poor when they sit on the Liberal Party benches, a party that went through the most right-wing campaign we've ever seen in this province. This party called for tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for big corporations and slashing government spending on every single major social program. They opposed every single initiative to deal with poverty in this province. You stand here and try to lecture us on dealing with poverty and unemployment and young people. How do you look in the mirror, hon. member? How do you honestly stand there and pretend to be concerned and compassionate about the poor when you're with that party -- with the kind of campaign you've represented? I just can't take it. I don't understand it. Is it some kind of guilt? Are you up here now trying to defend your position, so you can look yourself in the mirror after the kind of campaign you people ran? I don't understand it. You're on the side of big corporations and the banks. That's who you represent; that's where your money comes from, hon. member. Don't stand here and tell me you defend the poor. It's pathetic.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know how you can actually stand
Every time we come up with something, you say: "Oh, we're not going to cut health care. We're not going to cut education. We're just going to
To stand up here and say we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars more is pathetic. It's just pathetic, and I'm not going to take it from opposition members. Besides, it's completely out of order. Deal with it in Social Services estimates. We'll test the Liberal Party, and this member in particular, when this government is the only government in Canada dealing with initiatives for poverty and we'll see how that member votes. He'll stand there and vote with all his corporate buddies, the people who give him money, and the people on that side of the House -- his Socreds and all the people they pander to try to get elected. It's pathetic. I just think this kind of bleeding-heart crap from members of the opposition is pathetic, and people see through it.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved on division.
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. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 7:38 p.m.
On vote 39: minister's office, $462,000 (continued).
K. Whittred: Before the dinner hour, we dealt briefly with housing issues related to seniors. I think that we dealt with sort of the simple side of housing -- that side that doesn't involve care but involves more alternatives. I think we all agree that a variety of alternatives is necessary.
Now, I want to move on and look at that portion of housing that actually has a care component. This is where we get into the kind of care that most of us actually associate with seniors issues. The kind that we were briefly talking about involves several different levels of care. I think it's described in our project book as multilevel. This would involve, perhaps, housekeeping at one level, moving on up to a more sophisticated kind of home nursing care, if it was necessary.
[ Page 1974 ]
Earlier today in one of my questions which related to the projects that were on hold, I pointed out a very grave concern that I have about the number of those projects that affect seniors. Perhaps we'll start at this point. I think I counted almost 1000 beds. Earlier we referred to the need to look ahead and to provide housing for this rapidly growing segment of our population. Yet it seems that once again we're looking at cutbacks and making this group very vulnerable.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Really what we're trying to do as a ministry, in terms of preparing for an aging population, is keep more people in their own homes. We do recognize that there's a need for multilevel care when, indeed, people need to be moved out of their own homes. But, in the meantime, we're trying to prepare for services that can be delivered while people stay in their own homes. That's why we've increased home support services and adult day care programs. But we are committed to providing continuing care when needed.
K. Whittred: If that is the goal, to try to keep seniors in their own homes as long as possible, we will move right into this area of home care, which includes respite services -- care not only for the person that requires care, but also concern about care receivers.
In spite of the fact that more money has been put into home care recently, there is, I discover, a perception in the community that care is not what it used to be; that home care, in fact, is not as accessible as we like to think it is; that home care is, in fact, not available in a great many instances. I'm sure that all of us in our daily constituency work have run into examples of that. I wonder, as my first question, if the minister would like to comment on that perception.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the criticism may have been legitimate historically. However, we did adjust the budget in this year -- $10.75 million more into home support services, home care services. Those increased dollars will be added to the budget, and the budget is targeted toward those with highest need. It's fair to say, because of the criticisms that we've received from our constituents, that we reviewed and revised and added almost $11 million to the budget this year.
K. Whittred: I wonder if I could get an idea what numbers are available. How many seniors do we have in home care at this time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are almost 40,000 clients per month that get services. Now, that may show a decrease from the number of clients who have received services in, for instance, this decade. However, again in line with the people
[7:45]
K. Whittred: Approximately a year ago, I know that there was a great deal of concern about cuts to home care, and it was largely around the issue that housekeeping and personal care had been done away with, and the emphasis was being placed on those that needed it. I wonder if this is still the case. I know that many of us have received concerns in this area. Could the minister expand on that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's safe to say that home support restrictions were in place in the budget years of 1994-95 and 1995-96, in that there were no additional funds made available. But that changed this year. There is almost $11 million available in this budget.
What happened was that in terms of the control of expenditures, the steep increases in expenditures in this program levelled off, and we did manage to successfully refocus the program. Now, with the refocus and concentrating greatly on seniors with high needs, we have managed to ensure that costs are controlled. But there has to be reinvestment, and that reinvestment has been almost $11 million in additional money this year in the program.
K. Whittred: With the emphasis in this level of care for seniors now being largely in the area of home care, conventional wisdom tells me that there should then be a reduction on the acute care side, and that somehow we should be able to demonstrate this relationship between additional home care and a reduction of acute care. I'm wondering if it's possible to demonstrate that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a good question, but it's not a zero-sum game. That's not how we are actually targeting the resources. What we have managed to do, though, is appropriately target acute care resources to people who need acute care resources. They're not being misdirected to people who could be better served by other health care services. It's not that we only provide the home care support services as acute care services reduce. We don't tally it that way. We're actually investing in home care services as the need arises.
K. Whittred: Following up on that last point, I have something here that referred to that -- an article from the press not too long ago. It is making the point that early discharge from hospital actually increases the cost to the patient through higher medication and the need for more service. I wonder if you would like to comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there is an unusual factor that exists in our drug supply program, in that when you're in hospital, drugs are free. So yes, of course, the minute you leave hospital, drug costs are going to rise. But really, in terms of assessing the wellness needs of the patient, there is no indication that the recovery factor or the wellness factor of the patient is harmed by early discharge with proper home care support. There are studies that show that indeed the recovery is enhanced.
K. Whittred: I should have mentioned that that was the nature of the article: with the early discharge, the patient loses the right to free medication.
Moving on, earlier the minister spoke of high needs being the focus of the home care program. She also mentioned low needs. I wonder if the minister could define what she means by high need and low need.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The range actually is from low need -- housecleaning services; that would be a low-need client -- to high-need people who actually need dressings changed or bathing, personal care services that they are unable to do by themselves, up to and including bandage changes, etc.
K. Whittred: I understand those designations as you have described them. How does an intake worker, a worker that goes out to assess a situation, determine? Does gender enter into it? I can think of many men, for example, that I know -- among them my husband and my father, probably
[ Page 1975 ]
-- who, if it came to things like laundry, would be considered low need, but it might never get done. So I am asking the obvious question: is gender a factor in considering need? Is there a difference in high need and low need between individuals or cultures? Where does one draw the line?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it's a good point, and not one to be taken frivolously. All those factors are taken into account in the assessment, in the determination of low versus high need.
K. Whittred: I think one of the concerns that I was getting to earlier is the perception that home care is not quite accomplishing what we would like it to. I think one of the problems, perhaps, is the idea that by not addressing the low needs, they in fact will become the high needs. One of the things I would like to introduce here which may illustrate that point is a report. Basically, the summary of the report is that the happier, the less stressed and the more equitable that seniors are as to everyday needs, the fewer health problems and health care needs that person will have. This goes back to the idea of addressing the needs of the low-need senior.
I'd like to move on to another point. Earlier I asked about the multilevel facility, and I was given the response that it was the ministry's goal for home care. I recognize that, and I share, in fact, the goal to have people live in their homes as long as possible. However, the absolute truth is that that segment of the population known as the "frail elderly" is the group that is increasing the most rapidly. If the figures I have in mind are correct, I believe that that particular segment increased by 63 percent in the last ten years. I made mention earlier to the fact that yesterday's paper said that before very long 87 years will be the average life span; therefore I don't think that we can any longer look to having this goal of home care without also considering the fact that we're going to need alternatives. Once people pass 85, illnesses such as dementia become very common. I think that we have to be looking now at facilities which will provide people with proper kinds of care. Perhaps this issue of the need for facilities surrounds the issue of the frail elderly. I wonder if the minister could comment.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's interesting, because I have an example in my riding of exactly the situation you talk about. It's actually a private-public partnership of multilevel care. Part of the multilevel care deals with people who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and there's a specific level of care such as that within the context of a multilevel care institutional setting that deals with the aging population.
We absolutely do need to develop strategies that not only care from a health point of view but also from a housing point of view, and that recognize an aging population and the various different stages of aging that the population faces. It makes sense. It makes good economic sense, and it definitely makes good health care sense.
I also just caution all of us that the strategies and the programs for dealing with an aging population have been only recently emerging. There was a different style of caring for our elderly, I think, up until about the late fifties, and that was very much in-family -- en famille -- care. Then we had the emerging nuclear family, where there was perhaps no room within the family home for caring for the elderly. We've since had to develop strategies for that. There are new goals, new methods and new strategies emerging all the time. The commitment that I can make is that our government will do everything to be at the front of those emerging strategies -- within the context, of course, though, that there are limited dollars available.
