[ Page 1991 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have present in the gallery the Minister of Justice and Attorney General from Saskatchewan, Mr. John Nilson, with his wife, Linda. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I'd like the House to make welcome today Peter and Frances Sweeney. Peter Sweeney is the chief building inspector for the city of Vancouver and worked diligently there to make sure that we maintained safe and secure accommodation for people throughout the city of Vancouver. I was always glad to work with Peter as a chief building inspector. I'm also glad to say that Peter and Frances are the mother and father of Neil Sweeney, who is one of our chief NDP inspectors here in Victoria in our research department. I hope we will make them all welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce one of your constituents from Gabriola Island. Bill Vanderland is a keen proponent of ethanol production. He is an intervener on behalf of the Peace River regional district with the Utilities Commission hearings into gasoline pricing and is visiting members around the Legislature today. Would you all please make him welcome.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery today are two important people in my life. The first one is Jas Gandhi, my very capable LA. Secondly, if there is such a thing as a symphony of life, surely the next person is the principal conductor: my better half, Pamela Leeuw. Would the House make them welcome, please.

R. Masi: I'd like to introduce my son Gordon Masi and his friend Jay Dosdell, who cycled over from Delta to see the House in action. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's always a pleasure to rise in the House and introduce those folks that support me and are important to me, and introduce those folks that support or are important to the folks who support and are important to me. I'd like to introduce to the House my administrative assistant, Vanessa Coombes, and her very dear friend from Winnipeg, Manitoba -- mosquito capital of the world -- Jan Wiebe.

M. Coell: In the House today is Valerie Braunschweig, who is the president of the Esquimalt-Metchosin Liberal Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, visiting in the House today is a very special guest. Her name is Soo-Kyung Youn, and she's a guest of the United Church of Canada, visiting here from Seoul, Korea. She's a former assistant to an elected government member in Korea and is accompanied by Gaye Sharpe, a former assistant in my office who does outreach and global concerns work with the United Church of Canada. Would the House please make them both welcome.

W. Hartley: There are four special guests in the gallery today: my spouse, Alice, and our daughter Wallis, and two very good friends who are with them, Sharandeep Shallu Kaur and Vishalldeep Victor Singh. Shallu and Victor are the children of two constituents, Karamdeep Kaur and J.D. Deepak, who were very influential and helpful in my election campaign. Please make them welcome.

C. Clark: In the gallery today is my friend Sean Newberry, who has been a longtime and tireless worker on behalf of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the galleries are the parents of my new roommate, Mr. and Mrs. Modha, and their other son, Ronaq. Would the House please make them welcome, all the way from Winnipeg.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I would ask the House to make welcome in the gallery another tireless worker for the Liberal Party, but not so longtime. She defended the Liberal Party in the grade 6 debate during the election. I'd like the House to welcome Kara Hendriksen and her aunt, Jacqueline Beltgens.

F. Randall: In the gallery today we have Dr. Paul Viken and Jorgen Dahle. Dr. Viken has been a chiropractor in the lower mainland for 40 years, and Jorgen Dahle is a former professor of history at UBC. Dr. Viken is the president and Jorgen Dahle is a longtime board member of Normana Rest Home, a facility in Burnaby-Edmonds the Norwegian people are very proud of. They are looking forward to a new 100-bed facility on the existing site. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: I'm glad to see the proud tradition of pushing the envelope continues.

Hon. D. Streifel: The Leader of the Opposition is wrong again in his chronology and in the facts surrounding this case. The Gove report references at least 19 deaths. When the ministry conducted its own review, it found 30 that fit the same criteria that Gove had determined. That report is now over at the board, where it should be, for examination.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, members. Order, please. This is a very serious issue, and I think we ought to treat it with sufficient gravity.

G. Campbell: The problem with the minister's answer is that once again it was not an answer. I asked why, when the 

[ Page 1992 ]

minister knew that there were 30 deaths, not 19, he did not inform the House. Let's be clear, hon. Speaker. This minister first identified 14. Then, because of our prodding and our questions, he said there were 49. Now we're dealing with 19 that have developed into 30. My question to the minister is directed only in this spirit, hon. Speaker: if we don't have all of the information all of the time, we are not going to protect all of the children, and that's been obvious to all the people of British Columbia throughout.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

The question, member.

G. Campbell: Can the minister explain to the House why the death of each and every child under the ministry's protection is not known immediately, on the day it occurs, to the ministry?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: Every step of the way, the Leader of the Opposition prefers to play a numbers game with these tragedies as opposed to getting to the root cause of what's wrong within our society. The hon. Leader of the Opposition refuses to accept that this work was done by Gove. This was referenced in Gove, and we have continued that work. The issue is to learn from these tragedies, hon. members, not play politics and not trade in the tragedies of the lives of these children and their families. You disgust me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Members, I don't want to have to start naming names, but I will.

The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: Once again this minister has not answered the question. In fact, this minister wouldn't have known what was going on if this opposition hadn't asked him some questions and he finally got brought up to date. The fact of the matter is that this minister has constantly used ignorance as his defence, and ignorance is not a defence, it's negligence.

Judge Gove is very clear, and these children are in this minister's care. The judge said quite clearly that we should set up a system which would track every one of our children who was in the ministry's care or under the ministry's protection. Can the minister tell us when that tracking system, that computerized protection system will be up and running so we can start protecting our children before the fact, not after the fact?

The Speaker: The Minister of Social Services. A caution, please. There was relative quiet for the question; let there be relative quiet for the answer.

Hon. D. Streifel: Every step of the way, when this government has brought forward initiatives to improve the well-being of poor families, whether it be on child care, B.C. Benefits, further protection or money expended for computerized programs, the opposition has fought it and voted against it. They have only one interest: to play cheap politics around these issues, and it's not good enough.

The paramount concern here is the protection of children. We have moved since Gove. The Leader of the Opposition insists on mixing numbers when we're dealing with children here. He deals with numbers that go back to 1986, and he knows very well that there are issues . . . there are protection systems put in place that we've spoken about in this House. They have fought against those protections. The current Opposition House Leader in January of this year complimented this government on taking these tragedies and the Gove report out of the political forum and bringing it into an apolitical world. Now what do they do? Day after day after day they stand up in this House, and they trade in the tragedies of these families. Hon. Speaker, I'm disgusted. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The importance of this matter transcends the minister's personal feelings.

I want to move to a slightly different issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, I note that not only do we have heckling from this side of the House, but as the member is asking his question, we have heckling from that side of the House. Clearly, we can't function on that basis. Will you please, members, everybody, do this member the courtesy of allowing him to present his question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition tables document after document. They release letters about families and briefing documents in this Legislature and to the media, etc., that contain private and confidential information -- information that I would never in a moment consider putting in the public domain in the fashion that the Liberal opposition does.

But I will also tell you that at no time have I ever released in any fashion any confidential information, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of what the hon. member on the opposite side is discussing.

G. Plant: The Minister of Social Services has, throughout this story, repeatedly avoided answering questions on the Elijah Thomas case by hiding behind the veil of confidentiality. I say, and I'm sure that people in British Columbia agree, that the release of Maryann Thomas's confidential information without her permission would be a blatant invasion of privacy by this government. We know the Minister of 

[ Page 1993 ]

Health doesn't know anything about it. My question is to the Minister of Social Services: did his ministry receive the permission of Maryann Thomas to release this confidential medical data?

Hon. D. Streifel: I find it rather peculiar that the member from the opposition, who is a lawyer himself, suggests that I'm hiding behind law. Where did you get your diploma, hon. member? If you don't have respect for law, who should? This ministry and this minister have never released any information that we weren't required to release or had permission to release through a release form by the family in this case. We have never released anything beyond that. We have never released any confidential information beyond what was signed over to us by the mother.

G. Plant: Would that that were so. The fact is that yesterday, and as recently as this morning, government staff -- staff of this government -- were seen shopping this private medical data in the halls of the Legislature to members of the media. So, once again, to the Minister of Social Services: was the private medical data of Maryann Thomas released by someone in his ministry, and did he authorize it?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, the answer is that this minister has never released any confidential information on this case or on this family.

Hon. D. Streifel: I received that information in going through the report on these deaths. It's now in the hands of the independent review board, and that's where it belongs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

M. Coell: From day one, almost a month ago, this minister has been hiding the truth from British Columbians on a number of issues. Getting answers out of this minister has been like trying to get water out of a stone. Can the minister tell this House why he didn't tell British Columbians about these additional deaths when he first found out?

Hon. D. Streifel: The opposition critic stands up day after day in this House and continues to ignore what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with the tragedies of children. We're dealing with an area that has been examined extensively by Judge Gove. We're dealing with information that was brought forward by Judge Gove, examined further by the ministry and is now in front of an independent board for further examination and recommendation as to the rights of children under the act, and then it will be made public.

M. de Jong: For weeks I've watched this Minister of Social Services try to explain away his incompetence on the basis of some professed desire to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This minister doesn't care about privacy. What this minister cares about is protecting his political backside; that's all that he cares about.

The Speaker: I want a question.

M. de Jong: How else does he explain the fact that these medical records involving baby Elijah miraculously appear at a time when it's most convenient to his government damage control unit? My question to the minister, quite frankly, is: does he have the courage. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: . . .and the integrity to acknowledge to this House that he has failed baby Elijah? He's failed that child; he's failed the other children whose deaths have gone uninvestigated, in some cases unnoticed.

The Speaker: Member, this is supposed to be a question.

M. de Jong: Will he do the honourable thing and say to the Premier that the job was above him, that the job was more than the man, and step down and put someone in his place that can do the job?

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: The Public Accounts Committee takes a great deal of pleasure in submitting this report. I would like the Legislature to know that the Public Accounts Committee, in my opinion, has shown a great deal of discipline and commitment to their roles and responsibilities in moving this project forward.

The report deals with the joint report of the deputy ministers' council and the auditor general, a review of the work done during the thirty-fifth parliament on the first report, Enhancing Accountability for Performance in the British Columbia Public Sector, and now further work done on the second report from the deputy ministers' council and the auditor general, which sets a time frame and an implementation plan for this project.

[2:30]

I'm really pleased that this government has allowed and encouraged the bureaucracy to move this project forward. It's an important project. It's going to pay dividends, I believe, for all British Columbians. It won't happen quickly. We need to 

[ Page 1994 ]

have patience and understanding, but we need to give the bureaucracy the encouragement they deserve for the strength of character that they show to bring this project forward.

I really do recommend that all members of this Legislature read this report and, particularly, the first report which was tabled in April, if they haven't had a chance to do that. Hopefully, this government will allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit intersessionally, because we mustn't allow the work of the committee to get behind the development of these plans and programs by the ministries.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that this House adopt the report.

Motion approved.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, this is a motion to appoint a Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives, as printed.

[That a Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives be appointed for the 36th Parliament, pursuant to Section 9 of the Recall and Initiative Act (SBC 1994) Chapter 56, the said Committee to be composed of: Mr. Bowbrick (Convener), Messrs. Randall, Waddell and Stevenson, Ms. Sawicki, Mr. Lali and Ms. McGregor, Messrs. Farrell-Collins, Nettleton and Thorpe and Ms. Whittred and Mr. Weisgerber.]

Hon. D. Miller: Since it's annual reports day, I have a number of documents to table so that those members, prior to rushing off on their summer holidays, their cruise ship vacations and the like.... I want them to take copies to read on their summer holidays.

We have the B.C. Ferry Corporation 1995-96 annual report; the Victoria Line Ltd. 1995 annual report; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1993-94 annual report; the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services 1994-95 annual report; the Municipal Affairs and Housing '96 ministry report; the B.C. Assessment Authority 1994 annual report; the B.C. Housing Management Commission 1994-95 annual report; and the Ministry of Employment and Investment '93-94 annual report.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I've never heard such objections to the release of information in my life, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: They're archives.

Hon. D. Miller: Some of them are a bit dusty.

Also, the B.C. Heritage Trust '94-95 and '95-96 annual reports, the B.C. Buildings Corporation '95 and '96 annual reports, and the British Columbia Inquiry into Gasoline Pricing, Interim Report, dated July 5, 1996.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to monitor and evaluate the progress of the work of the Transition Commissioner in respect of recommendations arising out the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;
(e) to permit minority opinions in a report of the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and, upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Ms. Gillespie (Convener), Messrs. Kasper, Hartley and Ms. Kwan, Ms. McKinnon and Mr. Coell and Mr. Neufeld.]

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that I'm pleased with the motion. I'm pleased with the intent of the motion. It seems to me, though, that if this motion were to be implemented, the committee couldn't, until the next sitting of the Legislature, recommend the appointment of a new conflict-of-interest commissioner.

[ Page 1995 ]

I've just seen the motion, and in a very friendly way I would suggest that it would be more appropriate for the committee to recommend to the Premier an acting commissioner, and that that be done prior to the next sitting of the Legislature. Failing to do that appears to leave Mr. Hughes in place until this House is reconvened, and I think perhaps that is not in the best interests of this assembly or in the best interests of Mr. Hughes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just in reply, I accept the spirit in which the advice was offered. The intent, of course, is to move forward in a cooperative and unanimous way, as quickly as possible, to put in place a method by which our conflict-of-interest matters are heard. That's the spirit and the intent of the motion. With that, I hope we could see our way clear to pass this.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

B. Penner: Good afternoon to the Premier. I hope that being able to go home last night and have some sleep helped the Premier lower his blood pressure a bit. He was getting a bit excited last night. In his capacity as the minister of youth -- just to return to the topic of youth -- I'd like to pick up a bit where we left off last night. We essentially covered most of the topics I wish to canvass with the Premier. I realize that some of these topics do transcend ministry lines and to a certain extent involve responsibilities associated with the Ministry of Social Services. Because we no longer have the opportunity to canvass Social Services estimates, I will raise the following matter with the Premier in two ways: first, in his capacity as the Minister Responsible for Youth, and second, as the first minister in this government.

There's a program that the NDP introduced in this session of the Legislature, and it had to do with increasing benefits for poor people. Since that program was introduced -- and I might add for the record that it was a program supported by this side of the House -- some problems have come to the forefront. I'm wondering if the Premier is aware of some of the difficulties that people are having under the B.C. Benefits program in accessing some of the advertised services. My question to the Premier, through you, hon. Chair....

The Chair: Sorry, hon. member, that's not for the Premier at this point. That's not in order; it's a matter of legislation which has already been dealt with. We're dealing with estimates here, and that's the financial administration of the Premier's Office. So legislation -- B.C. Benefits -- is not on the table at the present time.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair. I've risen today to debate with the Premier his role as the first minister in this government. The estimates that are before the House have to do with his office, and his office is the office in this government that sets and administers policy, and drives the policy agenda for this government. It is in that capacity that I wish to rise....

The Chair: Hon. member, there is a ministry that has responsibility for those issues, and that's really where that issue belongs. The Premier has other responsibilities, and I encourage you to take those issues to the ministry involved. You might want to try a different line of questioning.

B. Penner: Just for the record, I would note that this matter did have to do with youth. I thought the Premier would be interested in youth, as he calls himself the Minister Responsible for Youth. However, it appears that's not the case.

The Chair: That's irrelevant.

B. Penner: I'll move to a matter that's of more local concern to the residents of Chilliwack. Again addressing the Premier in his capacity as the Minister Responsible for Youth, there's a program that took place in Chilliwack. It was called Job Fair '95, and more than 9,000 students and adults attended this program that occurred in November of 1995 last year. It wasn't simply a matter that took place in Chilliwack. I'm told that people attended from as far away as Maple Ridge and Langley and from as far east as Boston Bar. They received a grant of some $20,000 in 1995 from this government. It didn't occur in 1996; for whatever reason, the organizers saw fit not to hold a job fair. But they want to hold one again next year, and I'm told that the anticipated date at this time is March 1997.

Just to step back a bit, the way that this job fair works is a little bit different than what I remembered from my time in high school and what the Premier probably remembers, where different people in the community would come into the school and tell you about the things that they were interested in talking about. The way this program works is that more than 90 different individuals, businesses and professional groups took out space at the recreational centre in Chilliwack to provide information to interested youths and students.... I note that the Premier has just left the chamber. However, I'll keep going here, and I'll have to get back to the pith and substance of my comments once the Premier is back in the chamber.

This program is fairly unique in that it allows students, rather than just listening to other people tell them what they think they need to hear, to go into a different setting where they can pick and choose from more than 90 different topics -- things related to their future careers. I think one indication of the success is, firstly, the number of people who attended, and secondly, the fact that even just a few weeks ago, when I last checked, students who went to this seminar last fall were still coming to the local employment centre, the local apprenticeship centre and the local community college, asking how they could take courses related to the jobs that they heard about 

[ Page 1996 ]

last November. So it seems to have had a tremendous resonance among those people who attended. They attended this seminar and learned about jobs that are actually available -- that need positions to be filled in different industries. So I support this type of initiative.

The difficulty that the organizers of this event are facing is the problem of funding. I would point out that virtually all of them do it strictly on a volunteer basis. I believe they did hire one person last year for a one-month period to help organize and pull all the loose ends together, but most of these people are volunteers. Last night in estimates debate with the Premier, in his role as Minister Responsible for Youth, we talked about some of the shortfalls in the Youth Works program, in terms of providing unemployed young people with timely training to help them get skills and move on to the employment areas of their choice.

[2:45]

If we're talking about giving students and young people adequate skills and training to get available jobs, I think the first thing we have to do is let them know what kinds of jobs are available. Job Fair '95 did that, and I'm told that Job Fair '97 will be much the same. I see the Premier has just re-entered the chamber. The way that Job Fair '97 would work is that approximately 90 different businesses and individuals and professional groups would set up booths where students and other people, including adults, could come through the recreational centre and inquire into those particular job categories that interest them.

Again I stress to the Premier that these are presentations made by industry groups and professional groups, where they're actually looking for people; they need to hire people. Rather than students learning about jobs that may not be required, they're actually learning about jobs that do exist.

In 1995, when the job fair was last held, this government -- I'll give them lots of credit for that -- saw fit to provide the organization with a $20,000 grant so they could pull this together. I stress that this is run by volunteers. Last time only one individual received any remuneration, and that was just for the one-month period around the event to help pull loose ends together. It's almost entirely volunteer-driven. What they're looking for is some commitment from this government, and particularly from the Premier in his role as the Minister Responsible for Youth, and some form of financial support to help provide our youth with more knowledge about the types of jobs and futures that are available to them.

Before I sit down, I'll reiterate that this program has a broad scope, from Boston Bar all the way to Langley and Maple Ridge.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I'm actually familiar with the jobs fair in Chilliwack, and I remember the representations made by the previous member for Chilliwack and others on that, and I was pleased that we could provide some modest funding for it. Certainly we'll entertain funding next year, although we have a fiscal situation which is challenging. So if you want an answer today, the answer would be no. But clearly we will try to do what we can because these can be, and usually are, excellent programs. Just for the member's knowledge, there are literally dozens of these job fairs around the province, and they often are very helpful in terms of matching up employers with prospective employees.

B. Penner: Before I leave this topic, I would like to indicate to the Premier that the name of the prime organizer of this event is Cal Purcell. He contacted me by phone yesterday and indicated that he'll be coming to Victoria next week, in the hopes of meeting with some government officials to see if there's some avenue to get funding or some support. I believe he is looking at some creative solutions. I'm aware and he's aware that of course these are tough times for government financially. So we're certainly willing to be creative in how we approach it, and we're looking for any ideas and any support we can get from this government. I wonder if the Premier can indicate whether he might be available next week to meet with Mr. Purcell on behalf of Job Fair '97.

Hon. G. Clark: I won't entertain any of this kind of thing on the floor of the House. Thousands of people try to get in to see me, and I try to accommodate as many people as I can, and I'm sure I'll accommodate the member if I can, but this is not for discussion here in the chamber.

B. Penner: I believe my colleague from the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena has a few questions for the Premier.

C. Hansen: I want to follow up very briefly on some of the issues raised last night regarding the student summer employment program. The minister had indicated that an evaluation process would be undertaken of the summer employment programs that existed throughout government. One of my concerns with some of the programs involved is that rather than counting the quality or the quantity of work, it actually counts just the number of participants in these various programs. I understand that in many of these programs there may be employment opportunities for students that amount to one day or two days or in some cases one week. In the case of the PNE, we're talking about a two-week program. I'm wondering if, in the evaluation process that is done, the Premier would be prepared to include in that evaluation the number of days of work that are actually achieved by students involved in the program.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. Not only the days of work, but I agree with the member that we also want to assess the quality of the work experience to make sure that any government funds are going to something which hopefully leads to either permanent employment or training which is applicable or has some public service component or likewise. Generally speaking -- candidly -- many of the programs are very good, especially the 50 percent cost-shared program that's generated some very, very interesting programs. The E-team programs are good. The ones the member referred to, the PNE jobs, obviously are a little different category, but we've been quite upfront about that. We're not trying to hide anything.

I think a full evaluation of all of the programs -- the number of days worked, the number of jobs created, the number of potential jobs created, the quality of those jobs, the pay, because they also vary in pay, the level of the subsidy, whether that can be changed, all that -- will be part of the review, with a view to improving program delivery next year.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the Premier could tell us what the time line might be on that evaluation and whether or not it could be shared with us at the time. There are some real concerns that I have, and they are meant to be very constructive. I'm of the opinion that this year the program was started too late to be truly effective. It's my hope that the 

[ Page 1997 ]

government will be very aggressive this fall in making sure that there is a strategy that will result in timely delivery of those programs next year, which I think are very important, because I think students desperately need those jobs in the summertime.

The other thing I have a concern about that the Premier may wish to address is the coordination between the federal and provincial programs that are involved in summer student employment. I think there is a need for a much closer working relationship between the Canada employment centres for students and the various provincial programs. That is an area that should be addressed in part of that evaluation program. I'm wondering if the Premier could comment on those items: the time line for the evaluation, whether or not that information could be shared with us, and also the time line for the planning of the 1997 program.

Hon. G. Clark: They are all related. The reviews are usually conducted -- and this will be no different -- near the end of the fiscal year in order to guide deliberations with respect to budget-making for the next year: whether this meets the test, whether it's acceptable, whether it can justify tax money, in many cases. It's a little different in this case, because some programs are summer programs. Therefore the evaluation will start almost immediately upon the conclusion of those programs or the end of the summer, if you will.

I have no hesitation providing the information for the member and taking his advice. I genuinely say that to date most of the comments I've heard from the member are very constructive, and I'd be very interested in working with members of the House on these questions.

Now, it's a little problematic in terms of the timing of the evaluation and the budget for next year and when I can get you the material. I'm not trying to be evasive, but it will more likely be near the end of the fiscal year. It might be too late to involve the member in the critique, although he can obviously raise it in the House, etc. We'll make decisions on funding before the member gets material. We'll be consumed in the review process and the budgetary process simultaneously, and we'll have to make some decisions without the benefit of the member's input. I just say that candidly. After we make the decisions, all of that information we can make available to you. Then we'll be held accountable in here and hopefully pay attention to what the member says and try to incorporate his remarks.

C. Hansen: Last night the Premier was asked about the job strategy generally, not just student jobs. He had mentioned that there were several initiatives that had been announced to fulfil that. I was reading through some budget papers from the budget that was introduced at the end of April. One of those papers makes this reference: "In the next few weeks, a new jobs plan with ambitious, achievable targets for private sector job creation will be announced." I gather from the Premier's comments last night that these are actually several initiatives that have come out, I guess, during the course of the election and subsequent to that. I wonder if the Premier could explain to the House what he sees as that package.

Hon. G. Clark: I hope the member appreciates that I can't give a detailed answer to that. First, we have a jobs investment strategy, which is a very comprehensive document. We have a summary document, which probably the member has. If he doesn't, we'll provide it for him. It has essentially four tenets, just to repeat: Skills Now, or the skills training component; the infrastructure component, or B.C. 21, investment in infrastructure; forest renewal, or investment in the resource base; and balancing the budget and fiscal debt management -- in other words, doing all of that within the context of a balanced budget. That's essentially the job plan, the jobs investment strategy.

Now, flowing from that is a series of initiatives, where we tried to put specific targets on job creation around the province. We made some of those during the election campaign; there are some others, and we are fleshing those out. We put some job targets in place -- for example, the jobs and timber accord. That is, if you will, a work in progress. We have some work done on it. We put together what we think are reasonable targets, and now we're engaging, in that case, the forest industry, people working in the forest sector and others to work to achieve those targets. No doubt the member will be informed of the progress of the jobs and timber accord over the course of the next months and years. So there is a series of initiatives like that, fleshing out how we achieve those job targets.

C. Hansen: In the most recent budget, one of the budget papers says: "We" -- meaning the government -- "will be introducing a comprehensive jobs plan." My question follows up on that: will there be an actual document, an actual program that will be a comprehensive jobs plan, or is this the several different programs that come together under some umbrella that is just labelled a jobs plan?

Hon. G. Clark: I said we have, first of all, the job plans framework. We have the central thrust -- the ideology, if you will -- the philosophy of the government with respect to investing in the future of the province, investing in the training of our young people, investing in our forest resource base.

That's the essential difference between our party and the party across the way that believes in tax cuts for corporations, banks and the wealthy, and believes that will trickle down to create jobs. The member's laughing, but this is absolutely consistent. For years in this chamber that's been the agenda. Deep cuts to public spending and large tax cuts have been the economic strategy.

Our strategy is to try to preserve health care and education and to invest in the infrastructure of the province, in the skills and training of British Columbians and in the forest resource base. Recently, of course, we're also looking at investing in the fishery resource and others as part of that comprehensive modern strategy to deal with competitive pressure that the province faces. It's a fundamental cleavage between the Liberal Party and our party.

So as we move forward, we're fleshing out the pieces in the regional strategy and trying to put some job targets within that rubric of the overall investment plan, to drive home some specific job targets. We've released some of those -- the Kamloops region and others. We're going through a sort of regional analysis. Over the course of time, the jobs targets and how they flesh out will become apparent, all underneath the umbrella of the jobs and investment plan we released a year or so ago.

C. Hansen: I'm going to resist the temptation to get into a debate of where the Liberal Party comes from on these. I think we went down that slippery slope last night, and in the end we wound up with periods of time when not much was accomplished, when it comes to what the estimates are all about. We certainly reserve the right to come back to that later in the day, but in the meantime, I do have some serious 

[ Page 1998 ]

questions that I'm looking for serious answers to, without getting into a political debate of the various philosophies expressed within this House.

I want to ask the Premier specifically about the jobs and timber accord as a component of the jobs plan. Are the negotiations taking place under that jobs and timber accord being driven primarily from his office?

[3:00]

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

C. Hansen: I want to ask the Premier if the forest renewal fund becomes a component in meeting the job creation objectives that are sought under the jobs and timber accord.

Hon. G. Clark: Clearly it would be a component. Let me elaborate on my rather too glib answer a minute ago. The Ministry of Forests, the Forest Renewal board, the industry, unions, environmentalists, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the Ministry of Small Business, the Ministry of Environment and a variety of others are involved. This is a major initiative of the government.

It is true to say that I'm driving that agenda. I campaigned for leadership of the NDP on that subject. I campaigned to become Premier on that subject. My deputy minister is a key player in the forest sector strategy, in driving the jobs and timber accord. The head of CPCS, Tom Gunton, reports to me, and the policy units around there are part of the driving force to pursue this. But it's not something that I can or would do without the active participation of the major ministries that actually deliver the service, understand the nature of the business and can pursue the kinds of trade-offs required to make a jobs and timber accord work. Similarly, Forest Renewal has a separate board, a separate agency.

However, if you're looking at a job target of creating more jobs in British Columbia in the forest sector, then we're not simply saying that those jobs are going to be created by this particular sector or that particular sector without looking at all of it, because it includes everything. It includes investments made by Forest Renewal, by the government, by industry, etc.

I think it would be unfair and unsuccessful if we simply said that we expect, say, the existing companies in the industry to create 22,000 more jobs. We expect in general that industry can sustain more employment. We know that, essentially -- if you want, crudely -- if we had exactly the same ratio of jobs per cubic metre harvested as they have in Oregon, Washington, California or virtually anywhere else in the world, we would have probably 40,000 or 50,000 more jobs. We put a much more modest target on it, because we know there are some reasons we don't have that many jobs. It's not anybody's fault. There are lots of reasons -- distance to market, various factors. We feel that moving in that direction is required. We're going to work hard, using every tool we have at our disposal, and work with every group we have any contact with to try to drive those job numbers up.

C. Hansen: We may come back to the subject of the accord at a later point in these debates, but I'll put it aside for now.

I want to ask the minister about something he was quoted on when the Youth Works program was announced. I know the Premier made the point that he didn't want to canvass that in detail, but I did want to question him on a particular reference made at the announcement, I believe, in Burnaby. The Premier was quoted at that time as saying that there would be 13,000 private sector jobs created. I just wonder if the Premier could elaborate. Was it a misspeaking or a misquote?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not correct. I don't know whether it was a misquote of mine, misspeaking on my part or an inaccuracy on the part of the reporter. I do actually suspect it was the latter, but I don't want to hide behind that. I said what I have said consistently before and since: 13,000 training spaces would be made available, not jobs at the end of the training programs. It's interesting that you should note that, because there's been lots of coverage of this, and I think only one story -- at least, I was advised some weeks later of one story -- referred to it as jobs. It's not jobs.

C. Hansen: The reason I raise that is that I'm aware of the one article, and I had tried to find other references to it. I think that, as a result of that one article -- and there may have been radio coverage as well -- there was definitely a perception on the part of the players and those involved in those programs that it was in fact 13,000 jobs. I think 13,000 training spaces is quite a different story.

I want to switch to another subject, if I may: the compensation negotiations with regard to the settlement framework agreement for the Kemano completion project. I wonder if the Premier could advise us of the status of those negotiations with the Kemano completion project.

Hon. G. Clark: There's nothing particularly new to report. There are ongoing discussions with Alcan to follow up on the memorandum of agreement that was signed. The memorandum of agreement we signed expired without a resolution, and so the company is free to sue the government. They have not chosen to do that. They have been interested in continuing dialogue with us, and I think there have been a few discussions, but no progress has been made.

C. Hansen: Does the government plan to still abide by the intent of the original settlement framework agreement? Has there been an extension to that framework agreement, or are the negotiations taking place in the context of the now expired agreement?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not been extended, so the discussions can talk about whatever the people want to talk about. Clearly we signed the framework agreement. I strongly support the framework agreement, and I'd like to have a resolution on this. I'd like to have a resolution which protects environmental values and leads to more jobs and certainty in Kitimat.

I'm not satisfied with the current situation, because we did take a very difficult action, a unilateral action to cancel this agreement. It was the right decision to protect the environment. We have a situation where the workers in Kitimat deserve job security. They deserve the company to reinvest in that community, and much of that is stalled pending the uncertainty associated with some of this debate.

I'm quite happy talking about this too, although I'm wandering into some turf which is not totally my responsibility, at least directly. The key question -- or some of the key questions -- are the questions of water flows in the river, and those are not resolved.

C. Hansen: I know there are some very real concerns on the part of residents in that part of B.C. with regard to 

[ Page 1999 ]

the future of the power block that is now being sold to B.C. Hydro. I wonder if the Premier could comment on whether or not the future of that power is part of these negotiations and, specifically, whether B.C. Hydro is a party to these negotiations. What role do they play in the negotiations that might be taking place?

Hon. G. Clark: The very specific answer is yes, they're clearly part of the negotiations and discussions. The next question you asked was: "Is Hydro involved?" The answer is only in a technical sense, in terms of giving technical advice, legal advice and others with respect to their role and their contractual arrangements. We see this as a government decision, and as the sole shareholder of B.C. Hydro, we'll make the decision in the public interest. Hydro is not party to those negotiations.

C. Hansen: Could the Premier advise us of an anticipated time line for these negotiations? I know the original....

Hon. G. Clark: I wish.

C. Hansen: I think I got my answer, thank you very much. Perhaps he could elaborate on that. Are we talking about months, are we talking about years? Secondly, is the Premier confident that these discussions will be resolved by negotiation rather than before the courts?

Hon. G. Clark: We certainly hope a resolution will take place in months, and that's my desire and my position. I think, realistically.... I actually don't know the answer. It could take much longer than that to get a resolution.

With respect to the court action, we are not planning to sue Alcan; we're planning to negotiate resolution. But if Alcan chooses to sue the province of B.C., that's their prerogative, and they can do that anytime. We can't stop them from doing that. We're not going to be steamrollered into any kind of negotiated settlement on the basis of a legal threat, so we're carrying on.

Now let me put it in a more positive light, if I could. Alcan, I believe, would like to settle this in a negotiated fashion. The province would like to settle this in a negotiated fashion, and we are trying to do that. I remain cautiously optimistic, actually, that we can get a resolution that meets the interests of the very disparate parties to this dispute, if you will, in terms of the interests and concerns that people have.

C. Hansen: Is the Premier prepared to make sure that any settlement that comes out of these negotiations is tied to economic development and job creation opportunities that will take place in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly that's a key objective that I have. In fact, I would say it's the key objective. I don't think the economic development question is the hard one to resolve; I think the environmental one is hard to resolve.

C. Hansen: I wonder if, in the budget and budget estimates that are before us, there are any costs included that would be used for settlement in this particular case.

Hon. G. Clark: No, there aren't.

C. Hansen: I only have one or two questions left in this area. I wonder if the Premier could advise us whether or not there will be an opportunity to debate the proposed settlement in this Legislature before it is finalized.

Hon. G. Clark: No.

C. Hansen: The final question I have before I turn it over to a colleague is.... I was quite surprised to learn that these negotiations were in fact being driven by the Ministry of Environment. I looked back to the assignment of cabinet responsibilities at the time that the executive council was sworn in, and I didn't see any change of designation at that time. I've certainly looked for any press releases or things that have come out. I'm wondering if the Premier could explain the rationale for these negotiations being assigned to the Ministry of Environment.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just checking, because I'm not sure that the member is correct. The current Minister of Environment is the lead minister designated on the discussion of Alcan, and was prior to the election, as well. That has not changed. It's not being driven by the Ministry of Environment, as the member asserted, and it isn't today. It's a separate responsibility that the minister has, which is only partially related to his ministerial duties. We felt that the negotiations are of sufficient magnitude that we should empower or formally have a minister be responsible for the detailed negotiations and some of the decisions, to report back to cabinet. That minister has always been, I believe, the current Minister of Environment, who is only recently in that position.

C. Hansen: Could the Premier explain, then, what ministry of government is actually driving these negotiations under the leadership of the Minister of Environment?

Hon. G. Clark: The Premier's Office.

[3:15]

C. Hansen: I'll turn the questioning over to a colleague.

L. Reid: Just moments ago the Deputy Premier suggested that these annual reports are fine reading, and that indeed we should bring them in to debate in this chamber. I intend to do just that. I'm referring to the office of the child, youth and family advocate. Joyce Preston has recently come into this position.

It's my understanding that this is the Minister Responsible for Youth, the Premier. The comments that are made in this document referencing youth services are found on page 30, for the Premier's information: "Government presents a very confused face in its services to people between 16 and 24 years of age. In 1995 services have appeared to be built on shifting sands. There has been a lack of clarity regarding such areas as entitlement, focus, approach, the availability of various programs and which government ministries are involved." My contention is that this has not changed dramatically.

The Chair: Hon. member, excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point, but it concerns me somewhat that that seems to be relating more closely to Social Services than it does directly to the Premier's responsibilities for youth as he has described them in the past. Now, unless the Premier is keen to discuss these, I just want to draw to your attention that supposedly it isn't the Premier's task to respond to every issue from every ministry. So with that caution....

[ Page 2000 ]

L. Reid: Madam Chair, I appreciate your concern, but I certainly do not share it. This person is an individual of the Legislature, and again I ask the Premier to respond, since he has taken great delight in the last number of months saying that he is indeed responsible for youth.

Hon. G. Clark: When we appoint legislative officers who report to the House, they are effectively watchdogs on government. I think it's a credit to the previous government and all members of the House that we would appoint such a watchdog, if you will -- sorry, maybe that's too narrow a definition -- or someone of Joyce Preston's calibre to this particular position. I take very seriously any criticisms that she has of the government with respect to youth services, and certainly that's very hard-hitting criticism indeed. I think it means we have lots of work to do.

What we're trying to do is work on how we can streamline and organize services to young people, in keeping with the Gove report and in keeping with my own responsibilities and others that other ministers have. One of the challenges of modern, complex government -- frankly, too complex and too large, in many cases -- is the overlap of responsibilities and duplication of responsibilities that we find. It's particularly acute, as I think all members know and have seen recently, in ministries like Social Services and Health. That is what Ms. Preston is referring to in particular. Of course, my responsibility as Minister Responsible for Youth is to try not to set up a bureaucracy, a competing bureaucracy or competing agency, but rather to act to drive a youth-focused agenda in the line ministries.

The answer is that this report came out, really, before I took responsibility for youth in British Columbia -- the Minister Responsible for Youth. I'm sure it was written before that. What I'm trying to do is bring some focus to programs for young people. I'm doing that in two ways: firstly through the office of the transition commissioner and secondly through my youth secretariat, so that we can in fact fix some of the problems that Ms. Preston has referred to there, which I generally agree with.

L. Reid: I appreciate the Premier's comments with reference to youth. Certainly, speaking as a past teacher and past school administrator, a lot of what the Premier is attempting to do falls on fertile ground on this side of the Legislature. We all appreciate that the issues facing youth today are significant. What concerns me and what is reflected in this report certainly -- the Premier, I understand, is also responsible for the cabinet policy and communications secretariat -- is that the message of government has to be consistent.

Joyce Preston is saying throughout this document, and I will quote it into the record just for superb clarification here:

"Government's attitude as expressed in programs developed for this age group" -- and again, she is speaking of 16 to 24 years of age -- "has been alarmingly inconsistent. The messages seem to change constantly: go to school -- don't go to school; we'll provide training for everyone -- your family should take care of you; you're just lazy -- get a job. On top of this are such occurrences as social assistance payments being suddenly reduced...."

All of those messages are inconsistent. Again, I think that is an issue for the Premier's Office and certainly for this Premier who has taken responsibility for youth. I agree with the comments contained in this report, that the messaging has not been consistent. I ask the minister, the Premier, to comment.

Hon. G. Clark: I said before that I take seriously Ms. Preston's comments, so I don't want to minimize them. But I have to say I don't entirely agree with that assertion. I actually think we are making progress on a message. It may not be a message that Ms. Preston likes. It may not be a message that the member opposite likes, and I accept that as a valid opinion. But the message is pretty clear; we did cut welfare rates for single employables. We are changing the entitlement, from entitlement to cash to entitlement to training. This is a big change. It is a change that has been criticized by many people. But it's one that I feel not only confident about but that I feel comfortable with and I feel is absolutely essential. I think that message has been clear.

I'm not trying to put out some kind of temporizing discussion or hide behind that, but I hope that the member opposite would agree. That particular legislation, Youth Works, has just come in right now. The implementation of it is in September. Again, we are in a kind of transition here for programs for youth, so parts of the different messages are, as we work through this transition.

I said this a minute ago and I'll say it again: one of the reasons for taking on this portfolio is to try to drive a more consistent message and to make sure that is in keeping with the government's agenda. Hopefully, that will address many of the concerns that people like Ms. Preston have identified -- although it may not, because there also appears to be some subjective philosophical difference I detect in those remarks, and that won't go away even if we get a simple, straightforward message.

L. Reid: I certainly agree with the Premier when he suggests that Joyce Preston is an officer of the Legislature. Indeed, these people are put in place to be watchdogs of the system. The fact that this person may not share the Premier's view philosophically is probably a good thing in lots of respects.

One of the points she does make is around specific populations -- i.e., teenage moms trying to do day care and trying to return to school. Certainly in the lead-up to the election those were a number of the issues you yourself raised, Mr. Premier -- when it came to print media, when it came to television media -- that these were the more difficult populations to serve and that these would be the groups you would be there for. Are there some plans and status reports on whether or not anything has evolved from that particular volume of advertising? Have the programs followed?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, they have. I mean, I don't have them with me here, because it is not my direct responsibility. Yes, and again, Ms. Preston is not here to defend herself, and I am not trying to criticize. One of the challenges is.... We have actually done -- I won't say it's too much -- a lot. There hasn't been the kind of tying together in theme. When you are an activist government initiating the biggest increase in child care spaces in the history of the country, in British Columbia in the past few years, when you have the biggest capital spending in the history of the country in the last four years, when you are doing those kinds of things, you need to bring some focus and make sure that all these initiatives are coordinated in a way which has, in this case, a youth-centred focus.

Obviously, as we move forward tying it together, bringing in some theme, we'll have a bigger challenge in keeping pace with those investments because of our fiscal situation and our commitments on taxes and others. In a way, it gives us the opportunity to pull all these initiatives together, streamline them, see how they fit, reform social services the way 

[ Page 2001 ]

Judge Gove has talked about, or at least put in place many of the recommendations, and look at how the ministry of youth, Health, Social Services, other agencies, Education and Training all fit together.

I think it's a very valid criticism that governments generally are having a hard time struggling with this. I can't tell you how many interministerial committees there are on some of these issues. I sometimes think there is an endless series of meetings between ministries. We need to cut through all of that and really get the minimum of overlap and duplication we can, streamline it and make sure that services to young people and to kids are the priority, and try to deal with some of these turf challenges we often have in government.

L. Reid: In response to my last question, the Premier said that it was not his direct responsibility. Fine. What is his direct responsibility under the responsibility for youth? In terms of referring people to that office, who indeed would you wish to see and actually respond to their concerns? Which issues are you taking responsibility for?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a brand-new office in the Premier's youth secretariat. There are, I think, two or three people there. Again, my purpose for it is not to set up another program delivery structure -- partly because of criticism like that which you read out from Ms. Preston, and that I think the member shares -- but rather to try to get a small central agency developing policy around youth issues and driving, if you will, within the line ministries the kind of youth-focused agenda that the government and that I as minister want to adopt. Hopefully, that kind of approach will in fact go a long way to doing what I just said: getting the right accountability structures, getting the jurisdiction correct, driving through some of the confusion, duplication and overlap that we have seen and that you've alluded to. I think that's appropriate.

I anticipate that that secretariat will get slightly larger, hopefully not very large. An option that I am considering, and staff know this -- we haven't made any decisions yet -- is the notion of every ministry having a youth advocate, for example, in the ministries and either working with the youth secretariat or for the youth secretariat. So we're driving, kind of cutting through some of this stuff and making sure we're constantly focusing on some of those issues.

I don't want this to sound overly simplistic, but hopefully, with the youth secretariat, if it has that kind of function.... We have to make sure that it harmonizes or marries with the changes coming out of Gove, which is an ongoing process and a legislative committee. So, even though I just said what I said, we don't want to do that. We want to make sure that we're working on the same sort of wavelength and team. Then, hopefully, we can work with people like Joyce Preston, an officer of the Legislature, to make sure that we're addressing some of the concerns that she has raised in her report. If there are philosophical differences, that's fine. That may be good, as I think the member said. But we'll just be upfront with those. Those are differences in philosophy -- but not differences in program delivery, or confusion or unfocused attention, which is what most concerns me about the remarks she's made and, frankly, that I think we're all saying we agree with in a way.

L. Reid: Certainly I take well the Premier's comments about the need to make the system more cohesive and do away with the stovepipes. When the Premier talked about how many interministerial committees there actually are, yes, I have a fondness for that debate. I've been in it many times. No matter how many there are, this communication still does not happen. So my question specifically to the Premier is on the time line for the youth secretariat. What do you intend to achieve by any particular date? If you could give us that, we'll be able to cross-reference over the next six or ten months and have some accountability framework that we may address.

[3:30]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I can't actually give you a date here. We haven't given it that kind of time line.

L. Reid: A target.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the target.... In part, I think it would be better tied to the implementation of Gove and how we move that along. Again, I don't want to jump in with a model that I might be excited by, on the youth secretariat in an abstract sense. Do you know what I mean? We want to make sure that it's working with people like the child and youth advocate, people particularly like those on the Gove implementation and Cyndi Morton, who is reporting to me. We'll try to get it all or a lot right, recognizing that there will be incremental changes. You know, nothing stands still until we do that.

In some ways, the initiative around the youth initiative, other than pursuing aggressively the broad policy stuff and my personal involvement in it and some of the initiatives we've taken, whether it's the tuition freeze or the employment programs.... The broader mandate of the secretariat will be evolving and will only be really developed once we get these other pieces to fit right. I'm hoping that we can do that in a year or so. I can't remember the time frame for the Gove implementation, but there is a legislative committee.

I hope the member will indulge me in canvassing this again when we start making progress on all these other areas, so that we can see how this fits in with the model and how it's hopefully cutting down some of the confusion and problems that the member has alluded to.

L. Reid: For the Premier's information, I appreciate that he wishes his secretariat to dovetail with what Gove is doing. Is the Premier aware that the Gove legislative committee has not met once during this legislative session?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, but it's the shortest legislative session in 40 years. The committee will be . . . .

L. Reid: No, it's not the shortest legislative session.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, whatever. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to make a political point by saying that.

An Hon. Member: Yes, you are.

Hon. G. Clark: No, I wasn't. There may have been other sessions that were around the same, but it's a short session, and people understand the circumstances around that. The Gove committee will be struck and will be meeting. I give you that commitment. We've got to make this work, and I think all members of the House, regardless of some of the partisan theatrics, want to see this work.

L. Reid: I absolutely agree with the Premier that we need to make this work, but I can assure the Premier that we have 

[ Page 2002 ]

had this commitment before. When this House met in April, we were told the Gove committee would continue to meet. It has not met in the previous four months. I think it's somewhat an issue of negligence on the government's part to have all this self-righteous indignation when questions are raised, but at the same time, the committee that could be handling some of those issues has not met, as a direct request of this government and certainly, I would assume, this Premier. Would the Premier comment?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll accept the criticism that the committee hasn't met. I hope the member would acknowledge that it's not a deliberate attempt to subvert the process. There has been an intervening election, this is the middle of August, and we are in a short session. We intend to have the committee meet.

I also hope the member would recognize that the work of Cyndi Morton and the professionals reviewing this is keeping pace. It hasn't stopped because the committee hasn't met. Again, talking to even the Leader of the Opposition, I'm advised that the committee is only going to meet three or four times in the course of the year. It's not like it's going to meet all the time. So I'm not opposed to meeting more than that, but the advice I've been receiving is that it's not a heavy workload. It's more reporting in and consultation. So that work is proceeding apace.

The committee will meet. It will be reporting in, and as the member well knows, with full access to briefings. I'll make sure of that if there's any concern in terms of making sure that individual members like the member -- who I know is very interested and concerned about this issue -- have access to Cyndi Morton. I just acknowledge that the committee hasn't met and that it should meet, first of all. Secondly, I hope the member will acknowledge that it doesn't mean that work has slowed down at all. It means, in fact, it's continuing on, and I think the member knows that.

L. Reid: For the record, I would say I have the highest regard for the work that Cynthia Morton is doing. My question specifically is: who is responsible for implementation of the Gove inquiry?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the transition commissioner reports to me, so I'm assuming it's me. The work is being done. There's a legislative committee, an oversight committee. I'm driving it. The reason it reports to me is that -- I assume all members agree with this -- obviously, we want some distance from the Ministry of Social Services, which has some challenges to overcome and has been subject to some criticism by Judge Gove, although Social Services would be in a sense the logical agency.

Secondly -- and I think this is very important -- there are some recommendations that may flow out of that which will lead to structural changes or recommendations for structural changes, and the Premier is responsible for the makeup of cabinet and the makeup of the structure of government. It's the sole prerogative of the first minister. So if you want it to work and have structural change, then it makes sense to have the Premier's Office and the Premier involved in that, so that it has a high chance of success in terms of making the structural changes that might be recommended. I think there's a sort of logic to that. That work is underway. I know that lots of members have been consulted, and there's all kinds of intense work being done. It is a transition period. It should be reporting to a committee, but the committee has not met for a few months. It does need to meet, but as I've said, I've given some undertaking that it will.

L. Reid: Let's review what we have before us. We have a Premier who is assuming that he's responsible, we have a committee that has not met, and we have one superb public servant. I would suggest that this Premier is not keeping his end of the bargain. The question specifically was: when will the committee meet? The Premier must know that the committee has had only a single organizational meeting where they basically appointed a chair and a vice-chair. That is not substantive work on behalf of the very profound, very serious recommendations that Justice Gove has made. Again, to the Premier, as the person who has taken great delight in parading around the province suggesting that he's taken the responsibility for youth very seriously: when will this committee meet?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm accepting the criticism of the member to an extent. All I'm saying is: don't equate a committee meeting with progress on youth issues or on implementing the Gove report. I just refuse to accept that.

We have a transition commissioner for child and youth services. She is a superb public servant, and she is working extremely hard. It's a challenging issue, and members of the opposition are fully briefed on this. I haven't heard any criticism or complaints about the work that's being done, and it's fully available to be canvassed. All this work is proceeding apace, and it will report to a parliamentary committee. But in the meantime, it reports to me -- not just in the meantime but at all times. Judge Gove, I remind members, wanted some independence for the office of the transition commissioner from line ministries, which is the principal reason, I guess, that it reports to me.

I'm trying to give the member credit, and I accept some of the criticism. But I just hope that the member would also accept that simply because the legislative committee hasn't met, that doesn't mean their work isn't being done. It is being done.

L. Reid: I would encourage the Premier, then, to enter into discussions with his House Leader. Whenever there is a question raised on Gove, she stands there and says that we have a committee. Frankly, that's useless if the committee doesn't meet. So in terms of my original comment today about messaging across government, obviously you and your House Leader need to have a conversation about how important it is to convey the same message.

In terms of the Premier's comments around having each ministry take some responsibility, I come back to one of my other points made this afternoon about accountability. Let's leave Gove for a moment and ask: how are you going to measure success for any youth initiative that your secretariat is going to drive, in your words?

I'll give you an example. The First Job in Science and Technology program, which directly relates to the 16-to-24-year-olds, is a program that I absolutely support -- no question about that. It was oversubscribed early on, so there's no more ability to take advantage of or benefit from that program, and there's no communication that the program is no longer available. You yourself, Mr. Premier, stand in this House saying: "Isn't it a fabulous program?" The public message is that it is still available. So either it is superbly successful.... And I would grant the Premier that I think it probably is, but you can't keep overselling it. Once it is subscribed, it's done. So either come to the table with something that is going to offer opportunities to young people or.... You can't sell the program for four years when there's no opportunity for any new person to enter into the process.

[ Page 2003 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I don't think that's entirely fair. The member has acknowledged that she agrees that it's an excellent program, that it had a 100 percent takeup and that there is a waiting list. So in a way, it's too successful. We are not advertising it on TV or anything; we're not promoting it. It's just that....