K. Whittred: Continuing with the discussion of issues surrounding the frail elderly and those who are not only receiving care but giving care, I want to move on now to the subject of respite. This is a report that grew out of the seniors' advisory committee, and there is another report that deals with the same issue. It makes note that 80 percent of care is actually given at home, and it recognizes, of course, the enormous contribution of what are called unpaid caregivers or, simply, family. However, we all know that that family needs some respite from time to time. This is usually given in the form of adult day care -- sometimes in the home -- or sometimes extended respite, so that the caregiver can get away for some time. I know that this is also very important for families with children who are handicapped. It's much the same thing.
Along those lines, I'd like to bring to your attention a serious issue in North Vancouver that will illustrate my point. Perhaps you can tell me whether or not this is going ahead. This is an adult day care centre, and there is grave concern that it has been caught in the minor project freeze. I wonder if you could tell me whether this is true.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're getting the answer for you on that, if you want to just wait. It is part of minor capital.
Let's move on to the next question, if you want, and I'll get back to you on that. Did you want me to answer the question on respite care now, as well?
K. Whittred: Yes.
[8:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The three functions of home support services, adult day care services and Meals on Wheels are part of the respite care given in this province. There have been substantial increases to those budgets. We view all of those as necessary for respite care. I'm also familiar with the respite care strategy -- the report, actually. I'm more familiar with it from the perspective of children, but it's now equally important for me as it applies to seniors. There are some excellent recommendations in that task force report, and the government is developing a response strategy as we speak.
I understand that the one you talked about is not very far along in the developmental stage. The commitment of funds at this stage is
K. Whittred: Maybe I can just add a bit to that in terms of how far along it got. It may not have funds attached to it, but it has certainly been a very lengthy negotiation between various levels of government -- including your level, of course -- and the city of Vancouver, the United Church of Canada and two or three other groups that have all had input into this. It involves land, very complicated moving procedures, and on and on it goes. I can certainly supply you with the letter. In fact, I think this letter was addressed to you, so obviously you must have it. So I will simply leave that information with you.
I know that some of my colleagues also have questions related to home care and respite care, so perhaps now would be the appropriate time to entertain those, and then I can finish up my other stuff afterwards.
S. Hawkins: My question is actually with regard to fee hikes. We were talking about housing for the elderly before. I
[ Page 1976 ]
received a letter from a constituent in Creston, B.C. He certainly has written to the ministry regarding residential accommodation rates for residents of continuing-care facilities and extended-care units, and for long-stay clients in acute care hospitals. He is concerned that the rates were increased. That was done in a manner, I guess, where very little notice was given. A lot of times the money is coming straight out of families' pockets, seniors' pensions and what have you.
I'll just raise some of the questions that he has asked. He's concerned that there has been an increase in rates, and he doesn't see that personal services have improved. He says that care and attention haven't necessarily improved, and that programs of benefit to intermediate care seniors have not been expanded and improved, so why is there a rate hike?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I admit that this area is controversial, because there have been changes recently within British Columbia to the residential accommodation rates for continuing-care facilities. I'll just take a minute to explain this, because I appreciate that the changes introduced are controversial in terms of those who are in receipt of continuing care.
Basically, though, what we are doing is bringing our system in line with what exists elsewhere in the country. Our standard rate, actually, is slightly less than the majority of the provinces. We have the third-lowest maximum rate. We do income testing, and I'm sure this is what the client is wondering about. But all provinces except Alberta do income testing for residential user fees, and in fact several other provinces do asset testing, as well; we don't. The rates are reviewed quarterly. Its basis is such that no more than 85 percent of the OAS should be used as the user fee for residential care. In a recent audit of the home support program, the auditor general recommended that the Ministry of Health develop a method of confirming income levels independently and recalculating fees at regular intervals. That's why we're doing it on a quarterly basis. We have the target level of 85 percent of OAS, which goes toward continuing-care user fees.
S. Hawkins: I see the minister has a piece of paper in her hand, and I wonder if it is the rate chart that I'm looking at, which is dated July 1, 1996.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
S. Hawkins: The constituent seems to make a fairly valid point when he says that the single and married rates are discriminatory. The married rate, obviously, refers to a couple who share a room, and the single rate refers to two singles, but sometimes it is a married person who lives with a spouse, so that's why they're single. I'm just wondering why there is a discrepancy between married and single rates.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Two factors affect that. One is room occupancy -- in other words, with married rates there is only one room being occupied. Secondly, OAS rates are based on family income, so couples receive a rate that is different from the one that two singles would receive.
S. Hawkins: I don't know if I understood that very clearly. Did the minister say that with married rates there's only one room occupied, and with singles there are two? Sometimes singles share,
Hon. J. MacPhail: I will get that information for the hon. member, but it is based on 85 percent of the OAS rate, which is paid toward the user fee. So that would work out such that the OAS family income for two who are married is different from two singles, but I can get the exact calculation for the member. We have met the auditor general's recommendations around standardizing these fees according to the payment received from the federal government, and I can give the member the detailed report on that if she wishes.
K. Whittred: I'd like to address the question of some very specialized services for seniors, many of which are new medical specialties. I know from personal experience how valuable they can be -- things such as psychogeriatric services and so on. My first question would be: how common are highly specialized people such as geriatric psychologists, geriatric nutritionists and so on? I'm asking this because I know, from my own reading and general knowledge, that we're learning that many seniors respond in different ways to nutrition and medicines, and therefore the need for passing on this education is very important. Could the minister please comment on these specialized services and how they are transmitted through the medical community?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Any specialty involving geriatrics is relatively rare, but they are emerging. Psychogeriatrics is among the rarer of geriatric treatments, but it is emerging as a profession.
K. Whittred: Is anything being done, not necessarily in terms of the highly intense medical specialties, but in terms of other areas of working with geriatric patients, such as occupational therapy and all the different kinds of jobs that will be opening up as we move to a greater need? Is that happening in our colleges? Is there any endeavour in that direction?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, as the profession emerges, so does the training. We're on a steep curve here. My understanding is that part of the medical students' program at UBC now involves a component for geriatric care. But again, it's emerging, and if the point is that more needs to be done, I accept that.
Around the area of home support care and other health care providers, we're actually investing with the colleges and training programs to increase training in the area of geriatric care for other health care providers.
K. Whittred: That response pleases me very much. In fact, one of my daughter's friends is actually taking a course in music therapy for seniors. That sounds rather crazy, but it is the truth.
I see that my colleague has a question, so I'll sit down and let her ask it at this point.
[8:15]
S. Hawkins: I listened with interest when the minister said that they were willing to pursue programs that expanded on research and teaching and stuff, into geriatrics. It's interesting, because I read in the paper about two or three weeks ago that St. Paul's Hospital is downsizing their geriatric unit. Again, coming from a constituency that serves a lot of seniors, and looking into the
[ Page 1977 ]
ecision to downsize the St. Paul's unit, which I think is very valuable. I believe that they've been cut by ten or 11 beds, and that the decision wasn't even discussed with the director of the unit before it was made.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This was a hospital board decision of St. Paul's Hospital, and it's their allocation of resources. What I recall is that they examined the utilization of the beds of geriatric care, and that there was underutilization. They amalgamated the geriatric care beds with another program. I can't recall off the top of my head the other program, but it was with an in-patient program that they amalgamated the beds. It was an internal hospital decision, so it was the board themselves that made this in terms of allocation. But we are monitoring it to make sure that the hospital itself hasn't gone beyond just adjusting for the underutilization of the beds.
S. Hawkins: Was there any communication with the Ministry of Health with regard to the closure of beds in this program? Were there any discussions between the director -- I believe her name is Dr. Jan Martini -- and the ministry about expanding funding or helping keep this program alive?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
A. Sanders: I would just like to expand a bit on this one particular point. One thing that we have to look at in terms of utilization in any research facility -- which Dr. Martini's ward was -- is that you will not have the same utilization, as not all members of the public, and certainly not all members of the province, have similar access. The kinds of things that are done on these wards are the institution of new kinds of preventive treatments, and the institution of different models or ways of treating elderly people who have either organic or physiologic disease. Utilization is sort of a key word. If utilization isn't up, then that will be remediated by cuts.
My understanding from reading the article -- and I would have to pull those clippings in order to see that -- was that in fact it was the ministry that had decided that the funding should be withdrawn or curtailed or downsized, and that it was the ministry's contribution that was missing rather than St. Paul's. I would appreciate the minister clarifying that issue for me.
Hon. J. MacPhail: St. Paul's Hospital got a global budget increase of 1.12 percent. It's in the context of that that the hospital board made allocation decisions, and the decision around the future of the geriatric care rested with the hospital board. If somehow the hon. member wishes to lay the responsibility at the feet of the ministry, I don't reject that -- if there is evidence of that. It is in the context of us putting $150 million more into hospital care. We asked individual hospital boards to make the best use of the increased funding, and hospital boards themselves then make decisions within that context.
A. Sanders: I don't disagree with the minister's statements at all. However, it is to be recognized, as the hon. member for Okanagan West pointed out, that health care is pretty much on target based on what was forecast in the sixties and seventies. We are in a situation where we have been incrementally underfunding health care and asking facilities to do more with less. At St. Paul's especially, with its subspecialty areas, we have, from my experience, something in the order of 35 percent of the individuals coming in there with no MSP coverage, and being treated and serviced in this hospital completely free of any responsibility to them.
I think that each of us, when we are looking at the ministerial level, need to decide whether geriatrics, for example, is important. If we are funding these programs that have to do with
What a hospital has to do at any time they are underfunded is cut what they consider to be the frills. A lot of the psychogeriatric programs, the geriatric unit, mental health services and services for eating disorders are the things that will go first. I think there should be some discussion in this ministry as to whether or not those things are worth keeping, and whether they should be funded in some separate way to allow for their preservation.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to get into an ideological battle around this issue, so I'm just going to put this on the record once. I really don't, because, quite frankly, I value every contribution that every health care provider makes in British Columbia, but it does have to be put in the context of provincial budgets. So I'll just reiterate that a hospital such as St. Paul's Hospital gets a global budget. There have been no cuts. There's been an increase of 1.12 percent to that budget, and there is a relative lack of interference by the Ministry of Health in how that hospital allocates its budget.
But when there are issues arising, saying that the reputation of B.C. is thus and thus, and the poor cousin of other parts of the country, I don't accept that in recent history at all. I faced this very dilemma when meeting with my provincial colleagues from across the rest of Canada, and there are stark and, in my view, desperate cuts being made to health care budgets in other parts of the country that are simply not occurring here.
There is also the fact that British Columbians don't want to pay any more taxes. The health care budget is one-third of the provincial budget, and even within the context of that, we have managed to fund hospitals beyond the level of population and demographic increase in British Columbia.
K. Krueger: I have just a couple questions each on two subjects, in whichever order is best for you and the people with you. I want to inquire about two capital projects affecting my constituency. I also want to talk about gambling addiction. Is there any particular order?
Interjection.
K. Krueger: I'd like to ask first about the status of the multilevel health care facility planned for Clearwater.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a major capital project, and so it's part of the freeze. It's under review.
K. Krueger: I understood that, and for the sake of my many constituents in Clearwater who are really concerned about the project, I wonder if I could get any better clarification than "under review" as to how long the review is likely to take. I understood from answers earlier today that different projects are emerging from the review faster than others, and I'd like to know, if I can, what level of priority it has compared to some of the others.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, and I appreciate that the Blues from Hansard haven't been issued yet, so I don't mind repeating this for the member for Kamloops-North Thompson at all.
[ Page 1978 ]
The projects that are emerging from any assessment pattern are minor capital projects. The project that the member refers to is a major capital project; i.e., the value of it is greater than $1.5 million. The Minister of Finance has announced that the review would take up to six months, so we can anticipate decisions around major capital spending emerging in December of this year. Certainly the project that has been identified by the member will be treated equally and equitably in the review.
K. Krueger: Some of the projects that are under review are projects that were newly promised, I think, during the 60-day lead-up to the May election. Others, like this one, were promised well before that, and as a result of a lot of community involvement and a lot of planning, people who had those promises made to them naturally feel as though they ought to have a priority higher than promises that were made in the pre-election, 60-day period. Does that point of view have any support in government?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Things changed during the election. Let me be frank. There was a huge issue around debt and debt servicing. In the years '91 to '95 our government made huge commitments to capital spending. I happened to have the misfortune of having to sit on Treasury Board, and I understand the situations that many communities were placed in by virtue of having no capital spending in communities for years prior to our government coming into play. I can't speak for health care institutions, but I know that in the educational and post-secondary institutions some communities hadn't had anything built for 20 years. So we spent, and that was an issue in the election.
The timing of the government committing to capital spending is not on the basis of when we agreed that such money should be spent; it's on the basis of how much we have invested so far in proceeding with that capital project, so that we're not in the process of wasting tax dollars as we do the review. I think the expenditures are based on, for instance, $195 million in our ministry this year alone in capital spending, but it's based on how far along the project is. The project that you mention can probably be evaluated as extremely worthwhile on the basis of the commitment from the community, but it hasn't yet reached a point where there's an investment of tax dollars that is jeopardized by virtue of the review.
Our commitment is not in any way affected by the timing of the announcement, but it will be affected by the assessment and determination of the need of that project in the context of a very strong message being sent by the electorate in the last election.
K. Krueger: I understand that, but surely the degree to which the project had advanced won't be the only criterion as to which projects receive priority, since we may well come down, as always, to the allocation of scarce resources. Surely the need for a facility in a community will be of paramount consideration. For example, at any given time, more than 30 members of families from the little community of Clearwater are farmed out all around the province in extended-care facilities, the closest of which is Kamloops -- which, on a good day, is an hour-and-a-half drive -- and a lot of people are further away than that. It's a real heartache, and it's worse for people who have to travel that distance or greater distances to visit their families.
So I would like to be able to at least offer my constituents the comfort that they need in that those types of considerations will also weigh in the formula rather than simply the stage at which a project found itself at the moment of the freeze.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely, hon. member, and your words will be added to the record as valuable advice.
[8:30]
K. Krueger: I don't mean to offend by asking this question, but the size of the debt was known before the election. The amount of interest that we'd have to pay on the debt for the coming year was in the budget tabled the day the election was called. The debt is no surprise to the government, and neither, I believe, is the public concern about the debt. So I wonder if the minister has any additional and better message that I can convey to my constituents to explain the freeze than a concern about the debt during the 28 days of this spring's election.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, no, I don't. I accept the message that was sent to us by the electorate during the election. Prior to the election, of course, there was also equal -- perhaps opposite -- pressure put on us to spend on the debt. But those individual decisions demanded by communities were not put in context during the election. I don't in any way hold the electorate responsible for making the decision to choose to judge government spending by the overall debt rather than the individual need -- the sum of the parts -- such as the project that you describe. So the message is that we are going to reduce our capital spending. Clearly, we are going to reduce our capital spending. It's in the context of that reduced spending on related debt that we will identify those capital projects that can proceed in accordance with the lower capital debt level. I guess maybe four years from now another election will be decided on that decision.
The Chair: Now, back to the estimates, member.
K. Krueger: I think this has a direct bearing on the estimates, because obviously it's an expenditure that was supposed to have been budgeted, from my constituents' point of view. The opposition certainly doesn't hold the electorate responsible either. But I think the electorate will hold the government responsible for promises that were made during the election campaign and certainly for promises that were made well before the election campaign. These are people's lives we're talking about, and people had great expectations, not just hopes, because from their point of view the commitments had been made.
I'd also like to ask about the status of the psychiatric unit which Kamloops had been told was going to be located in or near the Royal Inland Hospital.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Planning for it proceeds.
K. Krueger: On the 1996-97 project list under Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, there's a long list of projects. Under the capital expenditure category, they all say "legally committed," except for the very bottom one that says "site optioned." Rather than Kamloops it cites a place named TOKO, which I'm told means Thompson-Okanagan. I just wanted to confirm that the decision has been made in this government's mind that Kamloops will be the location of the psychiatric unit.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You don't like being called TOKO or what? Yes, it is Kamloops.
[ Page 1979 ]
K. Krueger: I'll turn now to the issue of gambling addiction. The minister and I had some interaction on this when she stood in for the Minister of Social Services earlier in these estimates. Since then, I've had to touch base with a number of ministers along the way, because of the tortuous path that gaming has followed over the last two years through various ministries. I did receive an assurance from the Minister of Finance that he'd be willing to work with me and the Minister of Health on this issue. I'd like to know whether the Ministry of Health has any statistics for the number of British Columbians affected by gambling addiction.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no services at present, but some have been contemplated.
K. Krueger: That was going to be my next question, but I was wondering if the ministry actually had any current statistics as to the number of British Columbians affected by gambling addiction.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, but I know that there's been an ongoing search by this hon. member, so I'll do whatever I can to help you to get those statistics. I'm not sure they're relevant to my portfolio, but I don't mind that at all, and certainly I'll assist in getting them.
K. Krueger: I respect what the minister just said, but nobody throughout these estimates has been sure that those statistics are relevant to their portfolios. There's good reason for that, because gaming has touched on so many different portfolios, and it's certainly touched on a lot of lives in British Columbia. It generates $1.5 billion a year right now, with the level of gaming that's allowed. It nets $300 million to the government coffers, of which I'm assured 50 percent is directed to the Ministry of Health's budget. The Minister of Finance did make a commitment to me that he would be willing to explore diverting a portion of that income stream to dealing with the consequences on B.C. families of gambling addiction, which crops up regardless of socioeconomic status throughout the spectrum of our population.
The government has spent some money on research on this issue, and I'll just put some of the results into the record. There was an Angus Reid survey commissioned by the B.C. Lottery Corporation in late '93, I gather, because it was published in January '94. I'll very briefly quote some of the results:
"Implications: Combining the present survey results with the most recent census data, we estimate there are between 12,700 and 42,100 current probable pathological gamblers in British Columbia. Assuming that half of these eventually seek assistance, treatment will need to be provided for a minimum of 6,000 cases. Bingo, casino and horse track bettors represent the most at-risk gaming segments for problem gambling behaviours."