L. Reid: It's the third time this week you've mentioned it.

Hon. G. Clark: I do mention it a lot, because it is a tremendous program -- a success.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: It is somewhat expensive.

If these government programs are oversubscribed, you can't simply go back. I know the members wouldn't want me to go back and increase the budget in the middle of the year.

If I could just deal with the member's comments on this particular program, what we have to do now is perhaps look at whether the full subsidy is required, given the tremendous success of the program. Not everybody would want to hear that, but it seems to me that maybe we can keep the budget and have more people working by reducing the subsidy. That's exactly the kind of program review which we're engaging in. We obviously cannot and will not.... I shouldn't say it in advance of the budget process, but I might as well. Funding is not going to be increased. Can we redesign it? Is it a success, as successful as I think it is and as many people think it is? Can we make it more successful from a cost-effectiveness point of view by adding spaces without costing money? That's exactly the kind of review we're undertaking.

In answer to the general question that the member asked, we have to take each of these program initiatives we announced and evaluate them against their own goals, and then measure their success and look for ways in which we can either improve the program or eliminate the program. Again, I say very, very seriously that that's a real option. If the program is not successful, we're going to get rid of it. And if it's really successful, as the member suggested, can we either enhance the funding -- probably not, but obviously we want to look at that -- or make it even more successful by altering it, by tailoring it, by looking at it? We haven't done the evaluation yet; it's a new program. I accept the notion that it's clearly, dramatically oversubscribed -- on both sides, employers and employees. That's a nice problem to have. It's also one which points to possible changes to the program so that we can get a bigger bang for the buck.

L. Reid: I appreciate the Premier's comments on accountability and some kind of planning process that needs to happen.

What I would put before this Premier is whether or not he can put in place a calendar when the windows of opportunity do exist for each of these various programs so that young people are aware. I think it's incredibly demoralizing for a number of these young folks to phone and be told the program is done and that they no longer qualify. Some planning for a year-long calendar, such as this is program X -- whether it's First Job in Science or any of the others -- and how long the window of opportunity exists.... Then, frankly, constituency offices around the province would have some valuable information to share with people. This Premier, I know, will realize how many times some of these young people have tried to get on the line to make a telephone call, and after their fiftieth try, they get through and are told: "Sorry." We're not communicating effectively. This government, I think, if they're truly committed to young people, will stop frustrating them at every turn.

The minister suggested that there would be an evaluation of this program. Will there be an interim evaluation? Are we talking six months from now, a year from now? When can we expect one?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but I did canvass this with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena at a little bit of length, so I'll try and do it briefly, if that's okay.

We will be doing a program evaluation review of all the programs and the youth employment initiatives that I announced, the youth guarantee. It will be a program evaluation leading up to decisions that will be made about the budget next year. That generally means that they start this fall. Some of the program evaluations will be completed at the end of the fiscal year, and some of them earlier than that, as we make further decisions.

I committed to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to provide evaluative work done on these reports. I also quite candidly said that we would be making decisions on the budget based on our evaluative work before the member opposite actually gets the evaluative framework. So I'll try and commit to getting it to you before the end of the fiscal year, and then you'll have to judge or critique the decisions we made coming out of budget process in the debate next year, armed with the same information that we have.

L. Reid: I thank the Premier for that information. He will know that I canvassed his colleague the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment, around science and technology very thoroughly, and the answers were not forthcoming. So I thank the Premier most sincerely.

One of the last recommendations that I will reference from the office of the child, youth and family advocate is, in the words of Joyce Preston: "Above all, we will work to provide avenues for the voices of youth to be heard directly by government." I have a recollection of a youth advisory council that was in place over the last number of years, prior to this government, I believe. I don't think it was continued. Does the Premier have a similar forum in place? How does he hear directly from young people in this province?

[3:45]

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. We had a youth forum with a couple hundred people there, and it was a very intense workshop. It was excellent for me, personally, and I hope for many of the people. We had a report coming out of that forum -- I don't know if the member has it. Some people recommended a re-creation of the youth forum, and it's under consideration, although I've been a bit cynical about -- not the youth forum -- the Youth Advisory Council. Some people recommended that coming out of the forum actually, but I've been a bit cynical about it. You've got to watch setting up people institutionally when they represent youth from various agencies. I'm not opposed to it, and I'm trying to engage young people in the discussion. In general, there wasn't a lot of support for it at that youth forum.

So what we're planning to do in all likelihood is hold another youth forum and try to learn from some of the critiques that people had. Whether we set up some kind

[ Page 2004 ]

of formal structure such as the Youth Advisory Council.... I'm open to that. I'm not closing the door to that, but we certainly haven't made that decision at this time.

L. Reid: I thank the Premier for that guidance, and I would like the Premier to know that I'm not tied to any particular forum. How you choose to receive that input is absolutely your call. I would suggest to the Premier that the input -- the simple asking -- is what is vitally important. Though certainly none of us on this side of House fall into the age bracket of 16 to 24, we would very much like to be included in....

Interjection.

L. Reid: It was a year or so ago for me, hon. Premier, and I know you and I are of the same vintage. But in terms of the opposition having equal concern and equal ability to participate in the process, I would welcome you granting us that opportunity. Would you kindly comment?

Hon. G. Clark: I actually think some MLAs were invited to the last youth forum -- maybe not opposition members. But I don't have any problem with that at all. It's not a partisan issue, provided members want to be constructive in the dialogue, and I'm sure they do. As long as I get to pick which opposition members are invited....

L. Reid: Well, Mr. Premier, you get to pick everything else, so I would think that certainly falls into your area of responsibility. I thank you for the concern you demonstrate on behalf of young people in this province. Please note that the members of the opposition will work very closely with you to advance some good opportunities.

G. Campbell: I'd like to go back to the Premier's responsibility for the Gove report. I know that Cynthia Morton has been put in place as a transition commissioner, and my first question is whether she has had the opportunity to provide the Premier with either verbal or written reports on her work since Gove reported out and since her appointment. The Premier's responsibilities for the Gove report and its implementation have been outlined briefly here in these estimates, and I know that Cynthia Morton has been appointed. The question to the Premier is: has he received either verbal or written reports from Cynthia Morton on the activities she has undertaken, and what actual actions have we taken?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a three-year appointment; obviously I've had some discussions with Cynthia Morton around that. She is preparing a written report for me, a six-month report due in September, to canvass where we've got to and the range of options for proceeding. So September is the first time I'll be receiving any detailed written submission from her. As we outlined a minute ago -- just to comment a bit further -- we have a legislative committee on Gove, and hopefully it will dovetail nicely with some work in terms of reporting to her. She can seek guidance, if you will, from me as the person responsible and then seek input from the parliamentary committee on some of the options.

G. Campbell: I understand that Ms. Morton has just gone on a cross-country tour to talk, I assume, with other provincial jurisdictions and other agencies perhaps. Before she went, can the Premier tell me, did she discuss the tour with him? Did she discuss what objectives and goals she had established for herself? Is she actually carrying out the Premier's instructions, or is she simply flying on her own?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, I had to personally approve much of the travel, so.... I think she was in Michigan. It was a conference, I believe. This is just going from memory. I can get that for the member.

I guess the real answer is: a bit of both. She has been discussing with me verbally some of the issues. I've asked for, and she's preparing, a detailed report for September. She is also consulting with experts across the country and attending some conference around this. The Gove report is the foundation, of course, and much of the work has been done. It's very appropriate in this exercise, it seems to me, to be gathering information to guide decision-making starting in September, which will obviously continue over the next few years.

G. Campbell: We spent about a million and a half dollars on the Gove report, I think. Maybe it was $2.3 million; I can't remember. We spent a sizeable chunk of taxpayers' dollars establishing some independent recommendations. I recognize that those have to come through government, and government will eventually make those decisions. I'm not suggesting that shouldn't be the case. My concern is that when she goes out, I would like.... Let me stand back a minute.

One of my concerns about the Gove report, to be brutally honest and candid about it, is that the report was tabled. It is, I think, a pretty scathing indictment of all of us and what we've done and how we've acted and whether or not we've managed to carry out our responsibilities to the children of this province under our public care. I don't think there is anyone in this House who doesn't believe we should be caring for those children properly.

I was a little taken aback by the promptness with which the response came back, not specifically from the government -- because the words from the government were different than this -- but from the bureaucracy, which said: "Well, gee, this is going to be awfully tough to do. You know, it's different than what we've done before. I don't know whether we can do it or not." The problem still exists, and we know the problem still exists. If what we're doing now with Ms. Morton is rediscovering or re-examining all the issues that Gove examined, I think we're wasting our money. I would rather that we move forward in an executive capacity to make sure that those recommendations are put forward.

For example, the recommendation we talked about today, for a computerized tracking system in the child protection area, is something that I believe we could have done nine months after the report was in. I think there are a number of other areas where it really takes.... You don't need a transition commissioner to say to you: "Gee, you had better investigate this." We've had everyone we know tell us we should investigate it. The investigation is not simply into the death or the cause of death; it's into the activities that the ministry took. We have not seen that come forth. I recognize that the minister has taken some small steps in that regard now.

I'm concerned about who is actually tracking the report. There are dozens and dozens of recommendations in the report. I've got recommendation 118 as an example: ". . .within six months after delivery of this report" the government should report to the ombudsman on plans to implement his recommendations.

I know the answer, but I'm going to ask the question of the Premier anyway. Has that report been presented to the 

[ Page 2005 ]

ombudsman at this date? Do we know exactly how we're carrying out all of those recommendations in that report, what activities we're undertaking, etc.? Those are critical questions to us. I don't believe that the committee is going to be executing the report. They should be looking at possible steps to be taken after it's been considered, and the steps forward have been outlined by the transition commissioner and the government.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me do something somewhat unusual and say that I agree with most of what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Clearly some of the incidents raised both in this House and outside highlight the need to move on these recommendations. Now, we are moving on the recommendations. Cyndi Morton is working hard. They're not reinventing the wheel. There will be a detailed report back to me in September. To that extent, I don't agree with the member. But I will say that all members of this House want to deal with this issue expeditiously -- and I as much as or more than any other member. I will ensure that it happens. I will grant you that there are some time lines and deadlines in some of the recommendations that have not been met, but it is not because of any kind of nefariousness or otherwise. It's simply because we're working through this.

Now, where I strongly agree with the member is his concern about the intransigence and the difficulty -- or at least the perceived difficulty -- of making changes in the bureaucracy. I think that is part of the problem. The Gove report does document problems in that ministry. It is clear that we cannot wait to deal with the transition to fix those problems. We have to move on them now, and I don't believe it's been moving fast enough for me. So I share the member's view. I want to give him as much comfort as I can that with the detailed report that we expect from Cyndi Morton, and with the committee meeting again, I'm going to personally drive this to, I hope, a conclusion that all members of the House can support. It is increasingly apparent that with some of those problems, we need to move faster and harder in order to rectify them.

Having said all that, the only caveat I'd have to those remarks -- and I don't say this as any kind of shield or obfuscation -- is that it is a difficult, complicated question. There is intransigence -- an old way of doing business -- which has been criticized. Criticism is warranted, and criticism is relatively easy. In establishing a significantly new structure, we don't want to be here two or three years from now arguing for further huge changes. If you're going to make the kinds of significant changes that Gove recommended, and I think all members of the House support, then you want to do it right. You want to do it fast, but you want to do it right. It's getting that balance which I'm determined to pursue, and I'm determined to ensure that members on the opposite side as well as on the government side understand exactly the kinds of changes we're making. I'm hopeful and optimistic, frankly, that all members of the House will support those changes when they come forward.

G. Campbell: Could I have a commitment from the Premier, then, that the detailed report from Ms. Morton will be submitted to the committee for their review, as well?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, absolutely.

G. Campbell: In reviewing some of these recommendations, I guess my concern is that we have heard a lot of good words about the Gove report. In fact, what the Gove report has really been about so far, in terms of what the government's response has been, is words. I have, over the last day and a bit -- as have my colleagues on this side of the House -- asked consistently about the issue of accountability. I believe that at the end of the day, we have seen in this House over the last number of weeks -- and indeed as we've watched and seen the record of the government over the last number of months -- a failure to do what this government said and a lack of understanding that someone has to be held accountable for all of those recommendations and that everyone in this House has to be informed about how those recommendations are being carried forward.

There is no question in my mind that this has not been the priority that we were told it was, it has not been the priority that it should be, and it has not been the priority that the Premier is telling us today that it is going to be over the next year. It is absolutely critical to us that over the next few months, the Gove commission report be brought forward, that all of those recommendations be considered and be either accepted or rejected. We on this side of the House are not going to accept any longer the generalized statements, "We like it and we hope we're going to do it, and you'll get a report on it some day," and stop there.

One of the things, I think, that has touched this off for all of us on this side of the House is that as we've gone through this session and in yesterday's discussions with the Premier, what we've heard consistently from the Premier whenever we are really trying to push to make sure that someone is held accountable is that.... The Premier gets very upset and does one of his numbers. In fact, last night we discussed what we called the rant and run, where the Premier says whatever he wants to say and then says: "Well, I'll adjourn the discussions." It is not appropriate to adjourn the discussions, to put them off, to wait. The fact of the matter is that in this government, it has been very difficult to find anyone who you could hold to account for anything. We have a Finance minister who does not have his....

Interjection.

[4:00]

G. Campbell: It was much faster than the Finance minister finding out what's happening with his budget, I can tell you that.

We have a Finance minister who says we have a balanced budget, we have a Premier who says we have a balanced budget, we have millions of government dollars which go into telling us we have a balanced budget, only to find out we don't have a balanced budget. What we have is a quarter-billion-dollar deficit in this province.

We have a new budget that was brought in, where all of the mistakes.... You can fix up all the mistakes. Instead of fixing up the mistakes, they compound the mistakes. What the government says is: "Well, now we may not have a quarter-billion-dollar deficit in '96-97. We could have a $700 million deficit in 1996-97." That is not satisfactory, hon. Chair.

We have a Premier who tells us and tells the people of British Columbia: "Don't worry about Forest Renewal funds. They're protected. They are sacred. They will come to your community. They will provide you with jobs." And what happens? As soon as there is an election, as soon as the House is there, they say: "We're going after Forest Renewal funds. We're taking them out of your community. They're not going to be committed to jobs in the province of British Columbia."

Hon. Chair, the Premier told us that he had fired the disgraced chair of B.C. Hydro, John Laxton, and in fact he 

[ Page 2006 ]

hadn't fired the disgraced chair of B.C. Hydro, John Laxton. He tells us he's concerned about the Gove report, but this government has not bothered to investigate even one of the deaths which are under their purview. It is simply not acceptable. It is simply not something that we on this side of the House can accept.

The critical thing is for someone in this government to be held to account. It is not, evidently, the Minister of Social Services who is going to be held to account for the way he has acted. We are not going to hold the Minister of Finance to account for the way he has not performed. We will not hold to account the Minister of Forests for the way that particular minister has performed. So we have only one person in the province that we can hold to account for the actions of this government. The Premier told us the budget was balanced, and it wasn't. The Premier told us that the Forest Renewal trust is sacred, and it isn't. The Premier told us that he had fired disgraced B.C. Hydro chair, John Laxton, and he hadn't.

Hon. Chair, I have no choice but to move -- and I believe that all members of this House will support this motion wholeheartedly -- that vote 8 be amended by reducing the amount of $2,408,000 therein to $1.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 35
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Hurd
Sanders	Plant	Stephens
de Jong	Coell	Anderson
Nebbeling	Whittred	van Dongen
Thorpe	Penner	Weisgerber
Neufeld	Barisoff	Krueger
McKinnon	Masi	Nettleton
Coleman	Chong	Weisbeck
Jarvis	Abbott	Symons
Hawkins	C. Clark	Hansen
Reitsma		J. Wilson
NAYS -- 38
Evans	Zirnhelt	Cashore
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Ramsey	Kwan	Waddell
Calendino	Pullinger	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Orcherton
Hartley	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Sihota	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Doyle
Gillespie	Robertson	Farnworth
Smallwood	Conroy	McGregor
Janssen		G. Wilson

F. Gingell: I wrote to the Premier on May 25 concerning the issue of a proposed termination settlement payment to Gordon Austin, the former chief of the Health Labour Relations Association. The Premier was good enough to respond to me on June 24, advising me that he had asked his deputy minister, Mr. Douglas McArthur, to look into the issue, to conduct an investigation and to report to you. I wonder if the Premier could advise me on the current status of this situation.

Hon. G. Clark: As I indicated at the time, I wasn't very happy with some reported settlement, and I have had the deputy minister review it. That review is not quite complete, although it does increasingly look extremely difficult, because there's a commercial arbitrator's decision around the settlement. So we're still exploring options with respect to that.

F. Gingell: Is the Premier advising the committee, then, that an action or a demand was commenced by Mr. Gordon Austin at this late date with respect to the termination of his employment?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to be cute about it. We're in the middle of a review of the question as requested by the member, and I responded. We're not quite complete in the review. It should be complete within a few weeks, and it will no doubt be a matter of public debate at that time. I don't want to comment too much further, just to say that we are doing a review. I think my comments are a matter of public record, and the member understands that. So we're simply looking to see what kinds of options we might have.

F. Gingell: My understanding is that this started with discussions and correspondence from Mr. Jo Surich to the Minister of Health and to the current Employers Council. In your deputy minister's investigation into this issue, could the Premier please ensure that in the end, we will know who instructed Mr. Jo Surich to start this ball rolling?

[4:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly, I will try to provide all the information on the subject to the member opposite and to the public with respect to negotiations, subsequent arrangements and our review around those.

F. Gingell: I wonder if, during the process of the deputy minister's investigation, he is going to look into the issue of whether we should re-evaluate the opportunity for laying criminal charges against Mr. Gordon Austin for his behaviour and for the things that happened, which were reported in the media.

Hon. G. Clark: I think I'd have to unequivocally say no, simply because it is extremely dangerous -- and I'm sure the member agrees -- for politicians to intervene on these kinds of questions. There has been an investigation. The decision was made, without political interference, not to press charges. To overrule that or to somehow have that revisited because of any concerns that I or members may have would be literally an untenable situation with respect to other charges that might be laid. So while in this case members may not like the recommendations with respect to not pursuing charges, I'm not going to overrule them.

F. Gingell: Well, I look forward with interest to the deputy minister's report. Without in any way suggesting that it wouldn't be done in a full manner, I think the circumstances were such that it would be worthwhile for the report to contain the background information that covers the last three or four months. I'm not talking about going way back, but just about including how all of this started and how all of a sudden there was a suggestion -- in fact, a request -- that the government consider making a payment, I understand, in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. I look forward to receiving that report.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll have my deputy make a full and complete report, and I'll make it available to members of the opposition and to the public.

[ Page 2007 ]

M. de Jong: I was in the House last evening when the Premier went on at some length professing his disappointment with the undue -- I think he said unnecessary -- levels of skepticism and negativity that he heard from the opposition side of the House. Then he went on at length about how he thought that was counterproductive and indicative of something less than a genuine commitment to improving the circumstances of all British Columbians. As I listened to that, I thought to myself what we might have expected, were the Premier still occupying a seat on the opposition side of this House.... I recognize, of course, that he achieved something of a reputation as a vigorous and effective member of the opposition which he was part of through the latter part of the eighties. I thought to myself: maybe the Premier is right. Maybe we are being unnecessarily negative, overly negative. But I wonder how the Premier himself would have responded if he'd been confronted by a promise by the government he was opposing of a second balanced budget, millions and millions of dollars being spent. Of course, the only difficulty with those ads is that in order to deliver a second balanced budget, you've got to have a first balanced budget. We now know that that never materialized, and the second balanced budget, which would now be the first balanced budget, isn't going to materialize, either. In fact, it was all one big fraud.

I wonder if the Premier, in his halcyon days of opposition, would have sat back and thought to himself: "Well, let's cut this government some slack. Let's be positive about that. Hey, let's give these guys a break, because mistakes happen." I wonder how the Premier would have responded had he been confronted by a government which swore up and down that Forest Renewal dollars would be kept out of the hands of greedy ministers, regardless of what party they were members of, and then awoke after an election to discover that that very thing was being considered. I could foresee this Premier sitting back again and saying: "Hey, let's not be overly negative. Let's not be overly critical of a government that has changed its mind, flip-flopped amidst an overwhelming pile of evidence that suggests that's what it intended to do all along."

Maybe there's a side to the Premier that I didn't see when he was in opposition and that I'm overlooking now. Maybe I'm wrong. When the Premier was in opposition, had he been confronted by a government that said implementation of the Gove recommendations was going to be a first priority, and he discovered after an election that in fact little if anything had actually been accomplished, with very tragic results as we now know, maybe he would have said: "You know, maybe we shouldn't even be talking about this. Maybe the role of opposition is not to bring these gross deficiencies in government to the floor of the Legislature." And maybe he would have said: "I think there's a way to put a positive spin on this as well." Maybe that would have been his approach.

I thought long and hard to myself: what would have been the straw that broke the camel's back? What would this Premier, in his opposition days, finally have looked on as the ultimate evidence of betrayal of the public of British Columbia? I thought to myself: I wonder if it might be evidence that a fellow like Mr. Laxton -- who we were told was to have no further association with B.C. Hydro, with the province of British Columbia, no role in representing the people of British Columbia -- is in fact still representing British Columbians abroad, in Pakistan. Would that have been it? That might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. But today the Premier says to us: "You're being overly negative. You're dwelling on these minor technical breaches of the public trust. Why are you so preoccupied with these things?" That's the message we hear from the Premier.

There is yet another scandal that continues to plague this government, which the Premier conveniently tries to hide in the background, tries to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. But it's still out there, and it relates to his party's involvement in some pretty sordid activities in Nanaimo -- some really sordid activities.

I hope the Premier understands that when he inherited the leadership of his party, he inherited that legacy of deception as well. When the Premier stands up in this House and purports to chastise members opposite and asks how they look at themselves in the mirror, I only need to think about this incident and ask myself and the Premier and members of his party: how does he look himself in the mirror?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: He's looking now, I'm told. He's looking in the mirror now, and he doesn't like what he sees. He doesn't like what he sees to the extent that he sees anything at all. He doesn't like what he sees, and the reason is that he sees a real moral deficiency on the part of his party, the people in his party.

No amount of juggling, no amount of dancing, no amount of obfuscation by the Premier can hide the fact that he has not confronted this issue head on. He has not fulfilled the promise he made during the course of his leadership campaign for the New Democratic Party that charities in Nanaimo would be repaid. It's another promise unfulfilled, and it was a specific promise that the Premier made very early on in that leadership campaign. I was sitting in the audience at the news conference where the Premier, confronted by very hard questions about the betrayal his party had perpetrated on the charities in Nanaimo, looked at those cameras and looked those British Columbians in the eye and said: "I'll do right by that. I'm going to reimburse them for every penny that they've been defrauded by the fundraising wing of the New Democratic Party." Well, that promise has not been fulfilled.

The Premier dances around. He's dragged, kicking and screaming, into public inquiries; he's dragged into investigations that should have been commenced years ago -- and all the while the question persists: what has the NDP got to hide? What has the party that this Premier leads got to hide? What is the involvement of the Premier, his staff and his cabinet ministers? What involvement do they have in the formative time when these deceptions, these activities, were taking place, when moneys were being ripped out of the hands of charities? What involvement did they have in the subsequent cover-up to try to keep it from the public, the people who deserve to know the facts of what actually went on? What involvement have they had more recently? What involvement has the Premier's Office had in terms of conducting negotiations, in terms of trying to keep this issue from the front pages of the newspapers where it emerges and appears now and again when one of the various investigations that are ongoing takes place?

You know, the Premier likes to stand up and tout his government's record. It might be the only government in the history of British Columbia where to get a true sense of its record, you have to consult CPIC. The activities that this NDP government has sponsored, through its fundraising wings in 

[ Page 2008 ]

Nanaimo and the Commonwealth societies that appear across the country, really defy description. They really defy any true justification or explanation that the government has been able to offer.

It wasn't that long ago -- less than a year ago -- when the former leader of the NDP, the former Premier, stood outside this chamber and threatened to sue anyone who suggested that there was a link between the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the NDP -- he was going to sue them. Well, of course, it was only a matter of days or weeks later that Mr. Parks tabled his report. And lo and behold, what did we find? We found a very clear link to the activities of that society, and we found a trail -- albeit a trail that showed evidence of great effort being taken to cover up, but a trail nonetheless -- involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. The present Premier, confronted by the reality of that when he assumed the leadership of the New Democratic Party, took great pains to point out that the legitimate claims of those who had been defrauded would be dealt with....

The Chair: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but I wonder if you would tie this into the estimates of the Premier's Office, as opposed to other tasks that he may or may not have at this point in this session. We're talking about the estimates here.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, I know that all members of the House are waiting for the climax to this scintillating presentation. But in fairness to the Premier, I would like him to be here when I pose the ultimate question. It's rather difficult to do that in the absence of the man who is supposed to be answering for the Premier's Office.

[4:30]

The Chair: You've got to tie it to the estimates of the Premier's Office.

M. de Jong: I'll ask the question of the Premier, and then we'll wait for him to respond.

An Hon. Member: Ask for a recess.