And all of those are sanctioned forms of gaming in British Columbia. In its conclusion section -- I'll just be very brief here -- the last part of the last sentence says:
Then the Ministry of Government Services did a gaming policy review and wrote a report in October '94 that came up with even higher numbers, although it doesn't use the term pathological. It says that approximately 3.5 percent of British Columbians have a gaming problem. Provincial action on problem gambling should address this issue comprehensively, from prevention to treatment.
So 3.5 percent of the population would be something over 120,000 people -- and I'm hearing about these people. Word hasn't even been out very long that I am the gaming critic for the official opposition, but there are families with desperate needs. One young woman who phoned our constituency office recently said that her father had developed this problem, and when she tried to speak with him on behalf of her family, he seized her by the throat and choked her. She could still barely swallow when she was talking to us. I've talked to people whose marriages have broken down, people who have gone bankrupt and lost their homes.
It's a serious, serious issue, and there is this huge income stream to general revenue, so I would like the Ministry of Health to have programs underway, and I'd like to be assured of that and be involved in that. Certainly the Minister of Finance has given me his commitment that he is willing to talk about diverting money to this. My colleague has made the point that this is also a multicultural issue, that some cultures are more receptive to gaming than others, and presumably all kinds of problems flow from that because of language issues and everything else. I guess there is not too much point in discussing it further, with the responses that I have had, but for the record I'd really appreciate this minister's commitment that she will work on a priority basis with the Minister of Finance and myself to make sure that we address this problem.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely. I actually appreciate the investment of time that you have spent on this issue. You make some excellent points, and I commit to that.
V. Anderson: I want to make some clarifications that come from the estimates. Looking at the back of the estimates, giving the total of the expenditure for Health, in the last couple of pages I find different amounts listed as the estimates for the coming year, for 1996-97. The first one that I find is $6.936 billion. And then I get $6.996 billion, or $6.934 billion, or $6.811 billion. So between the top and the bottom of those estimates, I have a $184 million difference. Two of them are found in the estimates after full-time-equivalents at the back, on
Hon. J. MacPhail: Page, please.
V. Anderson:...which is page 273. And you find one in the Health estimate itself, and then you find the other two in the revision of the estimates, on schedule F. So there's one in the original statement, there's one on page 273, and then there are two of them on schedule F, and they all are different numbers. I am curious to know which of the numbers, and why there are four different ones, and even two different ones on
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are the 1995-96 estimates, the revised forecast for 1995-96 and the estimates for 1996-97, and then there's the restated estimates for 1995-96, which takes care of programs that transferred out of the ministry at that time. Schedule F is the revisions to the 1996-97 estimates that stand as of the date of the tabling of the budget in June. But if the hon. member's question asks what exactly the commitment of funds is, for the Ministry of Health for the year
Let me just clarify this for you, because it has to do with the change in ministerial responsibilities and nothing more than that. We'll have three votes. One is for $6,811,166,017. That's a revised estimate, from the budget that was tabled April 28 to the next budget that was tabled around June 26, because the former Minister of Health also had responsibility
[ Page 1980 ]
for intergovernmental relations and the Provincial Capital Commission. Those responsibilities no longer rest with me, for instance, so it's been revised on that basis. There's also a vital statistics vote for $7,922,122. Then there's the minister's office, for $462,000. I think that if you add that up, it will come to $6,934,620,139. Is that right?
V. Anderson: I'll take your word for it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Touché!
V. Anderson: What the minister has said, then, is that schedule F, the revised estimate expenditures, is $6.934 billion, whereas the revised vote
Hon. J. MacPhail: On the ministry budget.
[8:45]
V. Anderson:...of the ministry budget. Then she adds the other vote totals to that, which may come out to that all right. We'll give her the benefit of the doubt, anyway, at this point.
But then going to schedule A, where we have some of these transfers in and out, I'm wondering if we can get some explanation of what has happened as a result of these. If I understand correctly, going through a variety of places, the first one there is the intergovernmental relations branch. It was put out of the ministry; it had been put into the ministry just in the earlier budget. So there were two transactions, if I am right. The minister is nodding that I'm right. They only had it for a little while and then lost it again.
The transfer from the Ministry of Education of the residential historical abuse program -- could you comment on what that program is and how it's developed, now that it's transferred, and why it was transferred into Health from Education?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The RHAP program has always been supplied through the Ministry of Health, but the experience usage -- i.e., the number of people who use it as a result of misuse by, for
V. Anderson: Is that why there's no indication of FTEs being transferred -- because it's only a transfer of funds?
Are health services in schools the same? There's $180,000 there. What's the comment about it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's the same status as the previous one.
V. Anderson: The Provincial Capital Commission has been transferred from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Health for $225,000 and 18 FTEs. Is the Provincial Capital Commission program still with the Ministry of Health now, or is it another one that came and went again?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Provincial Capital Commission moves around with the Hon. Andrew Petter. That's why it went from Forests to Health. It's now with Finance, the same as the responsibility for intergovernmental relations.
V. Anderson: Thank you. The institutional downsizing which has come from the Ministry of Social Services for $2.5 million and 35 FTEs -- could you explain for us what the status is of that program, not only that it's in Health at the moment, but why it was transferred to Health?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is as a result of the downsizing of Woodlands. For former residents of Woodlands who now move into the community, these funds have been transferred to us to provide health care services in the community.
V. Anderson: Again, we have the residential historical abuse program. Was there money that came from both Education and Social Services for that program, which would give it a much larger combined total? If so, has that happened every year or just this current year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They have transferred the money before, but this is the first year that there's actually been a base transfer to our ministry for delivery of that program.
V. Anderson: There are a number of programs under Social Services: residential historical abuse, Services for Community Living, community projects and the Vancouver action plan. Apart from institutional downsizing for the others, there's only one transfer of an FTE. If these are all new programs, why is this being budgeted and transferred over, and why are there not FTEs? It doesn't seem to balance out with that many programs and that amount of money, which comes up to a number of millions of dollars and six different programs that are being related to there.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I do this from the knowledge of being the former Minister of Social Services. These programs are actually some successful examples of integrated projects. For instance, the Vancouver action plan was the street kids' program we put in to get children in the sex trade off the streets in Vancouver. The $600,000 is specifically for youth detoxification in that area, but it's an integrated program delivered mainly either through contracted services or through the Ministry of Social Services. The portion of the integrated services that is directly attributable to our ministry has been transferred here. That would be true also of several integrated community projects that exist. For instance, in the area of Rutland or Westbank there are some integrated projects. And that is true for Services for Community Living: programs basically delivered through the Ministry of Social Services, and maybe even contracted services, but there are specific health components that the contracted services contract with our ministry, and therefore it's the equivalent of journal-vouchering in that area.
V. Anderson: Could the minister explain whether these are services that are also cofunded with Social Services and with other ministries. Would these appear in their budget as well as in here? For the Vancouver action plan, is there money from Social Services as well as here? Are the community projects cofunded, and are the staff being provided by other ministries rather than by the community?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. No, it's probably contracted services by the community in which the program is being delivered. These would no longer appear this year in the Ministry of Social Services, because this is a baseline transfer of funds.
V. Anderson: Thank you. Moving down, then, to the transfers to the Ministry of Social Services, if you could com-
[ Page 1981 ]
ment about the deaf-
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, it's the reverse of what we described earlier, where there could have been integrated services provided. Now the funding for it is being given over solely to the Ministry of Social Services. No longer is journal-vouchering taking place, but the baseline funds are being transferred directly to the Ministry of Social Services. Just as an example, Rainbow Ridge Special Care Home was under the auspices of our ministry, but Social Services has taken over the running of that, so now there's been a baseline transfer to the Ministry of Social Services. That would be the same in terms of the other line items that you see there as well. It actually is eliminating the practice of journal-vouchering and actually putting it into the baseline budgets.
V. Anderson: Besides the difference in bookkeeping, are there other reasons for it -- better service or better programming or because the programs are basically better undertaken by Social Services than by Health or vice versa? These two are one in one way and one the other.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. You give some reasons for doing this on a permanent basis, but also we have gone through a massive contract reform process within government as well, to ensure that there are not double administration costs, that there's better accountability for the delivery of mostly contracted services in the community and that one ministry be held accountable for the delivery of the services.
V. Anderson: The next one is the transfer to other appropriations, and it is the transfer of the government employee health services to the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. It's a transfer from Health of $1.5 million and 16 FTEs. Can you explain the reason for that, both the money and the FTEs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the equivalent of the nurse's room in school. It was the health services for government employees. We used to run it, but now the responsibility -- because it's governmentwide for government employees -- has been transferred to the agency that's responsible for health and labour relations for government employees, and that's PSERC, the Public Service Employee Relations Commission.