M. de Jong: I'm happy to pose the question. I can offer you the assurance, hon. Chair, that the question I ultimately pose will draw the link I think you are looking for in terms of the involvement of the Premier's Office and the budget we are presently discussing. That's very much the issue: the use that the Premier has made of the resources available to his office in dealing with this matter. It is very difficult, quite frankly, when the person who is supposed to be answering the question isn't available. I can ask the question, but I'm in your hands as to whether we are going to recess to wait for an answer. The question relates to the status of a particular individual working in the Premier's Office, Mr. Wickstrom, and I'd like to pose it to the Premier. My question is going to relate to that individual.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Chair, I understand that when we get up to speak, we have 15 minutes to speak before we ask the question. Actually, I was enjoying my hon. colleague's speech so much that I would like to give him my time.

M. de Jong: Thank you to my hon. colleague, whose taste and good judgment I've suddenly come to question.

Hon. Chair, the government and the party that the Premier leads came to office amidst promises that a new era would dawn in provincial politics in British Columbia, that the days of blatant patronage and misuse of government funds for partisan purposes would end and that there would be a new era of morality in public life. Unfortunately, we've entered the dark ages insofar as exactly the opposite has happened. Patronage has reached new proportions insofar as the appointment of those whose qualifications for the positions they acquire are dubious at best is concerned.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I hear the Deputy Premier say: "Shame."

There is a litany of these appointments where it is difficult to see any possible link between the individual who has been appointed, the job they have been appointed to and the skills that person possesses.

If there's one thing that British Columbians are legitimately entitled to expect of their government, it is that it will maintain a professional civil service, free from the constraints of partisan political patronage. Indeed, exactly the opposite has taken place. Perhaps, even as we speak, the Premier is out hiring another NDPer to take his place in the Premier's Office, to dip into the budget that we are debating now, which is supposed to be available to the Premier to do the business of the people of British Columbia -- not the NDP's business, not his party's business, not to engage in partisan advertising of the sort that we saw to such a degree before the last election.

When you think about what these NDP members -- those who were around in the days of the last Social Credit government -- said about political advertising then and what they're doing now, it really boggles the mind. When you drove down the freeway -- I remember those weeks before the election -- and you heard those ads on the radio or you watched those feel-good-about-your-government ads on television, you asked yourself: millions and millions of dollars of public taxpayer's dollars are being spent, and for what?

In the spirit of asking the Premier to account for the expenditures that occur out of his office, let me pose a series of questions relating to an individual, Mr. Wickstrom. If I could ask the Premier -- he looks refreshed, and I know he's disappointed at having missed....

Hon. G. Clark: I think relieved is the word.

M. de Jong: It appears that during the course of my diatribe on government waste, the Premier has yet again visited the public trough. We will learn only later what the cost to the taxpayers has been.

Let me ask the Premier about Mr. Wickstrom -- in particular, when he was hired by the Premier's Office and whether he is still an employee of the Premier's Office.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Wickstrom is the executive director in the Premier's Office, and he's overly qualified for the job. He was my ministerial assistant and moved with me into the Premier's Office, and he is doing an outstanding job.

M. de Jong: He's tolerant, if nothing else, having followed the Premier as he apparently has. I wonder if the Premier could enlarge upon what Mr. Wickstrom's duties actually are as his executive.... Is it executive assistant?

Hon. G. Clark: Executive director.

[ Page 2009 ]

M. de Jong: What does an executive director do within the Premier's Office?

Hon. G. Clark: He oversees the management of the office as executive director. He is a sort of liaison with individuals who either can't meet with me -- or want to meet with me, more appropriately -- and does a lot of extensive work with the business community in terms of ensuring that they have access to the Premier and the Premier's Office.

I made a speech some time ago to the Business Council of B.C., where I simply advised them that lobbyists weren't required to meet with the Premier or the Premier's Office. Many of them took me up on that and phoned my office. Because of my time schedule, Mr. Wickstrom handles a fair amount of that in terms of making sure that they get access and information. But beyond that, there are the administrative functions in the office, etc. I don't know where the member is going with this line of questioning, but I had two ministerial assistants. Adrian Dix is now principal secretary, and Ron Wickstrom is now executive director of the Premier's Office.

M. de Jong: The description the Premier offers suggests an individual whose duties relate to the Premier's public office -- as Premier of the province of British Columbia. I would ask the Premier if he is in possession of the information as to what his executive director, Mr. Wickstrom, earns for performing that role.

Hon. G. Clark: No, I'm not. But this is public information, and certainly the member can get it. It is available. It's a political appointment. I'm trying to see if there is any kind of trick question here. I know all members of the Liberal Party are thinking the same thing. It's a political position; he reports to the principal secretary. It's not a public service position; it's an order-in-council. The salary is the same, I believe, as the salary of the former executive director in the previous administration of the previous Premier, and he is doing excellent work on the political side of government.

M. de Jong: Having received that description of Mr. Wickstrom's duties, it would be my expectation, therefore, that his duties wouldn't extend to the performance of functions on behalf of the governing party, the NDP, and that those more partisan functions would be left to party functionaries and not to the executive director for the Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know. Again, I may be giving the member too much credit. I'm trying to figure out where he's going with this. Mr. Wickstrom is a member of the New Democratic Party, an activist in the NDP. It's one of the reasons that he has this political job. He has been a campaign manager. He's been an activist, as I have been, in east Vancouver for many years. That is an absolutely essential recommendation for a political job on the political side of government.

Again, I could elaborate for a long time on this, but it's pretty clear. There is a public service, and there's a very small political staff that ministers and Premiers have. In British Columbia it's smaller than in most other jurisdictions. I think it's clear; everybody knows there is a small political staff working for ministers in the government. Mr. Wickstrom has a senior position in the small political side of government; it's an integral part. He does not perform duties for the NDP on government time, when he's working for the government. But I fully expect -- I don't know this, but I would almost require -- that Mr. Wickstrom as well as other political staff work on their own time for the advancement of the interests of the party which is currently the government of British Columbia.

M. de Jong: I think the difficulty, quite frankly, is that the Premier is able to delineate the duties of someone like Mr. Wickstrom -- the political duties that might be performed on behalf of his party and the public duties that he would be performing. The Premier seems to be able to delineate between those with much greater ease than the rest of us -- more particularly, the taxpayers who are paying his salary.

Where are we going? The Premier will recall that during the course of the last election, there were reports about activities undertaken by Mr. Wickstrom with respect to the situation in Nanaimo -- the charities in Nanaimo. Quite frankly, the Premier may have no difficulty delineating whether Mr. Wickstrom was engaged in activities on behalf of the NDP or on behalf of his office, but the public does. And on the opposition side, we surely do. That he would, as I understand it, be engaged in negotiations with Mr. Carpentier regarding the payment of settlement moneys -- and I think that's the appropriate term -- the Premier would have us believe was somehow separate and apart from the duties he undertakes on his behalf within the Premier's Office. Maybe the Premier could enlighten the House and describe precisely what it was that Mr. Wickstrom was engaged in, in making those advances to the people in Nanaimo, when they took place and what the nature of those advances were.

[4:45]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let's be clear. The opposition Liberal caucus has a budget paid for by the taxpayers, and they hire political staff. And I support that. There's nothing wrong with that; that's part of the job of the opposition. You have a couple of dozen people paid for by the taxpayers who are partisans, and that is as it should be. In fact, I would argue -- although the Liberal Party has never argued this -- that there should be more research and support staff for MLAs of all parties. They should hire people who are helping them in their activities on behalf of their constituents and who are therefore partisan. So if the Liberal Party sends out one of their staff people to meet with somebody on the tax dollar, paid for by the taxpayer, in the pursuit of their job, there's nothing wrong with that.

The government, for a long, long time -- anywhere in Canada -- has had a similar taxpayer-supported but very small group with respect to pursuing activities. We are politicians as well as members of the executive council, in this case, and it's important that the public service provide certain work, but that there be some political advice received, as well. We have that separation, and it's clear. So I want to make that clear, if only to say, for anybody watching -- for the four people watching -- that this is not nefarious; it's quite legitimate. It's something that I hope the members opposite would agree with.

Given that Mr. Wickstrom represents that side of government, he represents me. So if a business person wishes to meet with me, then often -- very often -- I will ask that they meet with Mr. Wickstrom if I'm busy. Mr. Wickstrom, then, is my political adviser, political staff. He would take the information, and he would then pass it on to the bureaucracy, advise me or seek action to deal with people's remedies. That's part of his function.

With respect to Mr. Carpentier, I can't remember the details of this, except that I do recall that it was Mr. Carpentier who phoned and asked for a meeting. I could have said: "No, we're not meeting with anybody." I generally try, as much as I can, to have one of my political staff meet with people who request meetings. Some of the MLAs, actually, have met with 

[ Page 2010 ]

Mr. Wickstrom on things; I know that. They have concerns, and it's hard to get through to me. As I understand it, Mr. Wickstrom met with Mr. Carpentier at his request. There was one meeting. Mr. Carpentier made his particular case, and nothing transpired as a result of that. That's the extent of my memory of the circumstances around that.

M. de Jong: I'm a bit troubled that the Premier wouldn't see the difference between a constituent or a British Columbian or a business contacting his office and wanting to arrange contact with him, and negotiations with an entity that has been defrauded by agencies including the fundraising wing of the party that the Premier leads. In fairness to the Premier, I should ask him to clarify this: in making those advances or in engaging in those discussions, is he saying that that was an appropriate and natural function of Mr. Wickstrom's office as his executive director? Or was he engaged, as the Premier puts it, in activism on behalf of the NDP, trying to clear up an issue that was dogging, and continues to dog, the NDP?

Hon. G. Clark: His job is that liaison. I mentioned that already. He meets with people who wish to meet with the Premier. As I understand it, Mr. Carpentier is a citizen of British Columbia. I recognize that it could be controversial. I was dealing with the issue, putting it before a judicial inquiry, a public inquiry, as a criminal investigation. But I felt and still feel that if people want a meeting, I should arrange for someone to meet with them. In this case, Mr. Wickstrom met with him. No negotiations took place. There was, I gather, some discussion. Mr. Carpentier put forward his position. No action was taken. No negotiations or action was taken, in part because I felt it would be improper to engage in that detailed discussion, given that we had decided to pursue the course of action that we took, which is a public inquiry, and all of that around the discussion.

So it seems to me to be totally appropriate for Mr. Wickstrom or another member of my political staff to meet with people either on their own or on my request, if individuals have asked for a meeting, and to take advice. If there's any suggestion that something inappropriate transpired or anything like that, then bring it forward. But I know that to be not the case.

M. de Jong: My recollection of the reports surrounding the meeting or meetings that took place -- and they rely upon the published reports in the media -- indicates that an offer was made to Mr. Carpentier in the neighbourhood of $120,000. I wonder if the Premier could indicate whether, when those settlement negotiations were taking place, Mr. Wickstrom was speaking on behalf of the Premier's Office. Was he speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, since presumably and hopefully, any discussion concerning the payment of settlement funds related to moneys within the coffers of the NDP and not public moneys?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm not going to engage in this kind of speculation. Nothing transpired as a result of the meeting. Mr. Carpentier made certain demands. Again, I don't want to speculate on Mr. Carpentier's motives or otherwise, except to say that I have been on record since I ran for leader that we would pay money owed to charities which should have gone to charities in the early eighties. I've said that repeatedly. Members know that. We now have a public inquiry to examine this question and to ascertain certain amounts and what would be the appropriate venues to pay out.

So Mr. Carpentier, being involved in this, said, I surmise: "Well, the Premier, the new Premier" -- I think I was Premier at the time -- "wants to settle this, and he's made some public comments about it." Perhaps he had a recommendation for meeting the commitment I made to the public. It didn't work out, because I have indicated I want a full public inquiry which would lead to the legitimacy of the amount and what might be the appropriate payment to make.

That's the extent of it. I think it's entirely appropriate. I think it's all aboveboard, consistent with my public record and consistent with Mr. Wickstrom's duties. There were no negotiations around that. There was simply a meeting to discuss, I believe, the commitment that I'd made publicly and that I continue to make.

M. de Jong: A couple of questions arise out of that. In the first place, what were the Premier's Office's -- and Mr. Wickstrom's in particular -- expectations about the nature of the meeting in the first place? Why did he think Mr. Carpentier wanted to talk to him?

More importantly, when the Premier offers these assurances that this was all aboveboard, that it was all done properly.... You know, with the greatest respect, forgive me my skepticism. We've been hearing that for a number of years now. We get bits and pieces of this story dragged out of the government, out of the NDP. I say to the Premier again, because it left an impression on me, that his predecessor in that office, as leader of his party, stood in these precincts proclaiming for all to hear that he was going to sue anyone that suggested a link between the NDP and the NCHS. It sounded good at the time. Unfortunately, it didn't bear a lot of resemblance to what arose out of the Parks report; it was exactly contrary to what Mr. Parks reported. Forgive us our skepticism, but as this matter has dragged on and on and on, I'm not inclined to cut the government, the NDP, a lot of slack, because it just hasn't added up.

I say to the Premier.... He would have us believe that it was coincidental that on the eve of an election, discussions took place that would have resulted in lifting a huge political burden from his back that he was struggling to confront. He would now have us believe that those discussions were coincidental, that there was no motivation on the part of the government to pursue them. We're having some difficulty accepting that line, that explanation. What it comes down to is an appearance that the NDP -- the party that the Premier leads -- was trying to buy itself some peace; it was trying to quiet the issue down when it was very much on the front pages of the newspapers.

I was at the news conference when the Premier said: "This is a priority for me -- the repayment of these charities." I'm going to ask the Premier, since there's sufficient documentation now that points to a liability on the part of the Commonwealth Holding Society, on the part of his party: why delay in the repayment of some of these moneys to these charities? Why delay in the payment of some moneys into trust -- some assurance that the moneys are going to be there?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that Mr. Carpentier is looking at an election looming. There's a promise by the Premier to repay, but unless he is prepared to stand up and tell me that he gave orders to his party to make sure that there was X number of dollars held in trust through the campaign to ensure that those funds were available to repay these charities, I'm a bit skeptical about the ultimate promise, as well. Why does this remain a promise unfulfilled if the commitment is as solid as the Premier would have us believe?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know. Sometimes the member is asking us to quickly pay, but other times he's arguing that we 

[ Page 2011 ]

shouldn't even meet with someone who suggests that they should be the recipient of some of the payment. It seems to me that the issue is one where there is a difference between what the member has been saying and what I've been saying.

Let's just put it on the record. It is the New Democratic Party. Any fundraising by the New Democratic Party which was improper -- money that should have gone to charity that did not -- will be repaid. NCHS performed a series of other activities which are under investigation, for which the New Democratic Party does not accept responsibility, nor do I.

Where is the principal payment required? Two lotteries were run in the early eighties in which the charity purported to be NCHS, and it has been learned that it was not -- that all of the money went to the NDP -- so the required amount of charity donation was not made. That's the principal allegation -- not allegation, the principal fact -- which the NDP has to rectify and I committed to rectifying. Okay? Now, who should that money be paid to? That is still a debate, because there is no NCHS charity at this time to receive the money. The money went back to the NDP. Should that money be paid to Mr. Carpentier? Should it simply be paid to the United Way, to some Nanaimo charities, to charities throughout British Columbia, to the food bank, or what? These are the kinds of practical considerations. How much money is owed? Essentially it's the money that should have gone to charity that did not, with respect to several lotteries.

Secondly, where should the money be paid to? What we're exploring, or what I want, is to have a full public inquiry, as I committed to with Justice Nemetz, into all the evidence surrounding that to see whether the New Democratic Party itself received any further activity with respect to funds that charities should have received that were improperly registered. Indeed, Mr. Nemetz is empowered to look at other political parties who were running lotteries and the like and did not remit the requisite amount of money to charities. That's the issue in dispute.

[5:00]

Mr. Carpentier asked for a meeting, and had a meeting with one of my staff -- quite appropriate. I had indicated that we'd make reparation, that we'd pay the money back. We're going to pay the money back. The reason for the delay is that I would like to have it all out on the table, all fully examined in public by former Chief Justice Nathan Nemetz, and at the end of that process the full quantum will be paid. I'll accept recommendations from anybody as to what would be the appropriate charities to pay, if in fact those charities that should have received the money no longer exist or never existed in the first place.

M. de Jong: It's clear that the Premier and I have a different opinion of the appropriateness of his executive director engaging in talks that were obviously focused on the repayment of a debt that we agree is a debt and liability of the New Democratic Party. I don't know to what extent I can pursue that issue effectively except to put on the record and make clear that I fundamentally disagree with the Premier. That is not a function, nor should it be a function, of an individual who, at the time, is being paid out of the public purse.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: You know, hon. Chair, if the Deputy Premier wants to rise on a point of order, let him, but it baffles and troubles me that he wouldn't see the link between this individual, who is paid for out of the Premier's Office budget, and the activities that he's engaged in. If he doesn't see that, if he has difficulty understanding that, then I think he has some difficulties that probably aren't appropriate for discussion here at the moment. Obviously the Premier's man was involved in this, and the Premier's man is paid for out of the public purse. It's therefore, in my view, entirely appropriate to engage in these discussions.

One of the questions I have arising out of the acknowledgment, at least, that this meeting, as the Premier describes it, took place and also the fact that there were several investigations taking place at the time, is: is the Premier aware of whether or not the agencies engaged in those investigations -- the RCMP and the special prosecutor -- were apprised of the fact that the meeting with Mr. Carpentier took place?

Hon. G. Clark: They would absolutely not be apprised. A meeting was held. Individuals meet with the Premier's Office all the time. This in no way jeopardizes any discussions or investigations that were taking place. If somebody wants to meet and discuss matters with my executive director or with any of my political staff, they are free to do so. I'm sure that everything is done aboveboard. It's not at all inappropriate.

I want to make one point. Maybe there is a fundamental disagreement, but let's be clear: I am the leader of a political party -- the NDP -- and I am the Premier. My political staff liaise with the New Democratic Party all the time. That is their job; that is correct. I'm sure the executive director, or whatever you call that person, of the Liberal caucus, liaises -- works with -- the Liberal Party. I would expect that. You may even have people working on your staff at the Liberal caucus who are fundraisers for the Liberal Party. This is the distinction between the political side of the operations and the public policy, bureaucratic side. So my political staff not only are political, not only are active politically, they are required to do so and liaise all the time with the New Democratic Party. That's part of their job description.

I just want to get that on record so that anybody knows that there's nothing untoward about that. That is not only appropriate, it is a required function of the job. It always has been, regardless of what political party is in power, and I suggest it always will be, as long as politicians occupy this function. That's a part of Mr. Wickstrom's duties -- as well as many of the several other people who are political staff for the Premier.

M. de Jong: Well, it won't surprise the Premier to know that as a result of the manner in which this scandal evolved and the disclosure of information took place, we are very skeptical and we are very vigilant about the degree to which people being funded out of the public purse are engaged in attempting to clear the deck, clear the table -- particularly at a very sensitive time politically, in the weeks leading up to a political campaign.

I'll just touch on one other point, and that is that there is an acknowledgment on the part of the Premier, even now, of a limited liability -- at least some liability. I'm sure if the Premier had his druthers, he wouldn't have wanted him or his party exposed to the kind of criticism and the kind of scrutiny that has followed this since it was first disclosed. But after all that's gone on, after all that's taken place, doesn't he agree that as a means of demonstrating a very real commitment to make amends, to make restitution, there is some wisdom in the notion that moneys -- at least to the extent that the Premier already knows there is a liability -- would be paid into a trust account?

[ Page 2012 ]

Would he acknowledge some doubt on the part of people like Mr. Carpentier, who see the NDP spending during a campaign -- as all politically parties spend -- and advertising in the hopes of achieving the support of people right across the province and winning that election, and that there would be some cynicism on the part of those individuals to see that money going first to achieve re-election and then, if there's something left over afterwards, well, then, we'll follow through on our commitment to repay these charities? Does the Premier agree that as a sign of good faith, at a minimum it would make sense to provide moneys -- to the extent that the Premier recognizes there is a liability -- into trusts, so that there is some sense of security on the part of the creditors owed that money?

Hon. G. Clark: We can debate this a long time, hon. Chair. Look, I agreed with full restitution with interest, so the fact that we haven't paid it for two months or three months or another three months or six months should make no material difference. We're going to pay it, and we're going to pay it with full interest. I've made that commitment.

We have a public inquiry by former Chief Justice Nathan Nemetz. I know the member opposite's job in part is to keep moving the bar on some of these questions, but believe me, I committed to dealing with this issue when I ran for leader. I took a very clear position at that time. I've taken that position, and everything I've done has been consistent with that position. We now have a public inquiry, with the former Chief Justice doing a full review. I have committed to the restitution with interest, and I will do so.

If I don't do that, the member opposite can have a field day. I know that, and I have no intention of not fulfilling the commitments I've made. As I said, on any money that is owed -- and the total amount has to be absolutely computed after the inquiry -- interest has to be calculated. Then the appropriate charities have to be decided upon, and money will be paid. The sooner that happens, the happier I will be. We want to make sure that all of this is done aboveboard and above reproach, and Mr. Nemetz is tasked with that opportunity. I'm sure that all members have the greatest confidence in the former Chief Justice.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock on, no doubt, a different matter.

W. Hurd: Would that it could be so. I was following the line of questioning of the member for Matsqui with great interest, and I note that order-in-council 0544, dated April 24, 1996, which sets up the terms of reference of the Nemetz inquiry, says under item 3: "To give particular attention under sections 1 and 2 above to the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and related entities and any other politically linked organization in the province of British Columbia." Item 4 says: "To inquire into and report generally on the handling of matters related to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society...."

I wonder if I could explore with the Premier his understanding of what role the inquiry will play in getting to the bottom of this, since he has indicated that he will be making full restitution on behalf of the government. I wonder if the Premier could clarify whether it's his understanding that the commission of inquiry will be looking at all aspects of the NCHS, including any donations that may have come into the organization and then flowed into the New Democratic Party from other sources other than the charities that were named in the original Parks audit.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not going to get into this in any detail, because, let's be clear, once you appoint someone -- anybody -- under the Inquiry Act -- but I would say, maybe slightly facetiously, especially a judge or a former judge -- the law is very clear. You cannot fetter the right of that public inquiry commissioner by limiting the inquiry's budget, by limiting its mandate or by influencing it. That's what the purpose of an independent inquiry is, and it's a very important principle.

We have given what we consider to be a very broad mandate, and I will allow the judge to conduct the inquiry in the way he sees fit, as long or short as he wants and as complete as he wants, with witnesses or anybody. It will not be fettered or interfered with by me. That's the assurance I gave the former Chief Justice, and that's my commitment. If the member wishes a certain line of inquiry to be pursued by the inquiry, then I suggest he contact Chief Justice Nemetz, and I'm sure he'll have a favourable hearing. My view is very consistent.

There have been a lot of inquiries into this matter, and yet there are still some unanswered questions that members of the public have. I want them all answered completely and fully so that I can hold people accountable if that's required. I can make restitution if that's required, and we know already it is, and we can ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. We can look at the rules governing gaming and political parties and at other political parties -- if there are -- that did not follow the rules appropriately, if that's the case. I don't particularly know that, although I know that in the Parks report there is some reference to that.

We want a full and complete public inquiry, and that's my only instruction. We tried to craft the terms of reference in such a way as to capture as much as we could. I'm simply not going to engage in speculation about what he may or may not inquire into, or whether I'm going to give instructions, because I'm not. I'm simply going to allow the judge to carry on in the manner in which he sees fit.

W. Hurd: I appreciate that clarification from the Premier, because I think it is important for the Nemetz inquiry to reveal all aspects of this case.

As the Premier knows, the inquiry flowed from the findings of the Parks audit. One of the findings of the Parks audit was the method by which the New Democratic Party received donations from corporations in the province. The Parks audit found that in 1977 the federal NDP and in 1978 the British Columbia NDP adopted a policy of not soliciting or accepting corporate donations except from small businesses.

[5:15]

I note that the rules actually were bent or broken in British Columbia with the full knowledge of members of the New Democratic Party executive. Also, between 1978 and 1986, with the knowledge, encouragement and approval of some members of British Columbia's New Democratic Party provincial executive, funds were solicited from corporations. It's my understanding that from there they might have flowed into a monster account at the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, so I accept the assurance from the Premier that the policy of accepting corporate donations by the New Democratic Party might also be reviewed -- and where those donations might have flown.

I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings that appear to have occurred when we on this side of the House questioned the Attorney General about what the reporting schedule will be for the inquiry when it is completed. It's my 

[ Page 2013 ]

understanding, at least in listening to the Attorney General's explanation, that the report would come before the Legislative Assembly and might not actually be released for a period of 14 days. I wonder if it's the Premier's understanding of the commission that it would be immediately made public when it is presented to the executive council.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just getting the technical answer. Yes, it would be made public forthwith.

W. Hurd: The Attorney General indicated in an earlier question to the House that a period of 14 days, within the Inquiry Act, might go by before the report was actually released to the public. It brings to mind the circumstances surrounding the last Parks report that came before the executive council before it was released to the public.

I just want to again reiterate and ask for assurance from the Premier that this time around, the full report from the inquiry commissioner will be made public once it is presented to the executive council. As I understand the terms of reference, it goes to the Attorney General and cabinet first, and the contents can be shared with cabinet, but it wouldn't necessarily be released to the Legislative Assembly or to the public. I wonder if the Premier can just clarify for the committee his understanding of how the Nemetz inquiry report will be released and whether it will be released to the public simultaneous with its presentation to the Attorney General.

Hon. G. Clark: I haven't actually given any thought to it. It will be released as soon as it's presented, and frankly, probably simultaneously makes sense. It's a public inquiry. It's required by law to report to the Attorney General, and it will be made public if you want. I don't know what the commitment would be, whether it's half an hour or an hour or a couple of days. It's required by law to report out within 14 days. It certainly will meet that. I guess my preference is that it would come out virtually at the same time, so that's what we'll try to do.

W. Hurd: It's my understanding that there is a potential delay, however, if the House isn't sitting.

Interjection.

W. Hurd: The Premier said no, that's not the case.

If the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society findings in the inquiry result in any further action by the Attorney General ministry, would it be the Premier's understanding that that could, in fact, delay the release of the report? Or, in terms of the criminal investigation being wound up and the special prosecutor releasing his findings, would that, according to his understanding, free the Nemetz inquiry to simply report out as any inquiry would in the normal way?

Hon. G. Clark: I can't answer hypothetical questions, frankly. My intention is to make the report public immediately, and that will be my instruction. If there's some legal reason that we can't do that, then I'll leave it to the lawyers to try to stop us. My view is that we should just make it public, and I intend to try to do that. With the House sitting or not sitting, it matters not to me; we'll get it out. Hopefully, it will be soon. It may be an interim report. Regardless, interim report or final report, I want it all out and public, with all public hearings open to TV cameras. Let's deal with it all upfront and outside, and then we'll deal with any consequences that arise out of any subsequent reports.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the Premier can advise us whether the criminal investigation that is ongoing and the special prosecutor's role are having an impact on the inquiry. I note from the terms of reference that the inquiry is not meant to be fettered in any way by the criminal investigation, but clearly one would assume that there would be a delay or some impact in terms of the ability of the official inquiry to proceed. I just wonder if the Premier could clarify whether or not to his knowledge the Nemetz inquiry is being hobbled in any way. Or is it his understanding that it has complete freedom to proceed, even given the fact that the matter continues to be under criminal investigation?

Hon. G. Clark: Let's be clear: we gave no instructions to the Chief Justice in that regard, other than the terms of reference, which say that nothing the Chief Justice does shall fetter the criminal investigation. Now, those are instructions that don't have to be given to the former Chief Justice, of course. He is in communication with the special prosecutor, as I understand it, and he can proceed today, tomorrow or whenever he decides it's appropriate to proceed. He can inquire into anything he wants with respect to it, now or later.

My understanding through the media -- and I've not talked to him -- is that he's had one public meeting and that he does not intend to proceed further at this time until the criminal charge decision is made in the next little while. I anticipate that once that has happened, he will proceed, although he may not cover the full gamut of issues. He may delay the coverage of the full gamut of issues until the resolution of some of those questions. But that's for the lawyers.

My position is that I'd like it started now; I would like the inquiry now; I would like all of it as fast as possible. My only discussion with the former Chief Justice is to say precisely that, and that I would, however, be guided by his determination of the appropriate legal ramifications in the consultation with the special prosecutor.

W. Hurd: When we quizzed the Attorney General on this during the debate on special warrants, he indicated that the understanding of the previous Premier with respect to any portion of the investigation that might touch on members of the executive council or other members of government would be brought to his attention, as the Attorney General. That was his understanding. I think the understanding of the previous Premier was that that would continue to happen. It's our understanding that that is actually a rolling commitment that the Attorney General would be advised.

I just wonder, hon. Chair, if the Premier can advise us, in light of the Attorney General's role as the chief law enforcement officer and also as a member of cabinet, whether or not the Attorney General would be expected to bring that issue to the cabinet table, or whether he would simply consign his discussions with the criminal justice branch.... Clearly it's an important question, because the Attorney General did concur that it was his understanding that he would continue to receive a briefing, and he felt that it was entirely appropriate for him to receive that information if indeed the investigation was leading in that direction.

Can the Premier assure us today that if such information did come to the attention of the Attorney General, it would not necessarily be a discussion, or come to the cabinet table in any way, before the special prosecutor completes his work, before the inquiry completes its work and before the swearing-out of charges or the dropping of charges or any dispensation of the case were to occur?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. I don't think there's anything the member has said that I don't agree with. Again we're getting 

[ Page 2014 ]

into hypothetical areas, so I want to make sure I'm correct. Let's be clear. Special prosecutors are appointed all the time, as the member knows. They do not come to cabinet; they are not subject to cabinet debate or deliberation. The Attorney General, in consultation with the special prosecutors or the criminal justice branch of his ministry, I believe, makes those decisions. There's been a huge change in that, as the members know, as a result of some problems associated with that a few years ago, and it has independent authority. I expect it to continue to be that way.

W. Hurd: Can the Premier then assure the committee that he's confident in the ability of the Attorney General to undertake this role, in light of the fact that as a table officer for the New Democratic Party, he absented himself from meetings in which the repayment of some $50,000 to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society is alleged to have occurred? Is he at all concerned that in the Attorney General's role now with the party, as a table officer, he has in any way compromised in terms of receiving information about any of his colleagues, any of the members of the government or members of the back bench who might be implicated or perhaps be mentioned in this investigation?

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, I have absolute confidence in the Attorney General. But beyond that, the reason we have this legislation governing special prosecutors is to ensure that prosecutions of a politically sensitive nature or otherwise are made without reference to politics. I believe that extends as well to the Attorney General. I have confidence in the Attorney General. I also have confidence in the criminal justice branch and in the legislation which was adopted in this House some time ago to ensure that these matters are dealt with without reference to politics.

W. Hurd: What I hear the Premier saying is that he's perfectly comfortable with the commitment made by the previous Premier that it's entirely appropriate for the Attorney General to receive information about the one aspect of the investigation that might touch on colleagues on the government side, even given the fact that the Attorney General was a table officer of the NDP party at the time some of these transgressions are alleged, which may even be now under review by the special prosecutor and the inquiry commissioner.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I accept that's the reasoning that the Premier has offered. I would just say that the release of the inquiry commissioner's report at the discretion of the Attorney General is a concern to me. I'm looking at what the Attorney General told the House on June 27, 1996:"I understand, hon. member, that once the inquiry is complete, I receive the report, and I would attempt to make it public at the earliest possible. By law, under the Inquiry Act, I have to make it public within 14 days of the House sitting, but I'm sure that it would be a document which would be required to be made public much earlier."

I accept the explanation, other than to say that the only concern I have is that prior to the release of the report, the Attorney General could be in receipt of information pertaining to his colleagues on that side of the House. I just want to seek assurances that the Attorney General would be acting in that role as the chief law enforcement officer of the province, would refer any such matters to the criminal justice branch, but would not necessarily bring them to the cabinet table, and that it wouldn't be a matter of discussion by senior deputies in the Premier's Office, such as we witnessed with the Parks report.

[5:30]

Hon. G. Clark: Yes -- absolute assurance. He can be assured, as well, that the former Chief Justice will take anything to the RCMP directly, without reference. The only other thing I can add, just so we're canvassing this on the record, is that the RCMP have also informed the Premier that if any MLA is under investigation at any time, the Premier will be notified, not just the Attorney General. So just for the record, the Premier is also advised of the matters which the member has referred to. I'm confident we have the systems in place to ensure that there is no possibility of political influence on this question.

W. Hurd: I do accept the explanation and will carefully review Hansard in the future to determine that the commitment's been made, and I accept the fact that it will.

I just want to briefly canvass another issue with the Premier, and it is the jobs and timber accord that my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena mentioned earlier in his discussions with the Premier, and on which I've also had discussions in previous estimates with the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Employment and Investment. It's been sort of a moving target to try and find out where accountability rests for the jobs and timber accord. It involves jobs, it involves forest licences -- a valuable commodity in the province -- and it also involves, I'm led to understand, some aspect of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat.

Since I've not received answers to all of my inquiries with respect to the jobs and timber accord, I wonder if the Premier could again spell out clearly for the committee the role of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat and/or his deputy in dealing with this specific policy initiative.

Hon. G. Clark: This is a corporate initiative of the government -- a cross-government initiative -- essentially driven by the Premier's Office. There is the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee, which the member may be aware of. There's a subcommittee of that working on the jobs and timber accord. That subcommittee consists of, as I recall, a deputy minister, Gerry Stoney from the IWA and Dave McInnis from Weyerhaeuser. They are pursuing a working group around that. I am meeting from time to time with industry on how best to develop, negotiate and work on the jobs and timber accord. I understand Bob Plecas is involved in that on the business side. I think I'm seeing him tomorrow, so perhaps members opposite might pay a visit. I'll ask him to pay a visit to the Liberal Party, and he can give you a sense of some of the discussions that we're having.

There is, as I said, the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee. The deputy minister there was, I believe, John Allan, who is now deputy of Environment. I think that will likely change; it will probably be Gerry Armstrong or somebody from Forests. Obviously this is a corporate initiative which my deputy minister and others will be involved in, but the principal work will no doubt be in the Ministry of Forests and by the Minister of Forests in terms of working through some discussions around that -- ably assisted by Employment and Investment, particularly the minister, who has an interest and expertise in this area. If you want to ask specific questions, then you can ask them of the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Employment and Investment, or you can ask me.

Hon. D. Miller: I've given it all to him, all the information he ever needed.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that he's answered all of these questions to your satisfaction.

[ Page 2015 ]

W. Hurd: I certainly appreciate that advice from the Premier. Had I not spent the last three years in estimates with the Minister of Employment and Investment on other matters, I would.... I don't necessarily agree that all the answers have been received.

I'm very curious about the jobs and timber accord, because my experience has been it's a little like pulling a ball of string out of a hedge: you keep going through ministries and it keeps getting more tangled. I just want to seek assurances from the Premier that when it comes to the jobs and timber accord, that if a forest licensee, for example, were to be unable or unwilling or not in a position to increase the number of jobs, the matter of holding their forest licence and retaining their cutting rights would not be a source of direction by the Premier's Office and would continue to be a function of the Ministry of Forests.

The Minister of Forests, I should say, did assure the committee that it was his understanding that the cut was not on the table, that this was a progressive initiative by government to increase the number of jobs per cubic metre harvested, but that if, indeed, that didn't happen, we wouldn't be dealing with a punitive decision by government to reduce the harvest levels of forest licensees who have entered into a legitimate relationship with the Ministry of Forests. I wonder if I can just get from the Premier his understanding about whether we're dealing with a system of penalties here, or whether it's a policy of incentives to provide the people with forest licences the ability to realize the 20,000 jobs that I understand is the target.

Hon. G. Clark: The member is prejudging the outcome of the negotiations. It may be all of the above; it may be some of the above. We haven't negotiated the jobs and timber accord. The fundamental fact remains that we're not getting enough jobs out of our forest sector relative to other jurisdictions, and what we're engaging in is a process to determine why that is and how we can rectify it. If companies are unwilling, as you pointed out, then that may require tough sanctions on the part of government.

I'm very optimistic, actually, about working with the industry, the unions, environmentalists and others to negotiate something which British Columbians can be very proud of, that the industry can support and that we as landlords can pursue to generate more jobs and value for the people of British Columbia. I'm not going to speculate on the use of heavy-handed government tactics to achieve goals which I believe are broadly shared in British Columbia, including by the industry.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the Premier can advise the committee whether, to his knowledge, his deputy minister would ever be in a position to be in discussion with forest licensees about the future of their forest licences in terms of this initiative. Would that be something that the Premier would expect his deputy minister to be involved in: to advise forest licensees that, as a matter of government policy, we expect X number of jobs, and perhaps to advise them of the consequences, as the Premier has described them, if that were not to happen? Would that be a line of dialogue that he would expect his deputy minister to have with forest licensees in the province?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I think it's far too premature to make threats or otherwise to forest companies through the deputy minister or to threaten their tenure arrangements. I have not done that. I have simply said: "We have a problem here. The government is the owner of the resource. We need to get more value and more jobs from that resource, and we want to work with the industry to get there." I am very pleased with my discussions with people in the forest industry. Those discussions are ongoing. We are working now on a process to involve them and to try to work on a partnership with the private sector to meet the stated goals that I have made for the government on behalf of the people of B.C.

W. Hurd: Maybe I can reverse the coin, then, and ask the Premier whether the deputy minister would ever be in a position to offer forest licensees additional harvests in exchange for the creation of more jobs. Would that be a positive initiative that the Premier would expect his deputy to be engaged in? Or are we dealing strictly with a suggestion by the Premier's Office that we want to achieve more jobs, we own the resource -- and leave the rest open to interpretation? Can the Premier assure the committee that the deputy minister wouldn't be involved in discussions to offer additional cutting rights to any licensees, a function that should be strictly governed by the Forest Act and the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. G. Clark: Again, this is asking hypothetical questions. I'm not going to stand here and foreclose any option. I've made my position very clear. We are, I hope, about to engage the companies in how we might work together to achieve those goals. I'm looking forward to all kinds of creative, interesting suggestions from the industry, the public and environmentalists on how we might achieve that. I don't want to go through options that might be easy to reject here; I don't want to do that. I want to let people come forward with creative suggestions on creating more jobs, and I know the industry has all kinds of ideas.

Some of them will be rejected in the sense that they'll be pointing to government as the problem, and we may argue on behalf of the government that certain regulations and the like are in the interests of the public even if they do have problems with them. Similarly, I won't rule out the fact that government is the problem. It may well be that there are cases where the government regulations, the red tape or the way in which it's organized is a major blockage to creating jobs. I look forward to constructive suggestions around that, and then we can take appropriate action to fix them.

At this point our goals are clear. We're very up front about that and determined to succeed on behalf of the people of B.C. We're now discussing with the industry and people involved in the industry how we might get there. As I said, early indications are.... I'm very optimistic about the possibilities to create more jobs in our forest sector.

W. Hurd: The only caution I would offer is that a forest licence is an important document in the province. It spells out the agreements between the Crown and the licensee. It's the medium of exchange in the forest industry, as the Premier knows. He must be aware of concerns that have been expressed by some environmental organizations that, in fact, some negotiations with respect to harvest levels may be coming out of the Premier's Office and the Deputy Premier's office, and that deals with respect to cutting rights and harvest levels may be now flowing from the Premier's Office. I think that if, indeed, that were to occur, it would be a somewhat dangerous new step in British Columbia, because traditionally, licences have been governed by the Forest Act, by the Minister of Forests. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it would be entirely inappropriate for the deputy minister to be meeting with any licensees and offering them additional harvests 

[ Page 2016 ]

in exchange for adding employment. As laudable a social objective as that might be, I'm sure the Premier can see the potential for a problem here where -- out of the Premier's Office -- individual deputies were out there negotiating with individual licensees. I'm sure he wouldn't want to see that happen, because of the potential for all kinds of under-the-table dealings in the forest sector. I know that when the Premier was in the opposition, he had a lot to say about under-the-table dealings in the forest industry and the importance of negotiating forest licences in an absolutely aboveboard and transparent way -- and that any deals cut with respect to timber allocations must come under the jurisdiction of the Forest Act.

I think I have the assurance from the Premier that it wouldn't be appropriate for the deputy minister to be involved in those kinds of negotiations and that his negotiations will, in fact, be very general in nature; although as the Premier has said, he is the landlord -- the government is the landlord -- and I'm not sure how any discussion with a licensee could be general in nature. But I'm looking for assurances that the fears of the environmental community are groundless, and that there are no deals being cut out of the Premier's Office with individual licensees to increase their cut in exchange for certain undertakings they might make.

[5:45]

Hon. G. Clark: At the risk of prolonging this, I guess I would say quite the contrary. I want to see more jobs in the forest industry. That's my position. We want to do it in an environmentally sensitive way, but we cannot be afraid of experimentation in British Columbia, where creative companies come forward and suggest that with some changes, they could create a lot more jobs in British Columbia. If my deputy meets with companies and they come up with ideas like that, and they meet the public interest test and don't compromise the environment, then I look forward to making those changes. I'm not going to give any assurance that we're not going to engage even individual licensees in ways in which we can create more jobs in B.C. I'm not saying we're doing that on a regular basis, but I certainly have no hesitation saying that if we're to achieve the very ambitious goals that I've set for the province to create jobs in the forest sector, then I'm not going to close any doors in terms of driving an agenda to create jobs in this industry.

That's my commitment to British Columbia; I campaigned on that. We've created a lot of parks in British Columbia, and I very much support that. We've brought in new, sustainable harvesting practices. We've set how much percentage we were going to have for parks. We set the annual allowable cut. It's about time we started setting targets for creating jobs in British Columbia, and that's the agenda that is foremost in my mind; it's what I campaigned on. It's what we were elected on and what I intend to pursue, and we're working with the industry to do that.

W. Hurd: That's not really the reassurance I was looking for. I would be very concerned with a system where the Premier's Office would be involved in conferring on a forest licensee any benefit that wouldn't be the result of a general competition within the Ministry of Forests. I'm certainly aware that in the past, forest licences have been a medium of exchange, as I said earlier in the discussion. They are the means by which companies go to the bank and borrow money. They touch on the very viability of a company, and if the deputy minister were to be out there suggesting to licensees that we can increase their cut in exchange for option A -- in other words, cut a deal -- I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent in British Columbia, given the history in this province of concerns about the Forest Act and about the licensing system we have in British Columbia.

I would pose the question again: does the Premier not agree -- not forgoing all discussions that the deputy minister may have -- if he were to go to a licensee and say, "We can increase your cutting rights in exchange for a deal," that that wouldn't be a positive step in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll agree that we're not going to individual licensees and cutting a deal with them like that, and that's not what I'm intending. But we are working on policies with an overall agenda in mind of creating jobs. We want to make sure that we are creative about that. I want to make sure that when companies come forward with creative ideas to create jobs.... If that involves alteration of their licences, I don't want to rule that out in advance. I think we should explore that. It's a public resource. We own it. We're the custodians of that resource in government, and we have every right to deal with licensing in that fashion. I don't accept the notion that somehow we've given up that right simply because someone has a forest licence. We haven't.

If you want any assurance, I accept the notion that we're not going to go and somehow threaten individual companies or cut deals with them some way, which you're kind of suggesting. I will say that in this policy framework of a jobs and timber accord -- and I could be wrong -- I don't expect we're going to come up with one or two policy changes across the board that are necessarily going to solve the problem. I think it's going to be hard work on the ground with individual companies -- changing circumstances, the changing nature of the timber, different kinds of licences, maybe, and maybe expansion of cutting. I don't know the answer; I just know that in this big province we shouldn't be afraid of a multitude of initiatives if they lead to more jobs, if that's the goal, as long as we don't compromise the environment in doing so.

If you don't mind -- I hope that wasn't a rant -- I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN
THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

[ Page 2017 ]

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

The Chair: Just before we begin, upon reflection on last evening, I'd like to make the caution to members that legislation is not a proper subject for Committee of Supply. Only the administrative action of a ministry is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

A. Sanders: Last night when we left off we were discussing the issue of midwifery in British Columbia. I'd just like to synthesize the information that I procured from the minister, so that we can move forward from that point.

My understanding is that we're going to have 30 midwives in British Columbia, for the '96-97 estimates. They will be employed with a salary of approximately $60,000; whether that includes benefits is not understood yet. How that means other than full-time is not understood at this point. They will be operating solely in the hospitals, except for a pilot project doing home births which will be run in British Columbia. They will be providing the service in the hospital; thus Bill 17 brought in a part to amend the Hospital Act to include them as practitioners. I also gleaned from the minister last night, in synthesis, that this was not a cost-saving device, although the minister alluded to the fact that it may decrease the number of surgical deliveries. However, there was no evidence to support that claim.

The institution of the midwives into the hospital will include a sum of.... I do not remember. Could the minister repeat that for me? I do not recall the total sum that was budgeted for midwifery in the estimates.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm unclear what we are doing here. Are we repeating what we did yesterday? Is that what we are doing? It's not a cheeky question. I'm just unclear.

A. Sanders: I'm just synthesizing the information that we had from last night, having stopped in the middle, so that I can move forward and figure out what's going on.

Hon. J. MacPhail: All right. As best as I recollect -- I don't have the Blues in front of me -- we anticipate about a million dollars being spent this year. All of this is to be decided upon. It's in part of the committee of implementation.

There was one other point that stands out as being.... I think the record needs to be clarified. The way midwives practise will also be part of the implementation. What I said was that, most likely, most of it will be done in hospital; but that all has to be worked out, as well.

A. Sanders: My question to this minister: I'm wondering if there were any surveys done in British Columbia to ascertain the number of British Columbia women who would use the services of a midwife, should that be available.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I really do appreciate your advisory about discussing legislation, which was brought in earlier in this session, that actually put in place the midwives' right under the Hospital Act. I accept that caution, and I hope the rest of the House does.

Yes, a survey was done.

A. Sanders: Could the minister provide me with the numerical figure of how many women would use a midwife?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this particular survey, about 75 percent of women said they'd be interested.

A. Sanders: Could I have the number of people surveyed, to ascertain the importance of that figure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the wide-ranging nature of the estimates. I'm more than happy to engage in this, as long as we're engaging on behalf of constituents and not on behalf of some particular point of view of a particular profession, or whatever. That issue was debated when we debated the legislation.

This issue is not newly arisen. It started in 1994, when cabinet.... I'll just run through with you what the nature of this is, actually. The B.C. Medical Association, for instance, has issued a statement in support of midwifery, as has the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If there's some discomfort about us proceeding here, there were other forums in which we could have challenged that. I can make available to the hon. member whatever information we have around us moving forward in ensuring that the designation of midwifery under the Health Professions Act occurred.

In the meantime, for the purpose of administering that legislative change, we have estimated a cost of approximately $1 million. There are assumptions below that that I have made available to the House: 30 midwives would meet the registration criteria; they would be licensed by the College of Midwives; the College of Midwives would register them as of July 1, 1996 -- that's an assumption underlying the $1 million; and the number of registered midwives working full-time and part-time would translate into approximately 17 full-time-equivalents.

A. Sanders: I appreciate the minister's comments with respect to personal points of view and legislation. Unfortunately, that doesn't wash here, in that my opinion is that midwives are a benefit to the system. However, I think that the total cost for us going onto this program is going to be far in excess of what has been estimated -- $1 million -- especially if we're talking about 30 and, in the estimates for next year, perhaps more.

There are a number of cost factors that I do not think have been taken into account; specifically, these are the medical and legal costs of delivering babies. Individuals who do that practice at this point in time have the highest rates of medical malpractice insurance, other than orthopedic surgeons, in British Columbia.

My feelings, whether the minister classifies these as personal or not, are more concerned with how much of the money we have in our health care budget. At a time when we are taking drugs off the formula and they are no longer available for seniors, at a time when we are making different protocols for using different medications because of cost rather than need, we are adding a new program, and we have underestimated the cost of it. This is the whole focus of where I'm going with this line of questioning. It has nothing to do with my personal opinion as to whether this is a good or bad thing.

S. Hawkins: I have one question related to that subject for the minister. There was an estimate of $1 million put in the 

[ Page 2018 ]

budget for 30 midwives, and last night we heard that they were going to be paid $60,000 in wages and benefits. If we multiply $60,000 by 30 people, we get about $1.8 million. I'm just wondering if that's NDP math again, because we are left with a significant deficit. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just did. I just said that works out to 30 midwives delivering services equivalent to 17 full-time-equivalents.

All of these are important points that should be considered by the implementation committee. I certainly appreciate the cautions from the other side of the House, and I'll certainly make sure that the implementation committee is well aware of those cautions.

S. Hawkins: I think I'll move on to something a little bit different, but related again to something we were discussing last night. That was with respect to the tattooing and the risks of contracting HIV or hep B or hep C from unlicensed or cottage-industry tattooists. It was brought to my attention, just to inform the minister, that there is a regulation in place in the Ministry of Health, and also guidelines, and under the guidelines there is no provision for disposable needles. It was brought to my attention by a constituent that perhaps the ministry would eagerly look at this issue, as children are at risk.

P. Nettleton: I have a couple of brief questions of a regional nature for the hon. minister. I would like to ask about the replacement of Kitimat General Hospital with a community health centre. It's my understanding that the planning of the project has been caught by the freeze on capital projects. I'm just wondering if this project is still frozen.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

P. Nettleton: The Kitimat health centre has been in the planning stage for a couple of years now, since Elizabeth Cull was the Minister of Health. According to the hospital, it will cost more to suspend the project at this point than to proceed with the planning. In case the minister is not aware, the hospital informed the Health ministry a couple of weeks ago -- and I have a copy of that correspondence -- that the delay will cost somewhere in the range of $530,000 to over $1 million. I would ask the minister, on that basis: would she consider reinstating the project? When I say "reinstating" this project, that would be the planning phase as opposed to the construction phase.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll answer the correspondence of Kitimat General, but again -- perhaps the hon. member wasn't here yesterday -- these projects are all under review. They are being monitored for projects that may incur extra costs, etc., because of the review. All of that is being taken into consideration. Again, we have lowered our capital debt level, as was announced in the budget, and it's in the context of that that the review is taking place.

P. Nettleton: It's my understanding -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that MSA hospital, Hudson's Hope health centre and the pediatric ward at the Victoria General Hospital were in much the same position, in that they were initially frozen -- that is, when I say they were frozen, the planning stage was.... They were stopped at that point. Again, regardless of whether or not my information is correct in respect to the facilities that I've named, the Kitimat health centre is in the position where the total cost of planning is somewhere in the range of $2 million. To delay at this point will cost $530,000 to $1.1 million -- that is, to stop the project in the planning stage. So it seems to me that it's a reasonable request of the minister and of her ministry to forgo this freeze at this moment, during the course of the planning stage, and look ahead to the construction phase, and make a decision at that time, rather than now.