V. Anderson: The last one in this category is the B.C. Mental Health Society. There's no money transferred, but there are 66 FTEs transferred, which seems to be a lot of FTEs. Could you explain the transfer of those 66 persons or equivalent, and give us some knowledge of what the B.C. Mental Health Society is with that many FTEs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That line item is part of Riverview. We had to calculate for the FTEs. The FTEs used to be part of Riverview. We still have to calculate for them because they're government-provided. These FTEs have been transferred into the community to deliver services that used to be delivered through Riverview for people who are mentally ill, but we still have to account for the FTEs. That's why you see the accounting of FTEs and not dollars.
V. Anderson: I'm not sure I quite understand. These are FTEs that are transferred to the community instead of being at Riverview. They're transferred this way, but how are they paid? Where's the money coming from? They're paying it, but there's no transfer of money. I'm not quite sure; I don't understand.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In order to calculate for the FTEs, even though the services are delivered in the community, the Riverview grant is reduced by that number of FTEs. The calculation for the funding of the FTEs goes into the ministry funding, but the FTEs themselves are assigned to the B.C. Mental Health Society. We have an accounting for funding for the FTEs as a reduction from Riverview into the Ministry of Health, but the FTEs are shown as being part of the B.C. Mental Health Society services delivered in the community. In other
V. Anderson: I'm just curious. In every other case, if the money had been transferred to Health, then it should have been shown as a transfer in. But the money isn't shown as a transfer in, it's only shown as the FTEs as a transfer in or out. The money isn't transferred along with the FTEs, which should be a sizeable sum of money, I would expect.
[9:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The money was always in the Ministry of Health, but it's been transferred to a different line. The money now, instead of showing up as Riverview funding, shows up as the STOB vote for direct ministry employees. The assigning of the FTEs, the actual
V. Anderson: Just to clarify then, the B.C. Mental Health Society -- which, I gather, is a private society operating as a non-profit society in the community and raises funds for its activities over and apart from this -- gets a loan, if you like, or a donation to them of 66 FTEs. I'm trying to get the relationship of what the society is, the relationship to the FTEs, who's paying for them and where that money comes from.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is ruddy confusing, and if the hon. member wants to have a detailed briefing on it, I'd be more than happy to do it. The B.C. Mental Health Society is unusual in that it is a government society, not a private society. The other comparison I see is the liquor distribution branch. But I'd be more than happy to get a briefing note for you on the transfer. It is related to the downsizing of Riverview, a topic I know you are concerned about. I think it would be very appropriate for me to get you a detailed briefing note of how this occurred, where the services are delivered, who pays for them and where the employees work, if that's all right.
V. Anderson: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
That leads me into a topic that you knew I would probably raise. It has to do with Riverview and some of the questions about Riverview. I would like to quote the minister on some of these questions we have discussed previously, when
[ Page 1982 ]
some of them were asked. I quote from the Hansard of the thirty-fifth parliament: "This is an appropriate question for the Minister of Health, who administers this budget."
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yikes, that's me now.
V. Anderson: That's you now, yes. I just hope she doesn't say that's an appropriate question for the Minister of Social Services.
One of the questions we had to deal with was the comfort allowance for the patients at Riverview Hospital. When we discussed the comfort allowance last time, the then Minister of Social Services advised us that because they were in the hospital and they got their food and shelter and that came out of the hospital budget rather than out of the Social Services budget, she disclaimed any responsibility for Social Services.
I am raising the question now, when she has a new perspective as the Minister of Health, of whether she will take a new look. I am not asking for an answer today, but whether the Minister will now take a new look -- from the perspective of Social Services, which she knows, and the perspective of Health, which she now has and is beginning to understand quite well -- at the question of the comfort allowance within the hospital for those who live there in that situation, recognizing that they are not like the normal hospital patient, who may go into the hospital once or twice in a lifetime, but that those with mental illness are going to be in and out of the system. They will still have a mental illness for the most part, but they will be part-time in the hospital and part-time out of the hospital. They need some continuity of support so they are not deprived on the one hand, when they go into the hospital, and then given a bonus, if you like, when they go out. Would the minister undertake to consider that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the advice from the member. I will take him up on his advice. I am planning to visit Riverview very soon. I haven't been within the walls of Riverview for about eight or nine years, so it's time for me to go back. I will meet with the residents, etc., but I don't want to in any way exacerbate hopes, either. We have to handle this issue very carefully on behalf of the patients who are there, as well as the spokespeople for the patients. But I will take his advice. I will do that in the context of examining the overall issues that face patients of Riverview, in the very near future.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. I learned a long time ago that if you let people's conscience be their guide, eventually they'll get to the right answer. As long as they are willing
Hon. J. MacPhail: You must be from Saskatchewan.
V. Anderson: Related to that, because it's part of the specific question we discussed before, is the question of the clothing allowance when persons are in Riverview. When we discussed this before, the then Minister of Social Services quoted the Minister of
I might as well ask for the third one at the same time, the bus pass. When you go into Riverview, the question is a means of transportation -- whether it's a bus pass or bus tickets that are available -- while you're at the hospital, so you can begin to get out and visit friends or family or have a little recreation. Otherwise the hospital, in effect, becomes a jail. The fact that it becomes a jail takes away from credibility, particularly of persons who have mental illness, because it's that ability to think you have freedom to make decisions for yourself and to act upon them -- even to go with somebody else, as the need may be. You can't even do that if you don't have the ability. So the comfort allowance, the clothing allowance and the ability to get transportation are key factors to part of the health cure. Will the minister take those into account?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to report that the issue on bus passes has been resolved to the satisfaction of the patients, but we will monitor that situation.
On the issue of clothing, the ministry has made substantial changes in the last year around the provision of adequate clothing, as the hon. member describes, for different life situations that the patients may find themselves in, including the maintenance and repair of that clothing. But I will undertake to ask the patients, when I visit Riverview, about the adequacy of those changes.
V. Anderson: I was tempted to go through the 100 recommendations in the listing, and that probably wouldn't be fair. It would highlight them and get them on the record. But I highlight that there were 100 recommendations and would appreciate it, after the minister has visited Riverview and had a chance to study, if she could advise us of those recommendations that have been fulfilled and brought up to date, of the ones that have not been fulfilled and why not, and of the others that might still be pending. If we can get a status report when the minister has a chance to review this, we'd appreciate getting that, because it could be beneficial to all of us in looking at those recommendations.
When the minister is on site, I hope she will give consideration to the longstanding desire of many patients who have been resident for some time, or even a short time, at Riverview to have housing on the Riverview site. It's a beautiful location that has been dedicated for a particular purpose. Just because we're going to modernize and
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's my understanding that this actual point of view is being put across to the Riverview land use planning committee. I also understand that it's a very involved process -- lots of community participation and resident participation. I look forward to seeing a successful and perhaps consensus conclusion reached along that process. I'm pleased that you put forward a point of view on behalf of the residents.
[ Page 1983 ]
V. Anderson: My understanding in reading the report is not just that this is the point of view of the residents, but that this is important to the staff and the people who care about the residents, and also for the well-being of the staff themselves. If the people they work with are happy, the staff are happier. I mean, it's a joint undertaking. It's not either-or; it's a both-and. I think we need to see it that way, because for many of the people who would like to work with
It could also be a respite or a retreat, if you like, that people downtown, who are trying to establish themselves in an outside community, can go back to periodically and stay for a weekend or have an opportunity to refresh themselves without going into the hospital. There may be a residential relationship that they can go into. For many of them, it would be like a camp or weekend retreat. If the facilities are there, they might be long-term for some persons, and they might be short-term for other persons, but it would establish a
So there's a variety of possibilities, and I don't think that we should be saying it's either-or; we should be saying it's both-and. I'm not sure I've heard that expressed very much. We seem to think that there should downsizing, and therefore it should go that way. I think there's a mixture. There's a new way of looking at this that hasn't always been put forth.
I thank the minister very much for looking into this, and I'll let her conscience be her guide. In spite of what I argue with her, I'm sure she has a conscience, and it will work. So we trust her to use it.
An Hon. Member: She's from
K. Whittred: I think we should be a little more specific. It has to be Swift Current, Saskatchewan, or Regina.
I have just a couple of areas to finish up my global umbrella of seniors issues. I keep reading in various things about a program called New Horizons. I gather that this program no longer exists. However, as I say, I keep coming across it, and I wonder if someone could simply tell me what it was, what the funding was for and any other relevant information.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a federal program, actually, for community development. I would assist you in getting a historical perspective on that program, but it is federal.
K. Whittred: Thank you so much. That does clarify it. I don't think I want any more information. I gather that the program has been cancelled.
One of the things that does concern me, though, is that I gather from my reading that the kinds of projects that New Horizons funded were community-based programs where some group or another took an initiative on something. Is this basically correct? So it was the basis of funding for many of the issues that in fact are addressed as serious concerns of the various seniors' groups -- things like multicultural concerns, concerns of ethnicity, concerns of gender, concerns about public awareness and so on. I wonder if the minister could suggest what it is that she as the Minister Responsible for Seniors might see as replacing these programs.
[9:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we haven't accommodated for the off-loading of the federal government.
K. Whittred: I will finish up tonight with just a little bit about elder abuse, which, of course, is identified by the various literature as one of the other major concerns of seniors. My first question would be: why has the government not implemented the four various acts related to adult guardianship and trusteeship?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member is quite right; there are four acts. Three are under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, and the aspect of elder abuse and adult guardianship legislation is part of the responsibility of the AG.
But anyway, let me offer you this. There is a community coalition that we're working with toward proclamation. The acts have passed, but they have not had a proclamation date. We are working with the community coalition, and we're working toward a proclamation date of next year.
K. Whittred: I believe that my colleague would like to follow up a little bit more on that, but before that, I'll just finish up what I had here.
Growing out of the advisory council's report, their task force on elder abuse, there were several recommendations, which I have written down here. The line of questioning I want to take here is: just how far have we progressed in implementing these recommendations? Now, these recommendations, of course, all have specifically to do with issues surrounding elder abuse.
The three that I want to ask about are: (1) public education, which of course is simply educating the public about elder abuse; (2) training for professionals and non-professionals -- that is, for anyone who works with elders, have they been made aware of the signs, the symptoms, etc., of elder abuse? and (3) the protocols. Are these in place, have workers been educated about them, and do workers in fact know what is to be done and by whom if abuse is indicated? So I'm looking for a kind of report card on those issues.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is part of the coordinated, community-based approach that we're taking to the implementation of the act. All of these recommendations are being dealt with through the office for seniors and the joint community-government steering committee toward implementation. We'll have implementation in place at the same time as proclamation. But just to reassure the hon. member that we consider the recommendations important, we will act upon the recommendations. We will involve the community, though, in acting upon the recommendations.
Some initiatives have started already, though, in us working in partnership with health care deliverers around elder abuse and even around elder patient abuse within our institutions as well. So the education process has begun. There is more work to be done.
K. Whittred: Can I be a little bit more specific here? Having been a teacher for some time, I'm very aware of the protocols in the system involving child abuse. I know what I have to do if I suspect that a child is being abused. What I really want to know is: if I am a home care worker or some other person working with a senior in some form of care, is there a protocol that I must follow if I go into a situation and find a senior who has been abused?
[ Page 1984 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. That's what we have to work toward. It's a point well taken.
K. Whittred: That concludes my general questions related to the umbrella, as I call it, of the seniors office. What I have tried to do -- and I hope I have been at least partly successful -- is focus on what I consider to be the major issues and look at those issues as part of a holistic concept. We could go on and on, I suppose, for days, looking at individual health problems of seniors. That was not my intent. Hopefully, we have reached some conclusions here, and no doubt some seniors issues will come up in more specific instances, but that is the general discussion. I believe my colleague did want to follow up a bit on guardianship.
V. Anderson: On the legislation, there is the health bill which is a part of those packages, and the minister has indicated that that's on hold for another year. I think we had understood earlier that that would be implemented, at least in part, this year. I've attended a number of the meetings throughout the province with the community coalition, in which they have been educating people around the province. They understood that, hopefully, the regulations would be ready this spring or summer at the latest. I understand there's been some holdup. Could the minister explain to us what the holdup is and why, and what kind of time frame we're dealing with?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I'm sorry if I indicated that it was on hold; it's not on hold. It's just progressing more slowly than anticipated toward a proclamation date of early next year. But the process continues, including work with the community coalition. There's been a request by the community coalition to review the regulations pursuant to one of the acts, the representation act. That is taking place right now in conjunction with the office of the public trustee. But the community coalition involvement continues, the process continues, and the date for proclamation and implementation is early 1997.
V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for that. That's the process as I understand it. One of things I would highlight is that the community coalition was working very hard on the representation agreement in health care, as well as other things -- but particularly in health care, which relates to this ministry -- whereby individuals would have the freedom to appoint representatives and give them a certain authority and power. That was running against a concept that trusteeship should come into play in the way that trusteeship has been held traditionally in the lap of the public trustee.
As I understand it, there's been a difference of opinion as to whether we move into the more legalized, formal trusteeship which belongs to a public trustee or a body like that, as over against a more informal but recognized representation agreement, where a family friend, a family member or others could have that authority rather than the trustee. It makes a very distinct difference which side of that ledger you come down on.
The hope of the community coalition, as I understand it, was that we would come down on the side of the informal trust and a caring, loving kind of relationship, rather than on the legal trust kind or letter-of-the-law side of that relationship. It seems to me that when we're dealing with wellness and health care, we need to find a way to come down on the side of people and relationships rather than on the side of law and legality. I wonder if the minister, without taking positions at the moment, can say whether that has been highlighted so that the distinction
As I understand it, when the regulations were provided to the community coalition by the legal writers, they came out on the legal side rather than on the representation, caring side. Would the minister take a real look at it to make sure that that caring, legal, friendly, understanding kind of relationship takes precedence, recognizing that legal realities have to be met? The legal realities in the trusteeship tend to work against that. I mean, that's the nature of whether law or compassion takes over. I would like to highlight that distinction.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thanks, hon. member, for that advice. I'll make sure the Attorney General is well aware of that. My understanding is that that is part of the discussion that's going on as the review of the regulations takes place. I actually appreciate your input; you've helped me understand it better. Even though it's under the auspices of the Attorney General, I'll make sure I discuss that matter with him.
V. Anderson: Related to that, part of the discussion, which has become very much a part of holding it back in the initial stages and which took a while to get all community concerns on board, was on the relationship of those with a mental illness to the Mental Health Act. In order to get the representation agreement and things on the way, it's my understanding that the other modification or review of the Mental Health Act was put to the side. Will it be coming forward? Will it be looked at again in the future as a follow-up to what was done previously, without holding back that which was done in this other discussion?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm advised that the Mental Health Act overrides the representation agreement around matters of committal, and there is at this stage no desire to change that.
[9:30]
V. Anderson: At the moment, I won't enter the discussion on that. I would just like to take the opportunity to thank the minister for her previous role in the definition of persons with handicaps, which gave new opportunities for people with handicaps, including people with mental handicaps. That is very much a step in the right direction, and I hope that will be continued.
S. Hawkins: I'd like to ask the minister about an incident that happened a short while ago. A provincial advisory was issued for testing people who may have come into contact with a lady travelling by bus from Kelowna to New Westminster. I believe she was being queried about TB. The advisory called people to come forward for testing. Can the minister update us about that incident?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Greyhound bus company doesn't provide detailed passenger lists, and therefore the only way of contacting co-travellers at risk was through a media advisory, which we did. When the passengers come forward, they'll be tested. The tuberculin skin test will provide baseline evidence of the passengers' status, and then those with negative skin tests will be repeated in eight weeks. Those thought to be infected from this source will be recommended to have preventive therapy and chest X-ray follow-up. The exact risks to fellow passengers on a bus journey of this duration are not precisely known, as the risks vary with the patients' symptoms, the number of air changes per hour and the process of other passengers.
An update on the woman: she was admitted to the tuberculosis ward in the Vancouver Hospital.
[ Page 1985 ]
S. Hawkins: I would like to ask about another incident. There was a media advisory released on March 26, 1996. False-positive rubella serology means that people believe they have antibodies to rubella when in fact they're not immune and are at risk for infection. There seems to have been a public health screwup in this incident, where tests came back false positive. Does that mean everyone who had this certain serum will have to be retested? Could the minister update us on that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The provincial laboratory has encouraged physicians to retest previously tested women to confirm their rubella-immune status. A list of women testing positive during the period from January '93 to February '94 -- approximately 60,000 tested, less those who were subsequently retested -- was sent to the referring physicians for review and action when warranted. Then the provincial health officer consulted with the media on the subject of the retesting.
A. Sanders: I have one comment on the 60,000 that were tested with false positive rubella serum. There's a concern here about the agreements, when we look at the way MSP runs, in the laboratory testing that hospitals are budgeted for, which physicians are activating. Here we have 60,000 tests that are being redone because of a governmental problem. It's important for the minister to recognize that although we ask for those tests to be redone, this increases utilization; and when it increases utilization, we then claw back that amount of funding commensurate with how much utilization has been incurred by those practising and serving the public. I think this is something that the minister needs to be aware of, because it's patently unfair when we have been issued inappropriate tests at the level of the ministry.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That point is well taken. The agreement with the BCMA does provide for a mechanism by which these issues -- extra utilization due to unusual circumstances or change in programming by the
A. Sanders: Having been in the group that originally looked at that particular agreement, I don't recall that, but I'm happy to check into that and review my line of questioning.
I'd like to look a bit broader in terms of infectious disease processes and the emerging of infectious diseases. We had some discussion today on Cryptosporidium and cryptosporidiosis, and we've had a virtual demonstration of that here from our critic. I'd like to touch on a few other conditions, the first one being hepatitis C. Is hepatitis C a condition that this minister is aware of?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As a layperson, yes.
A. Sanders: I have some concerns about hepatitis C in the emerging spectrum of public health in B.C. We're finding really quite a considerable increase in hepatitis C, and as a person in the health care profession, I'm starting to find increasing numbers of letters from advocacy groups wishing for government to pay for medications, which include interferon for hepatitis C and in combination for liver transplant. I wonder if the minister herself had been approached by these groups.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a proposed class action that exists. That stands without comment.
A. Sanders: I think this is going to become an increasing issue over the next few years for the Ministry of Health, and I would hope that we would have some discussion about that, as I see it as an emerging health crisis.
The other one that I want to mention specifically is the hantavirus, as this affects my constituency and the other constituencies in the Okanagan. I wonder specifically how the B.C. Centre for Disease
Hon. J. MacPhail: The B.C. Centre for Disease Control has, as part of its epidemiology branch, tracking mechanisms to be aware of trends such as the hon. member describes. That is part of their mandate, and research is being done on changes in such epidemics. I don't want to use that word inappropriately, but I'm sure the hon. member knows what I'm talking about. Particularly in the area of the hantavirus, they're actually going even further. They're actually out trapping mice to examine whether in certain areas of the province the hantavirus exists in greater than anticipated levels.
A. Sanders: Could the minister please explain to me who BCCDC answers to?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's part of the Ministry of Health -- so it's me.
A. Sanders: Does the Centre for Disease Control provide pamphlets, folios or written information based on the surveillance and that is available for the public?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I'd be happy to give you copies of those.
A. Sanders: Thank you. I would be specifically interested in reviewing information surrounding Lyme disease, hantavirus, hepatitis C, toxicogenic E. coli and Cryptosporidium.
S. Hawkins: I'm sort of bouncing all over the place again. Please forgive me, but I'm just bringing up specific issues that I've been asked to present here. The next one has to do with drugs. The issue is that the Centre for Disease Control pharmacy is responsible for providing medications free of charge to patients in the province with end-stage kidney disease. Can the minister give us an idea of the cost of this program?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We'd have to add them up, to put it in simple terms. But it's close to $10 million.
S. Hawkins: Do we know how many patients are involved in this program, and do we have a cost per patient?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The total number of patients with end-stage renal disease is about 1,200.
S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister would comment on this. Would it not make more sense for patients to receive their medication in their own communities, rather than having these large quantities shipped to them, usually by bonded courier from a central dispensary in Vancouver? Wouldn't it be cheaper for pharmacies in their own communities to dispense them?
[ Page 1986 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a good point, and certainly it's something that should be considered in the assessment of regionalization. There are economies of scale in bulk purchase, for lack of a better term; but that still could be achieved, and regionalize the distribution. It's a good suggestion.
[9:45]
S. Hawkins: The next question has to do with a screening test. It's called PSA, or prostate-specific antigen. It's used for prostate cancer, and it's recommended that screening be done in men over 50 as part of a preventive health workup. Provincial regulations require that male patients have to pay for this test when it's conducted as a screening test, but the province covers the cost if the test is done as part of a routine cancer check. The question is: why are male patients required to pay for recommended gender-specific cancer-screening tests when women aren't required to pay for gender-specific cancer-screening tests such as Pap tests or mammographies?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to make a general comment, and this is, I guess, in the form of an apology. I'm not a medical practitioner, so what I'm doing is seeking advice and then giving you information. Frankly, I think you raise a good point -- which will probably really piss off these people back
Anyway, I do understand this much. We're not at the stage yet where we have a provincial screening program. You make a good point, and let me try to find a substantive answer for you. But I don't think I can do that tonight.
S. Hawkins: I appreciate the minister's comments. Again, these issues come up from constituents and from physicians, so I just wanted to raise the point. It's simple things like this, I guess, that become big issues with practitioners.
The next issue I'd like to raise is with respect to illicit drug use and deaths. This is a serious problem -- death from overdose. There's a high risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV and other serious infections. I wonder what the Ministry of Health is doing about this problem.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I too am very interested in this issue, because my constituents are affected by this. There is no question that the epidemic of HIV among injection drug users is worsening. In fact, the increase in HIV is substantially due to increased drug use. We are attempting to stem the flow, for lack of a better term, by investing more in needle exchanges and outreach nurses. But really, it's my belief that that's just going to slow the epidemic. Of course, it does lead to higher costs in hospitals, as well. As part of the HIV-AIDS strategy that we'll be releasing, we will be dealing with this specific issue.
There are also proposals being brought forward by high-risk communities, such as the downtown east side, around harm reduction strategies. The provincial health officer himself has approached me around harm reduction strategies to stem the tide, the epidemic. We are extremely concerned about it, and it's one of the reasons why we are investing more money in AIDS prevention.
But the actual issue around -- and I'll put this on the record right now -- the increased number of deaths due to drug use and, prior to the death, the increased HIV is well discussed in the Cain report. Part of the discussions we have to have around implementing the Cain report, of course, involves federal change in terms of the treatment of the drug under the Criminal Code. But we are pursuing that, and in the meantime we're also pursuing a coordinated approach to heroin overdose deaths. Part of the coordinated approach involves my ministry.
S. Hawkins: The minister mentioned a provincial needle exchange program. Is that being funded in smaller communities like Kelowna?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are 14 needle exchange services in British Columbia funded by the Ministry of Health. Kelowna has one of them. There are the Sunshine Coast, DEYAS, Kelowna, Nanaimo, North Island, North Okanagan, Phoenix Centre, Prince George, Quesnel, Surrey, upper Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island and Victoria.
S. Hawkins: The next issue I'd like to move to is tobacco sales. On January 11, 1996, the then Minister of Health, Paul Ramsey, made a media release advising that the Health ministry was toughening tobacco sales enforcement. I am wondering how many offences and fines have occurred since the minister's press release, and if the enforcement is actually occurring.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually only have stats up until the end of 1995. So let me just tell you what those are, and then I'll get you the stats for the end of the fiscal year just passed. In 1994-95 there were 1,758 violations; 1,930 retailers received legislative information; 1,319 retailers voluntarily corrected deficiencies; 65 warning letters were sent to retailers; and four ticket fines were issued to retailers. That has been increased in the past fiscal year, but I will get those updated stats to you.
S. Hawkins: It was brought to my attention earlier this week
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a generic set of guidelines to apply to similar situations, but indeed, with the increased prevalence of tattooing, it is necessary to move on to a specific set of guidelines now. We're are in the process of developing those. In the meantime, any medical health officer has the ability, within his or her own community, to take action. But we are also taking specific guideline action, as well.
S. Hawkins: That's encouraging, but I understand that the health officer in the capital regional district made the comment that they are considering a bylaw. Now, if every municipality had a bylaw, again, we don't get a good standard of care. I wonder if the ministry is taking this seriously enough to talk to the associations that are lobbying for controls and perhaps work it more on a provincial basis with maybe licence-training. Again, there is a risk of serious health repercussions.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is who we are working with. I accept the fact that bylaw-by-bylaw, by community, doesn't
[ Page 1987 ]
work. I'm just saying that in the case of a particularly huge crisis in one community, we can take interim action. But in the meantime, we have to work with the associations and develop specific guidelines that apply across the province.
V. Anderson: One item comes to mind when we are looking at specifics. One the minister will be very aware of from her previous capacity. In child apprehension cases, one of the important factors is medical evidence, one way or the other. I personally have come across enough instances to know of the difficulties in medical evidence between Social Services and doctors, where in many cases the doctors that were normally looking after the children were, in effect, frozen out of the situation. Other doctors were brought in to the situation, and they were led by implication to make suggestions that were misused when they got to court.
What I want to raise, from the health point of view, is whether the minister could work with Social Services in her new capacity, knowing both regimes, to get a protocol in place where there can be more security, more honesty and more reliable medical evidence, both for the well-being of the children and the well-being of the people who are accused of doing abuse which turns out to be a false accusation. By the time it's rectified or clarified, families have been disrupted and harm has been done to everybody concerned.
It seems to me that from a medical point of view, it is important to get credibility into those medical witnesses, which we haven't had in the past, for the benefit of the children as well as the families, for foster parents and for other people who are involved. Would the minister, knowing both facets of that, be willing to do a protocol, to develop a system whereby there are checks and balances that can make this system much more fair and secure for everybody concerned?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I have already asked the provincial health officer to commence work on that, and that has started.
A. Sanders: I'm going to ask some questions on midwifery. I'd just like to comment first on the minister's comments with respect to PSA, because she will get herself into a hornets' nest if she is not aware of this. PSA has been recommended by the American Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association urology group as a screening test. Because it's a new test, bringing it on stream will cost millions and millions of dollars. In B.C. we don't pay specifically for screening tests, and it is a situation where there will be all sorts of groups lobbying her as to whether it's right or not to pay for it. It's new; it's a new, additional cost that would be appropriate for all men over 40 or, at least, over 50.
Moving on to the topic of midwifery, the Ministry of Women's Equality and the Health ministry have made a press release about it. My interest is in whether this particular aspect of care is included in the 1996-97 estimates.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for the caution around PSA-testing; I appreciate that. I am advised that our B.C. Council on Clinical Practice Guidelines has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring the use of a credible, objective and comprehensive process in the development of guidelines around this. I appreciate the heads-up, though.
What was the other question -- midwifery? Just how it is going?
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, I see -- funding for midwifery. Yes, it is in the estimates.
[10:00]
A. Sanders: Could I have the line item and total cost for the midwifery program in the 1996-97 estimates?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The line item is the medicare protection fund, and my understanding is that it's about a million dollars. We will look through our binders and get the exact figure for you.
A. Sanders: Could the minister delineate how many individuals this amounts to, in terms of practising midwives?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I did meet with the midwifery association on this. This year, 1996-97, after registration and after the college is up and running, we anticipate that that $1 million will fund 30 registered midwives. That will increase to approximately 70 by 1998-99, for funding of
A. Sanders: Have these individuals been trained in British Columbia, or are they procured from elsewhere?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no training program in British Columbia, but the college that is responsible for registering them is in the process of establishing a registration process that will involve people from outside the province coming in to register midwives. The people who sit on the college have to be registered, so they themselves cannot perform the first set of registrations or licensing.
A. Sanders: Are these 30 registered midwives to be answerable to the College of Midwives, in terms of conduct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There will be a midwifery college established pursuant to the Health Professions Council, the same way as for other health professions, and the same regulations apply.
A. Sanders: Will these midwives be considered civil servants?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We haven't actually finalized the process by which midwives will be paid. I would predict that it would be through some sort of contractual arrangement rather than as public servants. But that's still to be finalized. Most likely the funding will be through the regionalization of health care, and the regions will decide how best to deliver midwifery.
A. Sanders: If we're going to have 30 individuals on line in 1996-97, this year being half gone already, I'm just wondering where the negotiations for how these people will be remunerated are at this point. Have some draft plans been drawn up? What do we have to go on in terms of where we're going to start, assuming that some time this year we're going to have to pay these people?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We do have experience in another province -- Ontario, specifically. We've estimated the cost, based on the salary range being 75 percent of the salary of a community health nurse and 25 percent of the salary of an entry-level physician. There's an estimated cost right now, per midwife working full-time, of $60,000.
[ Page 1988 ]
A. Sanders: With these 30 registered midwives earning a salary of around $60,000, is that full-time and including benefits?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
A. Sanders: To be very clear in my mind, does that mean that the $60,000 includes the benefits and that they are not over and above that? My understanding is that for civil servants, the benefit package is somewhere around 30 percent. Is the $60,000 the total amount including benefits, or is it $60,000 plus benefits?
Hon. J. MacPhail: None of this has been decided yet, but there has been an average cost assigned, for a midwife working full-time, of $60,000. In our cost calculations, that is the wage package. So there could be some breakdown, depending on who actually ends up paying out the money, between benefits and salary, or it could be without benefits.
A. Sanders: For these individuals who will be performing midwife services, do we have an approximate ballpark figure for what they would be earning per delivery?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure if the hon. member is leading toward comparing it with a fee-for-service basis. That hasn't been the basis on which the calculation has been made. It's a comprehensive care package that involves a wide range of services, including follow-up care in the home, etc. So that's why the funding allocation has not been on the basis of number of women attended to, but on the basis of working full-time, basically.
A. Sanders: It is my understanding that full-time, as with government employees, is a 36-hour week.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's based on working full-time, but my view would be that that wouldn't be working full-time by assigning a number of hours per week -- probably on an annual basis.
A. Sanders: I'm a bit confused by what that means. In other words, if a midwife is working full-time and, as with most deliveries I have ever taken part in, they all occur between 12 midnight and four in the
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea. All these details will be worked out.
A. Sanders: My question is again a theoretical one. Does the instigation of midwifery in a health system that's been feeling the crunch of financial pressure, from this minister's point of view and from this ministry's point of view, have to do with cost-saving?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's based on a series of factors. Why are we doing this? Are we doing it just for cost? The answer is no. I predict, though, that there may be cost saving, but we don't know yet. We will be monitoring for that. It will also be the quality of birthing, and also there are some elements
A. Sanders: That's an interesting fact. I've never been paid for an episiotomy, so I'd better go and check my billing book and see if I can do a few extra things to make a bit of money. I don't think that's how it works in B.C.
What I am hearing -- and again, I need to have that
Hon. J. MacPhail: "The Report of the Caesarean Section Task Force," April 1993. I can make that available to you. If there is some debate here about the value of midwifery, I'd be more than happy to engage in that. But the government has made a decision on introducing midwifery. It's done; the legislation is passed.
A. Sanders: I think that that is exactly where I am going, and I am going for a very specific reason. I don't have a problem, in terms of midwifery or any other area, with specific practitioners, but we are in a system that is stretched. We are not giving the same health care to people that we did in 1991, and those of us who work in the system can see that. The hon. member for Cariboo North can certainly tell you about his hospital, what it is like to work there and to have worked there and to have lived in that community over the last six years. There has been a marked decrease in services to patients.
My thinking is that if we're instigating new kinds of treatment or new individuals into the system, then hopefully, in some way this will be a cost-effective measure. To me it is not enough that the government decided that we were going to
Again, along that line, and not buying into the argument that we are going to have midwives and that is all there is to
[10:15]
Assuming that equity is not the same, and having discussed with my friends who are midwives that the amount of remuneration they want for deliveries is about three times what the physician would get for that same patient care, and notwithstanding that there are differences in the care -- and those can be discussed at some other time, because they are not necessary at this point -- we are adding another service. Is that the best way that the money could be spent? Or, for example, could it be used to give men over 50 a PSA test as part of a screening measure? You would certainly hear that a lot of people support that that would be a more important thing to them and their families.
My interest, again, in looking at midwifery is as a practitioner who does deliver babies on a very regular basis, and
[ Page 1989 ]
my medical protectorate, my insurance, for delivering babies has risen considerably. It is called the Canadian Medical Protective Association, and the money is quite considerable. In fact, I believe at this point that I have to do ten deliveries in order to be paid for the eleventh, in terms of paying the number of dollars required for the CMPA medical malpractice insurance. My interest with midwifery here is that I pay my own CMPA fees out of gross billings. Who is going to pay the equivalent for the midwives? This is a huge cost. People may be looking to have their babies at home, but I can tell you that they're looking for perfect babies; they are not looking for babies with any asphyxia. Who is going to pay to insure those 30 midwives, from a malpractice point of view? What is the cost of that? Where is it in this budget?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Those costs have been anticipated under the funding provided.
A. Sanders: If it is anticipated under the funding provided, can the minister provide me with a breakdown of how much is provided for medical malpractice and how much is salary? Basically, what are we looking at for these 30 registered individuals?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's part of the implementation strategy that's being worked on now.
A. Sanders: Would the minister be willing to provide that information for my perusal?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly, when it's finalized -- absolutely. But it hasn't been finalized. It is still being worked on.
A. Sanders: Another point on midwifery that I feel is important are the safety issues of this particular practice. In countries where midwifery works very well -- and I will use Britain as an example, because I'm familiar with that particular area -- what you have with registered
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
A. Sanders: What would be the cost of those? When we're having trouble updating our emergency services to provide appropriate care, what is the cost of putting chopper pads on all hospitals?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hon. member asked if they had been considered, and I said yes; I didn't say we were going to do them.
A. Sanders: If they have been considered, is there a budget line item, or is this just reflection on the part of the minister?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's part of the implementation strategy.
A. Sanders: And what is the implementation strategy cost for hospital modification?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to make it clear that we have considered the model that the hon. member has put forward, and it's not the model that we're following.
A. Sanders: I'm pleased to hear that we have a model. Is there something that can be reviewed? My understanding was that the task force did not have a written model.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The act was passed, as you know, just a couple of weeks ago. The public consultation process is ongoing, and the implementation strategy will follow that public consultation. I'd be more than happy for the hon. member to participate in that public consultation.
A. Sanders: Has this government done a survey, perhaps, of the number of individuals who would utilize the services of a midwife in their homes, should that be possible in B.C.?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, did the hon. member refer to home births specifically? You've moved on to a different topic, then, because midwifery services are not anticipated to be delivered, in the main, in homes. But we do have a home-birthing demonstration project going on. The specific usage of midwifery services is based on experiences in other provinces and also on a study done around birthing in the lower mainland, which is separate and apart from midwifery but is about birthing.
A. Sanders: So basically what the minister is saying, if I'm hearing it correctly, is that we will be providing a program only as demonstration for home births, but the rest of the births will be done in hospital with midwives in attendance. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We did amend the Hospital Act earlier on to accommodate the provision of the services within hospitals, in anticipation of the majority of them being done there. But the funding of midwifery is unrelated to the actual location of the birth.
A. Sanders: My understanding is that if you are a midwife, you are licensed to do home births. Will there be regulations so that people who are practising midwifery will be practising only in hospitals? Or will it be optional?
[ Page 1990 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and that's what the public consultation is about: developing the regulations. But the regulations won't necessarily be only about hospital births.
I would just ask the member, through the
A. Sanders: I'd be happy to continue this topic tomorrow morning.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We won't be sitting tomorrow morning.
A. Sanders: Tomorrow afternoon.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Then I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:26 p.m.