[3:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate each and every member coming forward and making a pitch on behalf of their particular project in their own community. I think, by the time all estimates are completed, we will have covered the entire capital budget of $272 million, a number that the Liberal members in opposition objected to greatly. So I appreciate each member's input for their particular project.

The capital freeze is on for major capital projects. Major capital projects are defined as those that exceed $1.5 million. Two of the three projects that the hon. member mentioned before were minor capital projects. We were asked by the Minister of Finance to assess minor capital projects to ensure that we did have the funds to proceed under the lower minor capital allocation. That was the case with the pediatric unit. The Hudson's Hope hospital, of course, burned down, and there is no hospital there, so for health and safety reasons it was necessary for us to review that, and quickly make a recommendation. Nevertheless, I appreciate each and every member's input. I will take all of the comments on the individual capital projects from Hansard, and I will ensure that the capital review team is made well aware of those.

S. Hawkins: The minister mentioned yesterday that she was going to release a document -- and I believe she was reading from it -- on the minor capital projects. I'm wondering when we can expect that release.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wasn't actually reading from that document; I was giving some examples. We're going to release that as soon as possible. It will probably be early next week.

S. Hawkins: I'd like to get into another issue. I think some of the saddest letters I get from constituents are regarding waiting lists for surgery. It's an issue of grave concern. It's usually an issue where life and death are concerned, and I'd just like to address it here, if I may.

I did ask the minister a question on Monday, August 12, during question period. I enquired of the minister about the allocation of $7 million to reduce wait-lists for patients requiring emergency heart surgery. In the minister's reply, she implied that my inquiry was based on inaccurate information. She said quite directly: "Actually, that's not accurate. There is a centralized wait-list system for heart surgery." Unfortunately, time constraints and the Speaker's bell precluded further discussion on the issue, but I would like to address that now.

I'd like to quote from a Ministry of Health publication entitled Better Health Care News, Winter '94-95:

"Since October 1991, the waiting list for cardiac procedures has dropped 36 percent. Of course, there is no waiting period for anyone requiring emergency surgery. Measures by the Ministry of Health to reduce waiting lists include: training initiatives to alleviate the shortage of critical care nurses and surgical

[ Page 2019 ]

 technologists; creation, in 1991, of a provincewide cardiac registry and a province advisory panel on cardiac care to monitor waiting lists; temporary contracts for open-heart surgery procedures in Washington State.

"Managing waiting-lists is an important part of our health care system. Keeping the elective surgical waiting lists under 350 enables the ministry to maintain a careful balance of resources and services, while responding quickly to the needs of patients."

Then they go on to say:

"Close monitoring is an essential tool in ensuring the shortest waiting lists possible. This past October" -- that was in 1994 -- "the ministry provided $3 million to fund an additional 175 surgeries at B.C. hospitals. Monitoring enabled the ministry to respond quickly to an increase in the waiting list, bringing it back to normal levels that had been maintained in the past two years."

Then, on March 6, 1995, Premier Harcourt announced another $4 million in funding for cardiac care. He said:

"If medicare is to be preserved, British Columbians need to be confident services will be there when they need them. Today's announcement is a further sign of our commitment that everyone who needs surgery or treatment will receive it in a timely way." That press release went on to say: "Over the past three years a total of $90 million to $100 million has been invested to reduce wait-lists in the province."

In the same press release, the then Health minister, Mr. Ramsey, said: "There is no waiting list for emergency cases, and most other procedures and surgeries are provided in a timely way."

In April 1996, Premier Clark announced an additional $7.325 million for cardiac surgery and services, which will provide for 150 cardiac surgeries to be done. In his press release, he announced his intention of "keeping these surgery wait-lists at manageable and appropriate levels, and enabling services to be delivered in a timely manner."

I wonder if the minister can tell us what the '94-95 cardiac wait-list statistics from the Ministry of Health are -- last year's statistics.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have them as of July 1, 1996. Perhaps it would make more sense to talk about the current cardiac wait-list. Just for the record, there is a central heart-surgery registry that is monitored and administered centrally. It's called the provincial cardiac registry. As of July 1, 1996, there were a total of 407 patients waiting, of whom 362 were in the category of waiting less than 12 months and 45 were in the category of waiting over 12 months. Cardiac surgeons agree that the active list is the under-12-months category, whereas the over-12-months category are patients who may or may not eventually come to surgery.

S. Hawkins: I was just wondering if the minister knew what last year's wait-list was compared to this year's. I guess what I'm getting at is that every year we are adding money to fund cardiac surgery. Basically, the reference here to which these waiting lists are compared is 1991, the year the NDP first formed government. The waiting list for elective surgery that year was due to a shortage of trained surgical technologists and perfusionists as well as nursing shortages due to staffing interruptions at major heart surgery centres at that time. Then there was a dramatic drop in wait-lists that occurred when the NDP took power in 1991 and onward, but I put it to the minister that that was just catching up with the backlog that had accumulated because of the staff shortages, which were remedied that year.

The present surgical wait-lists, although lower than 1991, have truthfully only returned to historical normal levels. Therefore the claims that the lists have been shortened by periodic funding infusions only proves that the base level of funding for these programs is truly insufficient. Cardiac surgery has required $15 million of emergency extra funding between October 1994 and April 1996. With due respect to the minister, the patients of B.C. appreciate the provision of funding for a greater number of necessary cardiac surgeries, but those same taxpayers of B.C. would prefer that program funding be accurately predicted and planned rather than funded in response to crisis situations like we're seeing. I wonder if it's clear to the minister that a surgical program which needs to be bailed out with several million dollars every few months or every year is probably underfunded to begin with.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I always find it interesting how on occasion these matters take on some relationship to political rhetoric. I honestly don't understand that around the issue of cardiac surgery.

What our government has done is make sure that health care funding is increased -- that's number one; that's the base. For instance, in the ministry, there's been funding for health care that goes beyond the population increase. For the last five years, we've been the only province that's had a net population increase -- in the context of that net population increase, it's an aging population -- to the point where there are now 600,000 more people in the province than there were in 1991. It's in that context that we're maintaining funding and dealing with issues around matters such as cardiac surgery wait-lists. It's not a matter of saying, "I'm sorry, we don't consider this particular health program important," or that somehow the surgery is not important. Of course it's important, and our commitment to reducing the wait-lists is firm. That has been demonstrated, actually, by the facts that the hon. member read into the record.

In 1991 the wait-list stood at approximately 800 cases. Since that time, the population has increased by 600,000 and the population demographics have aged. That is because, as we face not only an increasing population -- which isn't always predictable -- but also an increasingly aging population, we have added money to reduce the surgical wait-lists. The hon. member is quite right. We added $2.9 million in October 1994; $2.5 million in March 1995; and $3.3 million in April '96 for cardiac surgery, $2.3 million for coronary angioplasty and $1.2 million for cardiac pacemakers. So now the active wait-list is at a level of about 362.

S. Hawkins: I didn't think I was engaging in political rhetoric. I was just making a point on behalf of patients who are waiting on these lists. These are life-threatening situations that they're put in.

My question to the minister again is: instead of infusing these programs with funding here and there when there is an urgent need, does she agree that perhaps the program has been consistently underfunded? Is there a plan to review it and find some way of funding these programs, so we're not infusing them with emergency funds here and there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is monitored. The Provincial Advisory Committee on Cardiac Care monitors the services. The funding is actually done in accordance with advice received from the panel on when wait-lists need an extra infusion of money.

S. Hawkins: I still am not clear on the answer. Does the minister feel that this program is underfunded? Why are we infusing the program with funds only when there's an emergency? Why aren't we looking at it? We know that there's 

[ Page 2020 ]

been a population increase; the minister has given us that information. The committee that reviews this has that information. Is there no way that the ministry can sit down with all the stakeholders and people involved and look at this program, so it's funded appropriately?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We fund programs in order to maintain and enhance services in health care across the board. Again, I just put it to the members present that, really -- and I don't actually mind claiming credit for this every chance we get -- the increase to health care services in this province is unprecedented. The program is funded at a maintenance level. We receive advice from those who are far more expert than I, in terms of when an added infusion of funds is needed. That's the best way of managing rather scarce tax dollars, to get the best use of those dollars and to provide adequate health care.

Will we continue to monitor it on a regular basis? Yes. Is it important that we keep wait-lists as manageable as possible for emergency services? Absolutely yes; I agree with that.

[3:15]

S. Hawkins: I have a letter in my hand that probably demonstrates how sad a situation this program is in. It's dated August 12 and did go to the minister. I have a copy of it, actually. It's from a constituent in Abbotsford who tells a very sad story about her sister, who's waiting for surgery; she's been through several specialists. She indicates that without this surgery her sister could die. This is not elective surgery; this is emergency surgery. This patient needs it as soon as possible. She was told by the doctor at St. Paul's that they cannot do it because St. Paul's has no funding left to do this surgery this year. The minister is saying there is enough money. This is what a patient's sister is being told. That's why I'm asking the minister: does she feel that there is adequate funding in the system for wait-lists, when we get letters like this from constituents?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member bringing forward correspondence that was received just this week. I'd be more than happy to look into it. Certainly the decisions to proceed to surgery are clinical decisions. I'd be more than happy to look into the case that the hon. member brings forward.

S. Hawkins: That letter actually went to your office and came copied to me, so you have a copy of it already.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I got the letter. I get dozens of pieces of correspondence a week, so....

S. Hawkins: I'll bring it to the minister's attention.

The cardiac wait-list registry that the minister speaks of is a registry of elective cardiac patients. The question that I asked the minister on Monday was with respect to emergency patients, who wouldn't, therefore, be on an elective wait-list registry. Ideally, with most emergency cardiac patients, the surgery should be performed in a matter of 48 hours or less. My concern on Monday, as it is now, was that the patients in Kelowna waited for up to three to four weeks for their emergency surgery, and that cardiac specialists in Vancouver stated that their first priority was patients in Vancouver. So we had trouble transferring our patients from Kelowna to Vancouver.

I'll just tell you how this happens. Most patients go to hospital and have their tests, and they're put on an emergency wait-list until they get to a state where they cannot be managed at home, when their pain is so great. Then they're admitted to hospital, and they wait and wait and wait. That's in the interior; whereas patients in Vancouver will go into the hospital, get their tests run and can have their surgery within 48 hours to three days, because the resources are right there in Vancouver.

As I said to the minister on Monday, I feel that this effectively puts patients in the interior who need emergency cardiac surgery on a wait-list. It's unfair. It treats our patients like second-class citizens, and it doesn't treat people outside the lower mainland as equitably as people who live in centres near where these surgeries are done. With due recognition that the money has flowed into this cardiac program through the special funding announcements to relieve the elective surgery lists, this doesn't address the patients who need emergency surgery and are on those lists.

I thought I'd bring that to the minister's attention, because it's something that needs to be addressed quite urgently. Perhaps the Provincial Advisory Committee on Cardiac Care, which monitors and provides access to the lists, can have a look at that. I'm wondering how the minister is going to proceed with looking at that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I'd appreciate the hon. member, if she feels comfortable doing it, giving me details of that particular case, and of the doctor, because the doctor is simply wrong. I'd be happy to investigate it. Emergency cardiac surgery is done on the basis of need, not on the basis of where the patient lives. That doctor is simply wrong, and that needs to be investigated.

S. Hawkins: I understand that it's not only going on in Vancouver but also on in Victoria. I definitely will pass those details on to the minister.

I just want to say that in the past year, 1994-95, approximately 50 percent of cardiac surgery cases were done on an emergency basis. I'm told now that a greater proportion of these surgeries are done on an emergency basis rather than on an elective basis, and I hope the ministry is aware of that. The sad part about this is that it's apparent that most of the patients are leaving the elective surgery list by death rather than by surgery. Because the wait-lists are so long, they're dying. I don't know if the ministry monitors anything like that -- how many people leave an elective list because of death. I wonder if the minister can give me some idea of the proportion of patients receiving coronary surgery as an emergency procedure and of the average waiting time for elective surgery.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My understanding is that the statistics say that about 50 percent is emergency and 50 percent is elective, but I'll try to get the final figures for you.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry has the number of people on the elective list that die without surgery. And what proportion have their cases upgraded to emergency status?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to be clear. If the question is whether they die of the reason for which they were put on the wait-list -- I gather there is some allegation of correlation between those two -- we will attempt to get that information. The cardiac patients are advised to keep in regular contact with their family doctor for any change in condition. So the family doctor would be working with the cardiac surgeon to 

[ Page 2021 ]

change the status of the patient if it becomes life-threatening, and the surgery is then done on the basis of need for emergency. But if the question is.... Immediately, my answer would be that the list that the member intimates may exist, of patients who die by virtue of the wait-list, would be very, very slim.

S. Hawkins: The concern here -- and perhaps I haven't delineated it as well as I would have liked to -- is that this program appears not to be as adequately funded as it should be, because what we are doing consistently is bailing out this cardiac surgery program. When we have wait-lists of 300, 400, 800, and we are not monitoring an elective cardiac surgery wait-list, and we've got patients on the list who are dying before they ever get their surgery because they are waiting three to four weeks when ideally the surgery should be done within 48 hours of diagnosis, then I put it to the minister that this program is not being funded adequately.

We're not getting the kinds of statistics we need to make the kinds of decisions to fund these programs. I'm just wondering what kind of monitoring the ministry is doing to adequately address this problem. Infusing this program with funding on a periodic basis, just when it comes to a crisis situation, is not appropriate, I put to the minister. I don't think, if we are in this stage of looking at health care dollars and trying to spend them appropriately, that to keep adding money to a program on a knee-jerk basis is going to address the problem. I think it needs to be looked at in more of a global way and have a proper study and proper monitoring done -- to have the emergency wait-list monitored as well as the elective.

I was just talking to my colleague here from Okanagan-Vernon, and we were both saying we don't think most of these are being done on an elective basis. They get dragged on and dragged on, and most -- about 50 percent or more -- are now being done on an emergency basis. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have commented on most of the points. Clearly that's what I am saying about the rhetoric here. We disagree on words like "knee-jerk" and that; I find that political rhetoric. It's not knee-jerk; it is done the basis of an aging population, shifting population demographics and in-migration to this province that is also cyclical over the decade.

What we are doing is making sure that the dollars spent are precisely targeted to ensure that they address specific and critical areas of access. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to do it in recognition of the importance of the provision of cardiac surgery.

A. Sanders: Again, to comment on the cardiac surgery waiting list, I think that in practice things may be different than in theory, and I would point the minister in the direction of looking into this particular area. My experience in several hospitals has been that, quite commonly, the way people procure their surgery is by going from an elective list to an emergency list, because they have ended up back in the hospital following another myocardial infarction and have that much more heart muscle damage and now are on the emergency list.

We have also seen a rash of those individuals -- and I'm sure the minister will be pointed by her staff in the direction of a number of letters -- with the discontinuation of something called Nitrong SR, where a number of reasonably stabilized patients were taken off Nitrong SR through reference-based pricing and put onto Isordil, which is not nearly as effective, and subsequently had MIs and required surgery. That is an issue that the minister may wish to become apprised of.

I don't think there is any question from this side of the House that this government since 1991 has put money into health care. I think the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is where we would have put the money. I think, basically, that is the whole thesis statement of the difference. I prefer not to call it rhetoric. I think it's a difference of opinion, based on ideology, on where the money should go.

This side of the House would like to see the money go to the patient. The other side of the House, from.... An article written January 30, 1996, in the Times Colonist, points out that without an additional hour of care, $1 billion in B.C. taxation moneys has gone to: the Dorsey commission, $400 million, possibly $800 million; the cost of the labour accord, $125 million; the labour adjustment fund, $25 million; a lack of, off-loading of, federal transfers, $340 million. So here we do have a billion dollars, and this has gone towards health care. But it hasn't gone to patient care. I think that is the difference in the argument here.

In terms of looking at wait-lists and at all of these kinds of things, are we spending the dollars where they would be best spent to look after British Columbians? I think, in essence, wait-lists are important. My interest would be that on, say, a quarterly basis, the ministry provide the wait-lists for orthopedic procedures, ophthalmological procedures, general surgical procedures, heart, etc., to the opposition, so that together we can work to look at how that could best be managed. I would appreciate the minister's comments on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly acknowledge the differences between the two parties in terms of how health care dollars are spent. In health care delivery, there is a team of health care providers, from the doctor all the way down to the care aide, that provide services to people in need of health care. In fact, the health care industry is 80 percent labour-intensive. I value the input of each and every one of those health care providers.

On the suggestion of the member for quarterly reports, I'll look into that.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if we can just find out from the minister, then, since we have the cardiac surgery statistics, what the wait-list is for a few others in the province. One that comes to mind is joint replacement surgery. Do we have statistics for that?

[3:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: As of June 1996, there were approximately 1,500 patients waiting for knee or hip replacement surgery. As a result of an infusion of dollars in 1995-96, there was an 11 percent increase over the previous year in procedures done. The average waiting time for hip surgery decreased by two weeks over the previous year.

S. Hawkins: I have a list of areas that I'd like to canvass for waiting lists, if the minister would be patient with me. As for cancer services, can we find out what the wait-lists are for Vancouver, Victoria and Surrey?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm working from several documents here, so I'll try to synthesize them. These are just general 

[ Page 2022 ]

comments, and then I'll go to the specifics. First of all, the incidence of cancer is growing at a rate of about 4 percent per year. The wait-lists for radiotherapy have grown substantially in the last three months. The wait-list pressure is most acute at the Victoria clinic, and therefore we have put about $500,000 in funding into the Victoria clinic, specifically to extend the hours of operation for radiotherapy machines. Just in Victoria, the wait-list as of June was 123 patients, but that was before the infusion of the extra money. It is now on the decline because of this additional funding.

In Surrey, $4 million is to be added to the base funding there so they can treat 1,000 more people annually. The wait-list in Surrey now is 450.

And the other one was Vancouver. I don't have the Vancouver number here. I'll get that for you. It must be very small, because almost all of the wait-lists are encompassed between Victoria and Surrey. I'll check on the Vancouver number.

S. Hawkins: Does the minister have the number of months or know how long a patient is waiting in these three areas for cancer treatment? I'll just add that, in my riding, patients wait seven to eight months.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is the hon. member talking about wait-lists for radiotherapy?

S. Hawkins: Chemotherapy, radiotherapy -- cancer treatment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't have all those statistics. What we need to do is deal with the issue that the hon. member raised, which is about waiting for up to six or seven months. Is that what the hon. member said? That would be beyond what is the protocol arrangement, so I'd be more than happy to investigate that, if that is the case.

S. Hawkins: Given the ministry's performance over the last few years, injecting money into treatments and surgery and everything, I just want to point out that the cancer clinic in Kelowna was a bit of a political football and that patients in that riding had to wait an additional year while the government made up their mind where the clinic was to be finally placed. We appreciate that we are getting a clinic, but I do want to point out that it was a year late in coming.

Getting back to wait-lists, I wonder if the ministry has statistics on transplant surgeries. Do you have the breakdowns for kidneys, livers, corneas, hearts, lungs and pancreas?

Hon. J. MacPhail: While the staff are getting that, I'd just like to clarify that because this was a very difficult situation for the government, the wait for the cancer clinic in Kelowna was the result of some very difficult land acquisition issues. But for that, it would have moved much more quickly. Anyway, we now have it. The location was a controversial one for the government. I am glad it's now going on.

The number of transplants done this year, for the first seven months up until last week, is 121. Last year there were 178 done in the calendar year, so we are on target for increasing the number of transplants. The wait-lists are: kidney, 293; heart, 9; heart and lung, 2; double lung, 5; single lung, 1; liver, 11; pancreas, 2; cornea, 800. The primary reason is waiting for organs.

S. Hawkins: Can we also get statistics on MRI services and the wait-list for MRIs? Does the ministry have any plan to reduce the requirement for MRI wait-lists?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't have the wait-list figure for you here; we can try and get that. But we are funding this year an additional 1,000 magnetic resonance scans. It's anticipated that this will take care of the vast majority of the wait-lists.

S. Hawkins: The reason I ask that question is that in my experience patients are waiting an inordinate amount of time for MRI, which is a very specialized scan. I believe there are only a few in the province.

Patients who are diagnosed with different cancers and brain tumours are being sent at times to other provinces and across the border. The ministry ends up picking up costs for that. If we're spending hundreds and thousands of dollars paying other provinces and perhaps the United States to do these scans, perhaps we should think of appropriately funding the program or getting another MRI in the province.

The next item is CT scans, and obviously the minister has been questioned on the need for a CT scanner in the North Island. CT scan is not new technology; it's old technology; it's a test that's done on a routine basis. It's less invasive. The cost might be considerable to some, but in the long run it's probably a cost-saving measure rather than a cost-adding measure. I'm wondering if the minister has any information on the wait-list to get onto a CT scanner and if she can comment on how soon the North Island can expect to have their CT scan in place and operating.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We expect to go to tender next month for the eight additional CT scanners that I mentioned earlier in the estimates. That process for tender takes approximately three or four months, so they will have it before Christmas.

The wait-lists.... I assume you would be interested by scanner, so I can get that for you.

S. Hawkins: I'm wondering if the ministry has any statistics on how many people we send out of province for these specialized tests, such as an MRI -- I'm particularly interested in MRI -- and how much money we spend out of province to do this.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's very unusual that we would send anyone out of country. There are out-of-province referrals on the border between Alberta and British Columbia.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps the ministry didn't send people out of province, but perhaps the minister does get letters, like I do, from people who are not willing to wait five or six months. The minister was on a show with me a few weeks ago, and we had a call from a constituent of the Island who gave a summary of his daughter's case. She was diagnosed with a brain tumour and would have to wait four or five months for an MRI scan, so they went across the border and had it done. Thankfully, the child had the surgery and is doing well now.

I put to the minister that there are lots of cases like that. I get letters like that weekly from people who pay their premiums for MSP and expect the service to be there. Unfortunately, they're told they are going to go on a wait-list for something as simple as a CT scan or an MRI scan for two to three or six months. It's a problem that has to be addressed. Does the minister have any information on the number of people that do go outside the province for these tests and then apply to the ministry to get reimbursed?

[ Page 2023 ]

[3:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

S. Hawkins: I wonder why the ministry wouldn't keep information like that. Wouldn't that help them assess the need for those kinds of procedures, so that they can plan for funding those kinds of programs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just say that certainly I look forward to the time in estimates where there is a discussion of.... One example that was given was the labour accord that the members of the opposition disagree with funding, the other part of the health care team that they disagree with giving raises to. We have funded health care beyond any record anywhere else in Canada. We will continue to do so, upon the best advice from the experts in the health care team.

But at the end of the day a balance has to be struck between revenue collection and expenditure. That is what we on the government side struggle with each and every day. I must also tell you that I am pleased with the amount of thought, consultation and inclusion that the Ministry of Health does in deciding how best to spend health care dollars. We will continue to do that consultation and to ensure that health care funding is protected.

I really hope that at some point we'll get into a useful discussion without partisan debate -- which is not happening here -- about where funds can be reallocated in the health care system.

S. Hawkins: Part of setting priorities for health care funding is knowing where the shortfalls are and keeping statistics and reports. We know that people are leaving the province for certain kinds of treatments, tests and care. If we're going to set priorities for health care in this province, we need to find out what people's needs are. Part of finding out what people's needs are is checking these wait-lists, checking to see what kinds of treatments aren't being funded here and checking to see where we're -- if I can put it that way -- falling down. Certainly there's a perception out there that we are falling down in funding certain parts of our health care system. Things like tests that can diagnose and perhaps alleviate the need for treatment or for suffering on a patient's part are important to people.

All I was asking the minister is: does the ministry keep any record, and does it use that record for assessment? Do they keep any record of patients requiring tests or treatment out of province, then coming back and asking the ministry for reimbursement?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We do not monitor or keep track of people who are outside of the referral system. We do not have those statistics available, which.... Much of the correspondence that crosses my desk is from those who have chosen to do that.

Within the context of reciprocal arrangements, there are statistics available. They are used as part of our planning process. It's on the basis of those statistics that we add funds -- and the changing nature of the demand for those services. The point of criticism that the hon. member made beforehand was that she would not pay attention to those fluctuating statistics, and we should just do base funding. We don't. We monitor the uses and the demand, and we infuse money where necessary and most effective.

A. Sanders: A few baseline statistics are probably in order at this point, as I feel the topic is a little emotional rather than factual. As a government, we have funded health care on a very flat curve. We've funded approximately 26 to 30 percent of our total budget for health care. When the government says we're putting more money into health care, we're putting it in commensurate with that percentile.

The thing that has changed is the interest payments on the debt. We've doubled our interest payments. That's where the squeeze on the health care system is coming from, in that we are paying our debt instead of putting money into areas where we might have been.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: In any system that has a budgetary dyspepsia, you're looking at what's going wrong with the system. What are the signs and symptoms of the system not working properly? The importance of wait-lists is not so much which side of the House is right and which side is wrong, but what we can learn about wait-lists to show us from a symptomatological point of view what is not working in the system. When you generate a wait-list, it's really important to recognize that studies have been done that show that after you go to your family doctor and complain about something, it is three and a half to four weeks before you go to a specialist. That is because of the number of people who need to go and see a specialist. Once you see a specialist, then it is somewhere between seven and eight weeks before you would even be booked for elective surgery. Then you have to go to the hospital, and you have to go on the waiting list for whatever procedure you've been booked for.

I know that in my own hospital we have some waiting lists of two years for certain elective surgery procedures. In fact, most of the people I see these days are having emergency surgery. In other words, they might be booked for an elective gallbladder resection, say, but they are so sick that they can't wait the eight weeks to have the surgery done, so they have to be brought in through the emergency department because they are dehydrated or are febrile or have some other intercurrent complication.

I think that if we are going to say that this government supports and subscribes to the Canada Health Act and the tenets of universality, portability and accessibility, and to things that don't cost money or are non-profit, and to its comprehensive nature, we on both sides of the House have to recognize that waiting lists are a form of rationing health care. They are a way to cost-contain who gets health care by having them stand in line, so that the cost of health care per year is less. No matter how you look at it, that's what it is.

Waiting lists are important, and waiting list numbers that are generated for important surgeries such as cardiac surgery, ophthalmological surgery or hip replacements should be available to the public and the opposition as well as to government, so that we can look at the system and see if it's working.

One important thing about waiting lists that I would like to apprise the minister of.... Is the minister aware of how many people actually get their surgery based on their place in the line and of how many people, as statistics have shown, jump the line in order to get their procedure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm unaware of what the member means by jumping the line in the public system. Maybe she could clarify.

A. Sanders: There have been reports that show that up to 80 percent of those people on wait-lists have some way to 

[ Page 2024 ]

overcome the wait-list. They either work in the government, or they know a physician or the hospital administrator, and therefore they do not subscribe to the normal delineation of "I'm standing in line and these people are in front of me."

I think wait-lists are an important thing here, and they shouldn't be considered political rhetoric. I think they should be considered a symptom of a disease in the system, and that we should look at these in a realistic way and try to see what they are telling us in terms of funding.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The determination of who gets on a wait-list and the priority on that wait-list is a medical decision. I'm not about to question the judgment of physicians in this province.

A. Sanders: Actually, I wish it was a medical judgment. Unfortunately, I find that most of the time it's a political judgment, and that politics have a lot more to do with health care these days than medicine does. Most of the time it's made at the hospital and made on subjective criteria, and has very little to do with whether the physician feels that patient needs to come in right this second or a week down the road.

S. Hawkins: I'd still like to canvass the area of whether the ministry is going to or has any plans to keep track of patients who feel the need to go out of the province for treatments or tests, because I think that is an indicator that there is a shortfall in our system. If there is nothing in place now, or if the ministry has not done it before, is that something that the ministry is considering doing? I think that's important in priority planning and health care funding.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll repeat the answer. Services that are done on a reciprocal basis, that are insured services, yes, we keep track of. Services that are obtained privately and outside the system, we have no way of monitoring. But if the hon. member has some suggestion of how we could monitor that, where it's entirely outside of any government involvement, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

S. Hawkins: I believe there is a way that the ministry probably can keep track. I know that when a lot of these patients come back from out of province they submit for reimbursement.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is kept track of. That's what I was referring to. If it's an insured service and there's a reciprocal arrangement with another province, or if the patient has received prior approval for a service that's out-of-country, that is kept track of. Much of the correspondence, though, which the hon. members receive as we become seasoned MLAs, is from people who have received services entirely outside of the insured services that exist in British Columbia. We have no way of knowing the people who are getting those services or how frequently they are getting those services. That is not to say there is no interest in that. If there is some way that the hon. member can determine to calculate that or to keep track of it, I would be happy to investigate.

S. Hawkins: Maybe I'm not making myself clear, and I apologize for that. I get correspondence from patients who go out of province because they can't get on a wait-list, or they feel that the wait-list here is too long. They take their child or their loved one across the border or into another province and perhaps have an MRI done somewhere in Washington or in Montreal; I know patients who have flown there. Then they ask the ministry for reimbursement, and they're told that they can't have it because they jumped the waiting list.

I just wonder if statistics like those are kept by the ministry. I do have several letters that attest to that, and that is the problem that I'm referring to. If the ministry kept those kinds of statistics, maybe we'd have a better idea of what kind of health care funding was needed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We do track our correspondence.

S. Hawkins: Getting back, then, to the issue of reciprocal agreements, can the minister give us an idea of the amount of money spent for treating patients in other provinces than British Columbia, province by province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to put these in context, because I think we switched to a different topic here. These numbers are unrelated to people going out of the province for wait-lists. I just want to make it clear that we're on to another issue. This is a gross number, not a net number, of what the costs are on our health care system: $44 million charged in reciprocal payments to other provinces for hospital service and almost $13 million for medical services. That does not include what we have billed other provinces for services rendered within British Columbia, but that's for every cost against the reciprocal arrangement.

[4:00]

S. Hawkins: Do we have a number that we paid out to the United States?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For hospitals, it's out-of-country, not just the United States -- again, gross numbers. But the $44 million for hospital services included out-of-country hospital services, incorporating out-of-province. For medical services out of country, it's $3.8 million. That is over and above the $13 million. Again, those are gross numbers.

S. Hawkins: Some of these services and hospital stays would be patients travelling to other countries and getting ill. I'm wondering if the ministry breaks down the number of patients that were sent by us to other provinces because we couldn't treat them here, because our system didn't have either the capability or the treatment facility. Are any of those kinds of statistics kept by the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and we can make those available.

S. Hawkins: I'd appreciate that.

Getting down to the bottom of my list for wait-lists, I'm wondering if the ministry has an average length of time that a patient waits to see a specialist. Do they keep track of statistics like that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

S. Hawkins: I know there has been concern with the public as to physician retention in this province. We saw the problem in full bloom, I guess, up in Prince George over the last several years: problems with patients not getting in to see doctors and with doctors leaving the province. I think that in order to provide for health care planning, these are the kinds of things that the ministry has to consider. In my own constit-

[ Page 2025 ]

uency, patients and constituents come and tell me that they have to wait quite a length of time to see a specialist after seeing a physician. Of course, this increases the time they wait for treatment. I believe that right now it's about eight weeks -- that's two months -- to see a specialist after a patient has seen a doctor.

The minister has said that the ministry takes into account all kinds of things before they make a decision on where funding goes into the health care system. I think these kinds of statistics are important. I wonder if the minister can comment on whether the ministry is going to start planning for health care, using these kinds of numbers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the problem. Let me offer what we're doing from a slightly different approach than tracking wait-lists.

Part of the physician supply agreement that we've agreed on with the B.C. Medical Association involves regional specialist-population ratios, which will be implemented under that. It's from that point of view that we're tackling the issue. We're working very closely with the B.C. Medical Association. Doctor by doctor they have estimates of.... Actually, I guess each specialty has an appropriate ratio that they consider, and that's being incorporated into the physician supply agreement.

S. Hawkins: I think I'm finished with wait-lists for now. I don't know if any of my colleagues have questions. They're certainly welcome to talk about that if they do.

I would like to get on to the issue of....

The Chair: Members, it appears that we have a division in the House, so we'll have a short recess until that division is completed.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: Just a quick issue before we get on to the next one. I have a letter from the South Okanagan-Similkameen union board of health with respect to the hiring freeze on staffing for the delivery of preventive health care services. The letter is dated June 27. The board of health is saying that everyone agrees that we get the biggest bang for the buck when adequate resources are put into preventive health care, and they feel that there are deficiencies in their service, because they have quite a lack of adequate resources in terms of personnel. They're having serious trouble, staffing difficulties, in the areas of clerical support and public health nursing, and they specifically cite the Penticton office, where they've been reduced to one clerical support staff member to manage their reception area. In Kelowna, vacancies in the early maternity discharge program, they feel, are compromising the nurses' ability to deliver safe and adequate nursing care to mothers and their babies who are discharged early. They wanted to have their concerns raised, and I'm doing it here. I'm wondering if the minister can address that, perhaps give some assurance about the freeze on staffing for preventive health care and let us know if that freeze will be lifted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, there is no freeze, and we actually have postings. We'll be dealing with the Boundary-Similkameen hospital board directly on that.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister perhaps give me some more information? Obviously she's aware of the problem. Is the trouble that they have a concern that there is a freeze on staffing and that there might be vacancies? I think the issue here is whether there is enough staffing for the areas; perhaps they need more staff. Is that something the minister is planning to add?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All staffing is under review, and we will work with the hospital board directly on that as we review it. But as I say, there is no staffing freeze. So it's in that context that we're working with that particular group.

S. Hawkins: I had indicated earlier we would go to acute care hospitals, but I'm advised that perhaps we should deal with the issue of the Medical Services Plan first. If that person is here to assist the minister, I'd like to do that.

What I'll start with is an overview. I had mentioned in my opening statements yesterday the types of services -- or the plan -- that the Hall commission had looked at. The recommendations of the Hall commission with respect to the types of services which should be included in a comprehensive and universal health care system were made in 1964. Perhaps I could briefly go through the services that Justice Hall recommended. He felt that medical services benefits include the services of general practitioners and specialists provided in the office, hospital, patient's home and group practice clinic. He felt that the medical services benefit should incorporate the following insured services. Under medical services: diagnosis and treatment of all physical and psychiatric conditions including mental retardation. Under surgical services: diagnosis, pre-operative care and treatment, surgical procedures, and post-operative care rendered to a person requiring or receiving a surgical operation or procedure, including the services of a surgical assistant where required by the nature of the procedure. Under maternity services: obstetrical care, including prenatal and postnatal care and attendance at confinement. Under newborn care: routine care of all the newborn. Under specialist services: all services provided by physician who is a specialist, and psychodiagnostic and psychotherapeutic services rendered by a properly qualified psychologist with special training in these areas. Under anaesthesia: the administration of anaesthetics, including anaesthesia for diagnostic, surgical and other procedures, obstetrical anaesthesia, dental anaesthesia in hospitals, and dental anaesthesia in dental surgeries where rendered by a physician. He also recommended that X-ray, lab and other diagnostic procedures, including interpretations, be included. Under preventive medical services: inoculations and vaccinations where those services are not provided through a government agency, as well as periodic physical exams, not including examinations for the purpose of marriage, insurance or employment, or at the request of a third party.

He also foresaw blood transfusion to be included as required; dental services where provided by a dentist in conjunction with maxillofacial surgery; prosthetic and orthodontic devices, appliances or aids; physiotherapy where provided by a physical therapist upon the order of a physician; podiatric and chiropractic treatments where prescribed by a physician; ambulance services and similar forms of transportation of patients, except as may be designated as part of any other health services benefit; and any other services specified by a provincial-federal agreement.

It's interesting how our MSP program has evolved. From the time that Mr. Justice Hall recommended what should be included, we have added on a variety of other caregivers, and the Medical Services Plan has grown to include a whole variety of health care professionals who bill it.

[ Page 2026 ]

With respect to MSP, I know the minister has referred to her Ministry of Health as an unwieldy bureaucracy, and the place I would like to start is by getting an estimate of how big the MSP department is. Can the minister give us an idea of how many employees are in MSP and what categories of work they do?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are 450 employees, and revenue collection is $800 million per year. Two hundred employees deal with the registration and collection of premiums. Another 150 process the claims and then the payments against MSP, and the remainder deal with the supplementary benefits program. It's about 75 percent clerical.

S. Hawkins: I have statistics here indicating that in the Medical Services Plan for the Ministry of Health in B.C., there are over 5,000 employees. Is that the whole ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's our whole ministry. Perhaps there's confusion there. The stats I gave are for the MSP division.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many different categories of health care professionals are billing MSP and what they are.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are physicians, with the full range of specialties that that includes, dentists, chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists, physiotherapists, naturopaths and massage therapists.

A. Sanders: I would like the minister to comment on the ratios. Our figures from Stats Canada, as far as I'm aware, show that the ratio of physicians to bureaucrats in our ministry is pretty well 1 to 1, meaning that for every doctor practising there is a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Health. The ratios for the other provinces vary quite significantly. I believe Ontario is somewhere around 4.4 to 4.9 -- in other words, there are four doctors practising for every bureaucrat. How do we account for the top-heavy administration in our Ministry of Health in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting choice to compare -- to select physicians, as a group in the health care field that needs to be used, in isolation. Nevertheless, I'll do that. The statistics are that there are 7,000 physicians in this province.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The vast majority.... Well, sorry, I'm not going to exaggerate here. The majority of people who are employed by the Ministry of Health provide direct services to British Columbians. Then there are, of course, the other health care providers in the health care field who are not physicians. That would be an interesting statistic to compare, as well.

If the hon. member wishes to isolate physicians and say that somehow they deserve a direct comparison, then it's 7,000 that could be compared to the.... I would be interested to know what employees of the ministry she wishes to compare just physicians to. Of course, there are in excess of 3,000 health care practitioners who also provide medical services beyond the 7,000 physicians, for a total of 10,000 in this province.

A. Sanders: This minister is alluding to the fact that I've singled out physicians because they're more important. In fact, I have not done so. I have done so simply because Statistics Canada provided the statistics comparing health care bureaucrats to physicians practising. Therefore it's not my place to change the statistics that are given to me in the 1995 brief from StatsCan.

All things aside, and no inferences made to what the minister wishes to allude to in that statement, my question remains the same. In the Ministry of Health in British Columbia we have a ratio of one doctor to one bureaucrat. In Alberta the ratio is 4.5 to 1. In Ontario the ratio is actually 7.8 to 1 -- my mistake there; I thought it was lower. So in Ontario, for every eight physicians there is one health ministry bureaucrat. Quebec is 6.8 to 1; Nova Scotia is 2 to 1; Prince Edward Island is 3 to 1; Newfoundland is 3.8 to 1. In fact, there are very few provinces, only New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories, that have anywhere near the same ratio as British Columbia. Other than that the statistic is interesting, I want to understand from the public point of view why the ratio is 1.2 to 1.

[4:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope the hon. member didn't take offence. The question was provocative. I gave an answer in the context of the comparison.

StatsCan reports on people employed by the ministries of health across this country. I don't think a public health nurse.... Well, actually, I guess the inference is that.... Maybe I shouldn't assume any inference; let me not assume any inference. Statistics Canada keeps track of employees in ministries of health. In our province, a public health nurse, for instance, is an employee of the Ministry of Health and would be included in those statistics. The service provider around the issue of kidney dialysis, which we talked at length about yesterday, is a direct government employee under the Ministry of Health and is included in those statistics.

To talk about it so that it's not in a provocative manner, we are a ministry unlike almost every other ministry across Canada. We do provide direct health services via the Ministry of Health, such as public health services, renal dialysis and mental health services. Those are incorporated into the stats that Statistics Canada keeps track of. I'm not sure, but I don't think they call them bureaucrats, because, of course, that has a particular intonation. I myself have used it in a sometimes pejorative fashion, much to my chagrin, and I promise not to do it again.

Let me offer this: just taking the 7,000 physicians in this province, perhaps we could compare them to the 1,500 employees of the ministry who are administrative employees -- in the traditional sense of the word, bureaucrats. Of those, several hundred are clerks providing services such as we've just described under MSP.

A. Sanders: The minister is suggesting that we're comparing oranges to apples. I'm willing to entertain that notion. I would, however, appreciate from this minister some statistics to support that. I feel that this points out for the public that British Columbia is very inefficient and top-heavy in its bureaucracy and that the money within the bureaucracy and the Ministry of Health is not going to patient care. At a time when we're in a financial crunch, we need to demonstrate that we're doing the best job we can.

S. Hawkins: It's interesting that the Medical Services Plan has been showing an increase in paying out doctors' billings. I understand that there is now an agreement between the doctors and the ministry that certain services will be 

[ Page 2027 ]

deinsured. One that has come to our attention recently is wart removal, removal of other minor skin blemishes and the surgical removal of minor, non-malignant skin lumps. For a province that says it values health care and talks about universality and accessibility and all those kinds of good things under the Canada Health Act, it's kind of a shame that it has come down to forcing caregivers to consider what kinds of services they will provide and what they won't provide and having them tell the ministry what kinds of services they feel comfortable.... I don't think they feel comfortable deinsuring any of these things, as a matter of fact. It's strange that the ministry is forcing caregivers to make these kinds of decisions.

With respect to wart removal and skin blemishes, I think the minister is aware that I come from the health profession and that I've had the opportunity of working in a skin cancer centre. I don't think it would surprise the minister to hear that we see a lot of patients walking into clinics with suspicious lesions, having them removed and finding out later that they were a form of skin cancer. A patient is not a doctor and can't diagnose. Certainly it's interesting that something as simple as skin lesions is going to be removed from the MSP payment list.

Can the minister comment on how this is going to affect patient care? A lot of people will probably be deterred from going to a doctor if they have to actually walk into a clinic and pay for these services. It is a deterrence. It's something we've had a discussion about. Certainly we don't believe in two-tiering. I feel that this is the first step in blatant two-tiering in this province.

This is the government that says it protects health care and that it doesn't believe in a two-tiered system or in patients having to pay for services outright. I would suggest to you that deinsuring services that have been provided for before, whether the government thinks they're necessary or not.... Unfortunately, the caregivers are put in a position where they're forced to consider what kinds of services they will remove in order to help cost-contain funding in the health care system, which I believe is a result of fiscal mismanagement on the government's part. But it's interesting how this has now been moved down to the caregiver level. When these patients go to the doctor to pay for these services, does the minister suggest that they pay by Visa card or cash?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To give a perfectly non-provocative response.... Actually, this decision wasn't made by government; the decision was made through the Medical Services Commission. Our province actually has a tripartite Medical Services Commission: one-third BCMA appointees, one-third government appointees and one-third public appointees. Those public appointees have to be approved by the B.C. Medical Association. The decision to deinsure skin bumps and warts was made by the Medical Services Commission. The call of whether the treatment is medically necessary is entirely the doctor's. There will be absolutely no interference in that decision by the doctor.

This decision was made in conjunction with the B.C. Medical Association and reviewed by the Medical Services Commission. That group of experts concluded that that will bring our services in line with what exists elsewhere in Canada. But at the end of the day, whether or not this is medically necessary is the call of a physician. The review of medical necessity will be done only as a retrospective review in terms of utilization, etc. So that's the way this decision was made. I'm actually quite pleased that such a cooperative approach was taken, and in such a cost-efficient way.

A. Sanders: I just rise and momentarily interrupt my colleague from Okanagan West to bring some history to this circumstance. This $10 million deinsurance was written into the contract signed by this government with the B.C. Medical Association, and the predecessor of this minister -- I think it was actually two predecessors.... It was Mr. Ramsey, at the time he was the Minister of Health, who signed that agreement. So in fact this is not a decision that was made solely on the backs of the physicians of British Columbia. It was in the agreement -- Bill 71, I believe it was -- between the government of British Columbia and the B.C. Medical Association.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the history and the former experience that the hon. member has with the BCMA. However, the piece of history that's got to be added to that is the renegotiation of this agreement in the spring of this year, where the agreement that was ratified overwhelmingly by the members of the BCMA included provisions such as this. Actually, my experience with the BCMA and the physicians represented by that is that they are very pleased with this, and when it was announced, it was in fact a very non-controversial decision that was welcomed both within the medical community and by taxpayers.

A. Sanders: Again, just a little bit more historical perspective.... I was involved in the renegotiation of this contract, and in fact it's very similar to the health accord in that it was just extended a little bit longer. The actual original document has not changed considerably.

Hon. J. MacPhail: But it's a renegotiated agreement. It's signed; it's ratified.

A. Sanders: It's a two-year, signed, ratified agreement, which is an extension of the original one.

S. Hawkins: My concern, when we're moving toward things like deinsuring certain procedures....This may seem very minor. These are just little skin warts or lesions and stuff that we're removing. My concern is that this will deter people from going to a physician or caregiver to have a good look taken at it. A lot of times people come in with blemishes that they don't think are anything, and then when we take them off and do the biopsy, we find out that they are very serious. This almost leaves the patient to be the doctor. I'm looking at this mole. Could this be a malignant melanoma, or is this just a mole that showed up because I've had too much sun or whatever?

Is this the slippery slope? This was a government that said they did not believe in two-tiering. Now we've got a breakdown here where we're moving toward moving services out of MSP and having the patient pay for them, when previously they were being paid for. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I value this process, and therefore I want to be sure that this process we're going through here isn't inflaming the situation in any way. So let me be clear: the office visit to the doctor is not affected in any way by this deinsurance. The decision about whether to bill rests only with the doctor. The review of when one bills and when one doesn't bill is done retrospectively, after the payments have been made. There is no advertising or communications campaign to in any way discourage patients on the basis of this. So we have to be careful about being factual in ensuring that people receive the proper information around what the eligibility is under the Medical Services Plan.

[ Page 2028 ]

S. Hawkins: There may not have been any advertising from the ministry, but there certainly has been a lot of news made out of this as part of a service that was previously provided and is now being removed. People have come up to me and made their concerns known that people who probably would have walked into a doctor's office will now think twice before going in to have lesions looked at. That's the issue I'm raising for the minister.

I'm wondering if there are other ongoing discussions with MSP and what other services are going to be removed from the plan.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just want to offer this to the hon. member. If those people are raising concerns, I'd be more than happy to deal with them. I haven't had one concern raised with me, so I'd appreciate that information. We've had no correspondence about concerns raised. So I would like to deal with that, and I would appreciate doing that.

I don't know whether "directives" is the right word, but advice will be given directly to physicians about how procedures are to take place and the nature of billing, etc., on this. Direct discussions with doctors go on regularly and continuously, and have over the course of many years, about changes to the MSP schedule.

S. Hawkins: If a patient goes to a physician and has something that's not considered malignant removed, the patient has to pay for that procedure. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The call of whether to bill for the procedure or not is the doctor's, based on his or her judgment call about suspicion of.... Again, I apologize, because we do record this in Hansard, and I'm not a physician. If there is a suspicion of malignancy or whatever, that's the doctor's call. The doctor is the one who determines the billing practice.

[4:45]

S. Hawkins: I understand that the hope is that deinsurance of this item is going to save approximately $7 million. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Then what I'd like to get from the minister is how many more procedures or how much more money is the ministry looking to save per year, under this plan, so we know what kind of saving they're looking for regarding the cost of patient care.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not looking for any more savings from deinsurance, but we're prepared to look at proposals if they are brought forward by the medical profession, which sometimes does occur under the constant review of the Medical Services Plan. But there are no other discussions of further deinsurancing.

S. Hawkins: I want to ask the minister if she expects doctors not to charge for the surgery they do in the course of their work providing care to these patients. Does she expect the doctors to do this for free? They come into the office, and they take off a wart that's not malignant. Who's paying for the doctor's time? Is that encompassed in the visit?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's between the doctor and the patient. That's an arrangement that the doctor would make with her patient. I would assume that the doctor would have that discussion with the patient before the procedure, but it's entirely within the purview of the doctor.

S. Hawkins: Am I hearing the minister say that if the doctor wants to charge the patient, then that's up to the doctor?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the doctor has made a determination that it's not a medically required service, then beyond that, the payment that transmits between the doctor and the patient is a discussion between the two of them.

S. Hawkins: This, again, is difficult. Are we moving into some form of two-tiering, then? The patient goes in and has a wart or whatever that they want removed. It could be malignant; it could not. We don't know until we biopsy it. The doctor tells the patient that it will cost X amount of dollars to remove it. Are you saying that the doctor's going to make the decision after it's been removed, after it's been biopsied, after the patient goes away somewhere and the doctor doesn't get paid? We're getting into a funny situation here. It seems kind of strange that we're asking people to provide a service and perhaps never get paid, or provide a service on the basis of perhaps getting paid. It's complicated. Does the minister not see this as some form of two-tiering?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I don't. And it isn't. Let me just try to.... This will be, I hope, my last time, because I can't think of any other way to describe it for the hon. member's understanding. The doctor determines whether the procedure is medically necessary or not; that's the doctor's determination. If the doctor makes a judgment call that she thinks it's not a medically necessary procedure, then the payment for that is an arrangement between the doctor and the patient. That's after advising the patient that she doesn't think it's medically necessary. Because no one in the world is infallible, if the doctor makes a wrong call, in retrospect -- after the procedure is done, having defined that as a non-medically necessary procedure, and the patient pays for it -- there is also provision for a reversal of that decision, where the doctor is required to reimburse the patient and then bill MSP.

S. Hawkins: I still, obviously, have a problem with that, but I won't pursue it. Perhaps the minister and I can talk about it at a later date, and I can give her some information and some of the concerns that I'm hearing from constituents.

My understanding is that the working agreement between the BCMA and the government specifies that MSP and the BCMA are jointly responsible for saving $130 million in the medical fee-for-service budget over the term of the agreement. I'm just wondering how the ministry foresees this being accomplished.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That $130 million saving was part of the 1993 agreement, which was superseded by the 1996 agreement. That requirement is no longer there. It's been replaced by a cap on MSP expenditures.

A. Sanders: I just want to make another point about this controversy. What this side of the House and the government are discussing is the difference between deinsurance and two-tier, and whether two-tier has become a political motivational device to use to discuss disruption of the Canada Health Act. Deinsurance is, I believe, two-tiered medicine. In fact, if you look at the Canada Health Act and its interpretation in all the 

[ Page 2029 ]

other provinces, it depends on where you are. We in B.C., just off the top of my head, have at least 18 areas that contribute to our two-tiered system and that always have. Bill 71 and Bill 54, both of which were brought in by this government, promoted deinsurance. Warts, artificial insemination and skin surgery -- and eye exams, I believe -- would be next on the list of things to come off the insured services.

We do not routinely insure any kind of preventive medicine services such as smoking-cessation counselling, obesity counselling or high-cholesterol counselling. In British Columbia we have user fees for chiropractors and physiotherapists. We have reference-based pricing, which is a form of two-tiering. We have private hospital rooms for privileged upper- and middle-income individuals. We have artificial limbs that individuals have to pay for separately and that are not covered by the Medical Services Plan. We have a drug tier, in addition, with first nations, social assistance, old age pensioners and Pharmacare. So the working poor pay for their medications, whereas other people do not.

In the course of injury, patients pay for bandages, braces and casts, which are all procured at the hospital. We pay for our private nursing homes, private counselling with psychologists, laser therapy and uninsured visits to specialists that have to do with any of the cosmetic procedures, etc.

We do not insure dental care. In British Columbia we insure every other part of your body, to some extent, except your mouth. We do not insure disability in-services, rehabilitation services or audiology. Hearing aids and hearing tests are not covered by B.C. Medical. Uninsured patients are not covered by B.C. Medical, as far as I am aware. And if they are not treated, then that is absorbed by the physician who treats them, if they haven't paid their MSP premiums.

I think that saying we're not talking about two-tier is not grammatically correct. Two-tier means that the patient pays for part of their services and the government pays for the other part. I think that two-tiered medicine is alive and well in British Columbia, whether we look at that or not. In fact, statistics say that 30 percent of Canadians receive health care from a second tier in the United States.

Deinsurance is a very prickly topic, and it's something this minister will have to deal with. I have no feelings on whether it's right or wrong; it's just something where we need education, in terms of the public.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think I have to get used to the hon. member's speaking style. The last comment didn't jibe with the list, first of all, because, of course, we have to discuss this in the context of the Canada Health Act. I personally know, from sitting at the cabinet table, that there have been times when provinces have been accused of being in violation of the Canada Health Act, and our province is not in violation of the Canada Health Act.

Second, it would be my premise that we have the most comprehensive publicly funded health care system in Canada. Just referring to the supplementary benefits provided by our province would.... Adding dental surgery to that would clearly demonstrate that.

I would put forward that a one-tier health care system means having access to health care based on need, and a two-tier system means access to health care based on the ability to pay. We support the first premise, and as recently as February 1996, the hon. member for Matsqui said that the Liberal government would support private clinics. He also said, two months later: "I cannot tell you how often I have heard from people who are told that members and bureaucrats within the Ministry of Health think it is deplorable that anyone would consider making money being involved in health care for profit. B.C. Liberals would change that attitude." So we have demonstrated by action a commitment to a comprehensive health care system.

A. Sanders: I can't speak for the member for Matsqui; I'm sure he could speak for himself if he were here. However, the circumstance is that the principles of accessibility are not being met in British Columbia. We're doing the best we can, I hope, under the present circumstances. But based on the fact that we have waiting lists and differentials in terms of some people having extended benefits if they work for a certain group and other people not having them.... These are examples of two-tiered medicine. You can define two-tiered as being: "Those who pay, can." That's one way to define it. But at the same time, if you are in a situation where you work for a company and they pay your extended medical benefits, then it's because your company can pay. That is, in fact, a two-tiered situation. I think it's a moot point in terms of what the difference is. We certainly don't have equal access in all areas of British Columbia.

These are the things that we are working on, I'm hoping, in this ministry. But to say that they are there.... What you will find if you read reports from any other government is that every province claims that they have the best health care system in Canada. That's part of what governments do when they run a province.

S. Hawkins: I think what we're trying to get across here today is that we on this side of the House are concerned that health care remain as comprehensive as possible. When I see things like this happening, I get concerned that we are chiselling away at services that were previously provided, just to make up for some of the bad mismanagement going on in other parts of government. This government says that health care comes first and foremost. Chiselling away at services, and perhaps putting the onus on the health care providers to contain those costs, is not, in my opinion, the best way of doing it.

People will continue to get ill. People will continue to need care. Just because we want to save money and take away from services that are being provided doesn't mean that people are not going to use those services or not get sick. It just doesn't work that way. In fact, our health care costs are rising because of the population increase, because of people getting sicker, because they are living longer -- all kinds of things. This is a major concern. Instead of dealing with the problem of appropriately funding programs, perhaps we are looking at other things as scapegoats. One of them now, perhaps, is deinsuring services and maybe pretending that the problem doesn't exist. It might seem very small, but I'll tell you right now, there are people that it would deter from going to a clinic or getting things checked.

Getting away from that, the minister did mention that the agreement now between the BCMA and the Medical Services Commission was a cap on the amount. I'm wondering what the cap is.

[5:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The cap is that the expenditures for this year will be the same as for last year. All the expenditures aren't in just yet, but it will be somewhere between $1.4 billion and $1.407 billion.

[ Page 2030 ]

S. Hawkins: What is the penalty for exceeding the cap?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The hard cap is part of the agreement with the BCMA, and it's monitored regularly between the government and the BCMA. There's also a reserve fund built in there of approximately $23 million that can be used as a cushion -- this is all part of the agreement -- against the cap. Now, part of the agreement is to develop guidelines for what happens when it is anticipated that the cap may be exceeded, and the agreement provides for price cuts if necessary.

S. Hawkins: Can you define price cuts?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's part of what will be developed with the guidelines. We're working on that with the BCMA right now. It will be by agreement.

S. Hawkins: The reason I ask about penalties.... Again, there are areas of the province that have trouble with physician recruitment, and we are hearing figures as high as a 12 to 17 percent clawback. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. I'm unaware of that.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister has statistics to date on whether the funding for MSP is on target right now and has not exceeded.... I'm sure they monitor it on a quarterly basis, at least, so I wonder if the minister can tell us if they're on target right now.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the preliminary numbers show that they're slightly over budget, but there's no.... We're not moving toward any decision to deal with this right now, but we are in discussions with the BCMA around the guidelines for such.

S. Hawkins: When the minister says "slightly over budget," is that for the first two quarters?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As I say, this is all preliminary, so it's a forecast, as well. We have the first three months in, and it's on the basis of that that there's a prediction of going slightly over budget. It is a forecast only.

S. Hawkins: I don't understand how the ministry is going to figure this out, so I'm looking for some explanation. Certainly I get concerns from physicians who are either planning to move here or who are here and feel that it might not necessarily be their fault that the system is so used that the cap gets exceeded. They plan, obviously, for their life in a certain way, with their hours and everything, and to be threatened with a clawback.... And I know the minister is going to tell me that the BCMA agreed to this, but again, I understand that it was done under very, very extenuating circumstances; I've heard it described as holding a gun to their head. This is information I'm getting from members of the BCMA, unfortunately.

Anyway, I wonder if the minister can tell me what the forecast is for the overrun that's projected and what would happen then. How would you get this money back if there was an overrun?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I have answered both of those questions. Just let me make it clear, though. While some may disagree with the process of collective negotiations and reaching a collective agreement, this is a collective agreement. It was considered by the membership of the BCMA for ten weeks. The vote was 1,800 to 500 in favour of it. I don't know any other way, when one sets up an organization like the B.C. Medical Association.... To then have thrown at us as a government, "Sorry, it didn't work; it wasn't the right way to do it...." A collective agreement is a collective.... Sorry, it's an agreement -- let me use that word, modify it, because I don't want to in any way indicate that.... Well, anyway, it's an agreement, and the vote was 1,800 to 500 after ten weeks of contemplation, of consideration.

We're working within that agreement now. The ministry is not imposing anything on them. Within that agreement, we are working with the B.C. Medical Association to review the preliminary figures. There may be some provocative.... We are estimating the projection of.... Right now it's slightly over budget. Note that we will be working with the B.C. Medical Association under the protocols that will be agreed upon as a result of that agreement. That will be the basis on which price cuts may or may not be determined. I personally don't know any other way of involving physicians that would be acceptable.

S. Hawkins: Perhaps the minister may not be aware that not all physicians belong to BCMA and that this was the only organization that the government chose to negotiate with several years ago. It was an arbitrary decision made by the government that this was the doctors' organization that they were going to recognize.

My concern is for patients and for physicians who are providing service out in the community. These kinds of constrictions cause grave concerns for patients, because physicians who are trying to do their job see this as perhaps some kind of penalty for a service they're providing in good faith. As I said, in areas where we're having trouble with physician recruitment, these kinds of policies certainly don't help.

Regardless, it's interesting that we are keeping forecasts and that we're over the projected limit right now. Again, that's an area that the minister is possibly going to have to address and face the repercussions of, I guess, when it comes to the so-called clawbacks.

I'd like to move on to premiums. Does the minister have a number on how much we get from MSP premiums?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've answered the question. It's $800 million.

Just for the record, the BCMA has the ability to negotiate for non-members. They have a membership of over 90 percent of the doctors in this province, and to their credit, their membership is greatly expanding over the last few years.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me of any other provinces that charge premiums?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Alberta.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me how many CareCards B.C. has issued?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's 4.5 million.

S. Hawkins: On what basis is it determined that premiums will be charged or waived for patients?

[ Page 2031 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's income-tested subsidy rates, and 816,000 people pay no premiums. Approximately 23 percent pay none and an additional 5 percent get premium subsidies. The rest pay full price. Again, 30 percent get a subsidy.

S. Hawkins: Did you say 30 percent get a subsidy?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Twenty-three percent pay no premiums and approximately another 5 percent get partial subsidy of premiums.

S. Hawkins: I've brought this up before with the minister. To me, this is some kind of a user fee, because now.... Maybe I'm wrong. Apparently, there is a ministry directive that whether you pay the premium or not, you're covered under MSP. Maybe the minister can clarify that for me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In order to be in compliance with the Canada Health Act, residents of the country have to have access to medical services. Therefore coverage can't be a restriction to that. But it is also required, then, that one maintain coverage. In the context of that, our government is insured. Just the same way as the income tax system is progressive -- it could be more progressive -- within that same context, there's a progressive payment around premiums.

In terms of user fees, let me just say that $800 million.... As for raising revenue, I would be more than interested in finding a way of doing that in a different fashion, in the context of the request for expenditure by this ministry and this government, including the capital expenditure. For instance, in Ontario, while they don't collect premiums, they do have a payroll tax that goes specifically to health care. So any suggestions from the members opposite about a different way of raising $800 million for this would be most welcome.

S. Hawkins: The reason I was asking.... Whether you pay your premiums or not, you're still covered. I understand that it's a new directive that whether you're covered or not, you're still going to be provided with the service; MSP is still going to cover you. Am I correct? That's what I was asking before.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In order to be in compliance with the Canada Health Act, health care has to be accessible. That's true of any province. We have said yes. It will not be contingent upon the hospital or the physician to monitor that. The physician and the hospital will provide the service; then it's up to the Ministry of Health to ensure that coverage is there and maintained. So we've removed compliance under the Canada Health Act from the responsibility of the health care provider.

S. Hawkins: So if a patient who is not covered or who has failed to pay their premium goes to a physician, the physician can still bill for that patient. Is that correct?

[5:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: A British Columbian's being in arrears for their MSP coverage is not a preclusion from receiving payment. In other words, if the patient is registered but hasn't kept her premiums up to date, that will have no effect on the doctor's or hospital's ability to be paid.

What we are facing here, of course, is that we have to have some way of.... People who are unregistered completely.... There is no way that we can possibly cover that. But we are anticipating changes in the upcoming session to make widely known the obligation on people not only to register but also to pay premiums. In a fashion, that's cost-effective, as well.

S. Hawkins: Am I hearing from the minister that perhaps collection agencies will be used to collect premiums from patients who don't pay?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That hasn't been determined.

S. Hawkins: Getting back to cost-containing MSP, I wonder if the ministry.... I don't think you can just put the onus on one group to contain. I believe the government had an ad campaign in the last year or two dealing with this; perhaps it wasn't the most positive ad campaign. It was to do with patient education. I wonder if the ministry is undertaking any other programs to educate patients on the utilization of health care, rather than leaving it to providers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I missed that last part.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry has some programs in place, or if they are planning any projects to educate patients, so that the onus isn't only on the health care providers to help contain costs in health care.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is interesting, because I know the ad campaign the hon. member is referring to. Actually, as one who was busy with other issues at the time, I was surprised at the reaction to that ad campaign, as well. But the ad campaign was done in cooperation with the BCMA. . . . It was done jointly, I should say, not in cooperation. Actually, the tag lines were from both the government and the BCMA. I think we both learned our lesson from that. Yes, we are discussing ways to do it better, and those discussions are ongoing with the BCMA.

A. Sanders: There was $6 million put aside for the ad campaign that was not spent in the '95-96 estimates. Has that money been brought forward? Where did it go?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea where the hon. member got $6 million from, but let me tell you what is happening. There is a further $1.5 million budgeted for education and communications activity under the Medical Services Plan, in which we work with the BCMA and the government to support public and physician education initiatives mandated under the working agreement. It's interesting that we're not contemplating advertising as a component of the activities this year. We'll probably direct perhaps a more effective approach this time.

S. Hawkins: If I can just make a suggestion, one of the methods that is used in some other provinces is sending a patient a copy of the bill. I know that gets expensive, as well, but the government seems to send out all kinds of publications. Maybe that's something they can consider in educating patients. I know that was the case in Saskatchewan, and certainly New Brunswick is looking at giving the patient a rundown -- not a bill, but a record of the services they used. Again, it's a way of reminding the patient. I know there are lots of patients that go looking for services. If they don't get the proper answer from one doctor, they go to another. It's just a way of reminding them how many times they are using the system and what it's costing. It's a bit of an eye-opener, and I 

[ Page 2032 ]

know it's been effective to a point in some other jurisdictions. So that's just an idea. I would certainly be willing to sit down and talk to the minister about some other types of patient education and the ways that could be cost-saving. I think this money is precious, and it certainly needs to go into areas where it's going to be better utilized.

I know the member for Peace River North has questions, so I'll defer to him.

R. Neufeld: Listening to the discussion -- and I'm going to listen for a while before I ask some other questions -- the MSP premiums that the minister spoke about earlier.... I'm just not clear. If someone has failed to pay their premiums and receives a service, the doctor is able to bill the government for the service. What transpires then? Does the government then bill the person that hasn't paid the premium? Take it a little further for me, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've shifted the onus of responsibility for the non-premium-payment away from the physician. We've taken that away, and the physician and/or the hospital will be paid. It's now incumbent upon the government to ensure that people are registered and that the premiums are collected. We are now looking at ways....

What we did before was just not pay for the service, and that put us at risk of being in non-compliance with the Canada Health Act. So we've shifted that to where the responsibility should be, which is within the ministry. It will be up to government to collect the premium payments.

R. Neufeld: I'm not going to belabour it, but I have a constituent who, in fact, just recently called my office, and failed to maintain the premium payments. This constituent had a broken arm, I believe, went in and had the work done and received a bill from the government. I forget the dollar amount, but it was whatever it costs to set an arm and do all the things that are associated with that. So as I understand it, then, the doctor got paid for the service, and what the government is doing is billing the person for the service. Is that correct, and is that what's normally done?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be more than happy to look into the particular circumstances there, because there are some factors that we did discuss earlier, as well. In the first place, the person has to be a registrant in order for us to collect the premiums and keep the registrant current. The government wouldn't be billing the patient under the circumstances you describe. I'm more than happy to look into the particular circumstances that you are describing to get to the bottom of it on behalf of your constituent.

R. Neufeld: To be fair, I'll get some more information about it. I understand the patient phoned and said that they were being billed by the government for the cost of the service. If that's not correct, then I stand corrected. But I'll get the information for the minister.

S. Hawkins: The minister had stated earlier that there are clinical practice guidelines, or a program to develop such in consultation with the BCMA. I'm wondering if we can get.... Obviously, this is probably another cost-saving measure. If there's some kind of standardization out there, that would probably reduce duplication and all kinds of things, I'm sure. I wonder if we can get a status report on how they're coming along.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Good news on the front for clinical CPGs, as we call it in the ministry -- clinical practice guidelines. There's actually good progress being made on this. The available amount is under discussion, and the BCMA has actually assumed the lead for coordinating the CPGs. Really, the association is showing a great deal of interest in the timely development of clinical practice guidelines.

To move it forward even further, the BCMA has requested, and actually the Medical Services Commission has now approved, an independent evaluation of the process for developing clinical practice guidelines. That evaluation will focus on the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the current system; and it was intended to be used in order to speed up the process.

A. Sanders: One point of clarification and then a question for the minister. The $6 million I mentioned was the amount designated in Bill 71 over a period of four years for patient education, to be divided up in packages or aliquots. My understanding is that only a portion of that was spent, around $1 million, so there is an additional $5 million somewhere. It's the unused portion that I was looking for the whereabouts of.

In terms of clinical practice guidelines, I have a thought that I'd like the minister to ponder. When we go into the circumstance of having clinical practice guidelines, basically, that's a kind of cookbook medicine where you have a person with a thyroid problem and you do this test; then if this test shows this answer, you do this; and if it doesn't, you do something else. So it's almost like a computerized program, a diagnostic model. What would be the implications for the ministry in terms of legal responsibility when the ministry instigates clinical practice guidelines? For some areas it's not going to be too controversial, but I'm thinking of a new one coming in, perhaps, for cardiac drugs and hypertension. Do the ministry's lawyers have an opinion on what the ministry's responsibility will be in terms of the legality of using these guidelines on patients in practices in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The clinical practice guidelines are not the ministry's. They would result from the Medical Services Commission, the tripartite commission. It's the physicians who decide whether to follow the CPGs or not, not anyone else, and they're guidelines, not rules. So I would assume that the questions of liability would be the same questions that exist elsewhere in medical practice.

[5:30]

A. Sanders: That's interesting. Does that mean, for example, that if we make a CPG for treatment of hypertension, the first thing a physician uses for that condition is a diuretic and then the second thing is a beta blocker -- the names are not important, just the concept that under the CPG this is number one and this is number two. If that physician then chooses to use a different drug, a third drug, because the patient is diabetic or has compounding coronary artery disease, what are the implications of that in terms of the medication? If you are covered for medication, will you only be paid by the ministry if one is there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I can't answer that question. I'm not a physician. But I'd be more than happy to arrange for a briefing on this -- perhaps in the hon. member's role as a physician -- or to have her join some discussions that are ongoing now with the BCMA on the development of these guidelines. It would be folly for me, as an economist from East Vancouver, to answer that question. I appreciate the importance of it, and I'll arrange for a further detailed briefing on it.

[ Page 2033 ]

S. Hawkins: Doctors are not the only ones billing MSP; there are other groups, as well. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what is being done with other groups to help contain the costs of health care under MSP?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The same sort of cooperative working arrangements exist with other practitioner associations -- I'm dealing specifically with supplementary benefits now, so that the supplementary benefits are managed within existing resources. Actually, there have been times when prices have actually had to be cut in supplementary benefits. But each profession is working with us in the same fashion that we're working with the physicians.

S. Hawkins: I don't understand the term "supplementary benefit." Could you explain that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's part of that unbelievably comprehensive health care system that exists in British Columbia. Actually, it's the services like dental surgery, chiropractic, naturopathy, physical therapy, podiatry, optometry and massage therapy. We refer to those as supplementary benefits, because they're not required under the Canada Health Act.

S. Hawkins: Are there any firm agreements in place right now, like the working agreement between BCMA and the government? If so, can the minister share those details with us?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we have agreements with all of the practitioner associations. I can make those available to you.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. We'd be interested in seeing those, as well.

I've been asked to bring another issue related to MSP to the minister's attention. I guess it's to do with what you call supplementary benefits. I know that some of the other professions like chiropractic and physiotherapy charge over and above what MSP will pay. Sometimes that is a hardship to patients. I believe MSP pays for a certain number of visits, and the rest are paid for by the patient. Over and above some of the visits that are paid for by the patient, there's a surcharge or what we would call a user fee charged to the patient. I believe some of these professions have been lobbying for higher fees under MSP so they don't have to pass this charge on to the patient. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Because these are not services that are required under the Canada Health Act, the same restrictions don't apply, actually, to the practitioners. They can actually extra-bill, whereas physicians can't. There are visit limits; you're quite right. There are 15 per year of supplementary benefits for seniors and a limit of 12 for everyone else. They're actually part of our MSP, Medical Services Plan, but they're not services required under the Canada Health Act. So that's why there's a difference in the rules.

S. Hawkins: I guess we could get into an academic discussion, then, of what is medically necessary and what isn't. I guess for some patients chiropractic is more medically necessary than perhaps going to a physician, so there seems to be some unfairness in the system. Certainly our MSP plan can't fund everything. Again, it is up to the government to sort out what it can fund and what it can't. But it is a concern that constituents and patients bring forward. The different professions that keep being added on to MSP and impacting the cost of MSP do stress out that fund as well. So that's something for the government to consider when they're bringing new professions on line and paying for it.

You did clear up something last night, because we were under the impression that perhaps midwifery was going to be fee-for-service. It's not. But those are the kinds of things that impact on a fund like this, and it's important to keep that in mind.

I'm going to defer now to one of the other members who has some questions.

P. Reitsma: I have a couple of localized questions, if I might. First of all, thanks, although according to the people -- I'm talking about the NRGH, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital -- it's about an 87 percent thanks rather than 100 percent. That's for the recent funding, of course, announced as per your release on August 9. They were asking for a $1.746 million supplement to balance the budget, and they got $1.5 million, which is about $246,000 short. That will mean that about $172,000 in administrative and support efficiency measures will be undertaken immediately. However, it also means that, in addition, nursing staffing in the rehabilitation unit won't be increased, leaving the current practice of limiting admissions according to the nursing availability in place. Secondly, the needleless IV and medication delivery system to protect staff against needle-stick injury will be delayed. I wonder if the minister would wish to comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, an 87 percent thanks from a Liberal member I'll take as deserved. I appreciate the thanks.

It's interesting. These are exactly the kinds of pressures that we face each and every day, and I'm not going to be like my ministerial colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who actually added up every request that was made and tabled it in the House during the report-out. I won't do that. But this is an example of where the hon. member and I both agree that there are circumstances facing the regional hospital catchment area in this area of population increases. It's why our ministry staff are working very hard with the CEO -- the administrator of the hospital, Mr. Freeborn -- and his staff to develop and implement long-term solutions to the difficulties.

The hon. member and I have discussed some of those potential long-term solutions. Base funding for the NRGH has increased by $9.7 million since 1992. It represents a 21 percent increase over a four-year period, and every other B.C. hospital got an average of about 16 percent. Also, there was significant transition funding of $4.6 million, over and above the 21 percent, just in the last two years.

We also announced, at the same time that we gave the $1.5 million to the NRGH on top of the almost $60 million, that we will be doing an external review that will begin in September. We'll be looking at hospital operations, management and service delivery processes, medical and staff practices, operational efficiencies and utilization management issues. I hope very much that the review will be comprehensive enough to address the concerns, whether they are founded or unfounded, that NRGH is underfunded, and I really look forward to the results of that external review.

P. Reitsma: I do, too. We are adding up the numbers, and, of course, the numbers coming into our area.... Over the last 24 years, the population in our area has increased 500 percent, particularly the proportion of senior citizens. I do very much 

[ Page 2034 ]

look forward to the review, because I hope that it might be a vehicle for a true representation of the funding that we think we need. We welcome that particular review.

Might I ask the minister what the status of phase 2 is at the Nanaimo Regional District Hospital? It's operating room No. 1, the surgical suite, the labour delivery room and a number of other ones.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's under review.

P. Reitsma: I talked to the hospital yesterday and today, actually, and I understand they have been given the go-ahead for the planning. However, I just wonder if that's going to be some comfort to them in terms of.... Planning is one thing, but is there some light at the end of the tunnel? And I'm not meaning an oncoming train.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Your information is correct that the planning will continue. I'm sorry -- what was the second part of the question?

P. Reitsma: It was that I hope the planning is not a delay in the inevitable but that, indeed, there is some comfort that by doing the planning, they can look forward to the much-needed completion of OR No. 1.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll pass on the hon. member's lobbying efforts.

P. Reitsma: I'll keep on lobbying, I suppose.

One of my constituents.... The minister has replied, but I talked to him this morning. He has tried to get eye surgery, and he's been waiting for four months. The doctor tells him it's going to be at least another three to four months. I appreciate the letter from the minister, which says that it is a day care procedure and that there may be options for earlier treatments.

The fact of the matter is that there is no operating time in Nanaimo at the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital or at the West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. Not only is there no operating time, there is no time available. There are not enough operating rooms, and that is a critical situation in our area. This particular gentleman, whom I just talked to an hour or two ago, has talked to his doctor, and that is the problem: there is no operating time, and there are not enough operating rooms. It has been four months, and it is going to be at least another three to four months.

Secondly, the same person -- I guess he is not as well as most of us -- needs a CT scan for his back and has been told that it will be eight months before his time comes up. I've got your letter of August 13, but that's really not good enough.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are two legitimate points, it's true. The CT scan will be going into Nanaimo -- you were absent -- in September. There are eight CT scans going out for tender, one of which will go into Nanaimo. So that will greatly alleviate the pressure in that area. CT scanner is the proper term.

I appreciate the concerns that the member raises -- the population pressures -- around operating rooms. Part of it, of course, is the ambulatory-care building that is now under construction for the NRGH, $7.2 million.... That will have two new operating rooms in it. I do appreciate your concerns, and it is anticipated that the surgery waiting list will be reduced by about 20 percent with the opening of that in the spring. Also, the points you raised would be valid points to look at throughout the external review.

[5:45]

P. Reitsma: The ambulatory-care facility is, I think, not in the freeze. I believe it is proceeding as planned.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is my point. It is expected to be open and operating, literally, in the spring.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada