[ Page 3339 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

H. Lali: Today we have in the galleries two constituents of mine: Rory and Debbie Schwartz from Tulameen. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, would the House please welcome Francesco Lurati, Delfina Lurati and Bobbie Weber-Smith. Francesco and Delfina are here from the U.K. Please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: Here in the gallery today we have a young woman and her friend. The young woman is the daughter of one our very hard-working Hansard people, Mike Gower. Her name is Emma Gower. She's six years old, and she's here in the visitors' gallery with a friend from New Zealand, Tara English. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House a past longtime resident of the community of Fort Nelson. You'll remember that I don't very often get to get up and introduce anyone from the north because they hardly ever come down. This person has moved to Vernon, and I just scooped the member from Vernon. I'm sorry, I had to do that because I didn't think you were coming into the House. Would the House please make Buster Hannah welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, joining the House in the members' gallery is a former MLA for Richmond, Nick Loenen, who I understand has recently published a book, Citizenship and Democracy: A Case for Proportional Representation. I can assure members that I am not advertising the book, but I would ask all members to give him a warm welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to, again, do what I did yesterday during my estimates -- to welcome to the House my mother Mary MacPhail. I want to assure the House that she is innocent and naïve and should have no questions asked of her, please. Would the House please make my mother welcome.

A. Sanders: I too would like to introduce Mr. Buster Hannah -- because he belongs to me now -- and welcome him here.

The Speaker: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: Oh, you remembered, hon. Speaker.

Well, speaking of remembering, Mr. Loenen is here. Sitting right behind him, of course, is one of the best spin doctors in the business, the former aide -- or media secretary, I guess it was -- to Premier Harcourt: Andy Orr. Would all members please give him a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

RESOURCES FOR CHILD PROTECTION

Will the minister now take us up on our offer, and to sit down with members of this chamber and map out a comprehensive strategy to be sure that in the next year and the years that follow we will properly protect the children of British Columbia and allocate the appropriate resources to do just that?

Hon. P. Priddy: As I indicated to the opposition before -- and I think there are a number of issues, actually, we're working on that have to do with the safety of children in British Columbia -- I'm always pleased to do that, and we can continue to do that in an even more comprehensive way. I think that when we speak to the issue of resources, there are one or two points I would want to make.

One of them is that I don't suppose you'd have any minister who would turn down additional resources, but I think that before one went and did that, there are two things to consider. One of them is that we are looking at the whole child-serving system to see whether there is duplication. Are there efficiencies? Are there ways of saving money within the additional system in areas of duplication of services? We have already been able to find additional dollars for the foster care review, for case assistance, for social workers.

The other thing, I think. . . . I hear the child advocate's comment, and I think we need to respect her work. But Judge Gove himself said in his report that we have enough money in our system, and it is an issue of doing our work differently. So I think there are a variety of perspectives to bring to this.

G. Campbell: There are clearly a variety of perspectives to bring to this, and that's exactly what we're asking the minister to do -- not in the back rooms, not through briefings, but through an organized and appropriate response for all Members of the Legislative Assembly to sit down together and look at these issues one at a time and to look at what resources need to be allocated.

The children's advocate is very clear: this year's issues are last year's issues. Without appropriate resources, they will, unfortunately, be next year's issues. What we're trying to do is resolve some of these issues. My question to the minister is: is she willing to work with all of us to gather together the concerns of people on the outside, of the young people on the outside and of the children's advocate, and to work with members of the Legislature to allocate the resources that are necessary so that next year we can make real progress with regard to protecting children in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it is important to note that there is a standing committee on Gove in which the opposition members are represented and which seems to me to have been a format to raise issues on which both the child advocate and the ombudsperson -- ombudsman, ombudsperson or ombuddy, I think she prefers to be called -- have presented reports on progress, as we have as well. So there is a standing committee that exists.

Again, to go back to the issue of resources and the need for more resources, I think it is important that we first finish our examination of the system to know where those resources 

[ Page 3340 ]

might be needed. Is there duplication? Can we find resources within the system, as we have so far been able to do with a number of new initiatives?

It's interesting to note that this is the second report in as many days, I think, or three days -- one from the ombudsperson and one from the child and youth advocate -- that said two important things. One of them is that the government is getting its priorities right, that it is moving ahead and that that effort should be sustained. And it recognizes the magnitude of change that is going on in this government.

G. Campbell: The challenge here. . . . As the minister herself has said, she needs resources. The children's advocate has said we need resources. On this side of the House, we recognize that we need resources, and we have to establish a forum at least, where we can discuss these programs fully and openly. Foster parents are saying they need resources. They need a place to come, a place to talk about the problems they face so we can come up with solutions to them.

The child advocate's report quotes the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks: "To really have a voice, I need the opportunity to say it -- my way -- to someone who really listens and can do something about it." We do not have that in this Legislature, and I'm asking the minister to reach out to all members of this House, to all members of the child care community, to all the citizens of British Columbia who want to help in solving this problem. Will she not do that, hon. Speaker?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I will do it, and yes, we are doing that.

I think, though, that for one thing it's important to note that this is a report that was completed when this ministry was 99 days old -- very much in its infancy. But in every region of this province -- and there are now 20 regions within this ministry -- there are mandatory -- I repeat, mandatory -- advisory committees to every regional operating officer.

[2:15]

As well, with the task force that was established, three youth in care from the Youth in Care Network, who actually grew up in government care, are represented there. So we certainly have more work to do on youth and children's voices, but we have made a good start on that.

INCIDENCE OF REPORTS
OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Hon. P. Priddy: I spoke with the child advocate last Friday about the issues she was going to raise in her report. It's interesting that the calls my office gets are that we overinvestigate, not underinvestigate. We've asked the child advocate to provide us with information about complaints not being investigated. If somebody does not bring that to me as a systemic issue, then I cannot work to change that.

I think the child advocate acknowledged in her report two weeks ago that what she was presenting to people in terms of the data, if you will, was anecdotal information based on phone calls to her office -- not necessarily some sort of research information, but any information she has about complaints not investigated. If you look at it through the eyes of the child, which is how we do our work in this ministry and what I ask everybody to do, then we need to be sure that children are safe. If people are concerned that children are not safe and we are not investigating, then I need to know that in order to be able to address it.

M. Coell: The child advocate states in her report that requests for assistance from her office by children are growing at the rate of 11 percent per month. Can the minister tell us how she intends to respond to these serious concerns that are repeatedly raised by the children's advocate?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of children calling, in some ways. . . . I don't know how to describe that. The children's advocate, I think, has done an excellent piece of work because she works in the region, she does a lot of development work, and she talks to a lot of children and youth. So they know that they can call her office, they can do that in safety and they can report concerns. What needs to then happen is that we need -- not just in a report but in a more regular way -- to hear those concerns that children don't feel their voices are being heard.

We have made some changes in the last legislation. For instance, children in foster care will be interviewed by social workers away from the foster family -- that's actually quite new; that never happened before -- so children can express their voices safely.

So if children are calling the child advocate and saying they have concerns, we are more than prepared. . . . I think we need to go beyond the Zenith 1234 number. There are a number of other initiatives we can take, and we have indicated to the child and youth advocate our willingness and our eagerness to work with her to solve that.

ROAD DISREPAIR IN PEACE REGION

What steps has the minister taken to ensure that roads are made passable in the short term and to restore integrity to our rural road system in the long run?

Hon. L. Boone: Finally, somebody shows some interest in our highways in this Legislature -- the first question this year.

I'm really pleased to answer this. In fact, I was in discussion with your colleague -- your other member in the House, the member for Peace River North -- just this morning, advising him that I'm very concerned about your roads. I have 

[ Page 3341 ]

asked my assistant deputy minister to go to the Peace, and he is making arrangements. We are reallocating some resources from other areas within the province into your area, because we recognize that it has been neglected -- not just by this government but by your previous government, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I guess that's what happens when you miss a caucus meeting. [Laughter.]

Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Roads are essential to allow people to get to work and to school, and to access health care. A 92-year-old invalid lady was told recently to get a four-wheel drive to take her to a doctor's appointment. Farmers, forestry contractors and the petroleum industry depend on roads to support the economic activity that sends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Victoria.

Will the minister agree today to commit the necessary funds to repair these roads, or are we going to allow them to continue to disintegrate until only complete reconstruction is the answer?

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me an opportunity to again say that I'm very pleased that today we have made arrangements for the assistant deputy minister to go into the Peace area. He's going to be meeting with the mayors; he's going to be meeting with our staff up there. We are in fact reallocating dollars from elsewhere in the province into the Peace, because we recognize the condition of those roads. Hon. member, I think that this should be a message to those in the Vancouver area that say that $70 million is not enough to put into the Lions Gate Bridge. The Peace would absolutely die to have $70 million invested in their communities.

SERVICES FOR TROUBLED YOUTH

Hon. P. Priddy: As I acknowledged a few minutes ago, there is a lot more work to be done about what we can do to make youth voices heard. To begin with, as I mentioned, there is mandatory involvement on all the advisory committees that direct the work of the regional operating officers in the 20 regions in our province. When we are establishing task forces that affect youths' lives, we have youth, particularly youth in care, involved in that, and their view is critical to us. We are developing a children's lens, so that when we look at policy and legislation it is looked at through the eyes of a child. We are working at developing a youth participation model to see where else we can have youth voices influencing the work that we do. Yes, there is more work to be done. There has been a start made. We will take any suggestions from the opposition or from the children's advocate about how we can do that specifically.

B. Penner: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned a few issues that the government is working on. However, the advocate highlights concerns for older teenagers and street kids, who all too frequently fall through the cracks and are forgotten by the ministry. The advocate specifically says that the government has not taken a leadership role in helping communities develop and sustain programs aimed at troubled youth.

Will the minister tell us what specific resources she needs to provide these services? What specifically does the minister need to live up to the mandate of her ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of youth 16 to 19, which I think is what the advocate is referring to in her report -- again, which was done 99 days into the ministry -- youths from 16 to 19 get their income assistance money -- and have historically -- from the Ministry of Human Resources, and there has been no way to coordinate support services and programs to those youth. With the proclamation of section 9, which influences youth 16 to 19 -- which we have agreed to do -- we will have the funding resources for them. We will also develop a plan of action with them that looks at providing those additional supports of school. . .maybe it's child care, maybe it's respite -- whatever it is. There are currently 1,900 youth in this province receiving assistance from the Ministry of Human Resources, and that will come over to us. Of those, 80 percent are 18- and 19-year-olds, and the rest are 16- and 17-year-olds; one-third are single parents.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)

S. Hawkins: We're still on the subject of regionalization. I just want to go back to the regionalization assessment team's terms of reference. There are four that they were asked to keep in mind when they were reviewing New Directions and regionalization in the province, and I just want to read them. The first one, as listed in order, is "optimizing the value of public dollars spent on direct service delivery," the second is "maintaining provincial standards of quality and access to health care," the third is "achieving administrative and clinical efficiencies," and the fourth is "reducing bureaucracy, waste and duplication." They were asked to undertake consultations and seek written input as necessary with respect to those four objectives.

[ Page 3342 ]

[2:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In terms of what my priority is for regionalization of health care, patient care is first and foremost -- delivering better patient care.

S. Hawkins: I'm actually referring to the terms of reference that the recommendations for the Better Teamwork, Better Care model came out of. These were the four objectives that the RAT team -- I hate to use that acronym, but that's sort of what stuck -- used to make the changes to ensure that their new model would work. Those were the four objectives.

If there wasn't any one that took priority over the other, I'm wondering what the ministry has done or put in place to demonstrate that each of these objectives have been met.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the Better Teamwork, Better Care announcement has encompassed our view of taking into account the recommendations of the regional assessment team's report. I'd be happy to answer specifics on. . . . I have gone over the objectives of how the system can deliver better patient care, administrative cost savings, accountability. I would be happy to answer specific questions on what I've already reported.

S. Hawkins: The system was redesigned. There were four objectives -- they were specific in the terms of reference -- that this team used to set up this new model. That's what they were supposed to use to make sure the new system actually had something that it followed, and it was apparently these four objectives. Those were the objectives that the consultations were supposed to be derived from.

My question, then, to the minister, is: if you're not using these objectives, is there another set of objectives now in place that you're using to evaluate how the system is going to work?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The terms of reference were for the regional assessment team. If the question is, am I satisfied that the regional assessment team addressed all of the terms of reference? the answer is yes. Do the recommendations address all of the terms of reference? Yes. Did we act on all of the recommendations? The way we announced Better Teamwork, Better Care took into account all of the recommendations made by the regional assessment team.

S. Hawkins: What objective measurements are now being used, then, to measure and evaluate the boards and regionalization as it stands now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I addressed that yesterday. If there's further clarification needed, maybe the member could be more specific. I did address it yesterday.

S. Hawkins: Okay, what ongoing assessment tools, then, are being used to demonstrate that optimum value is being spent on services provided by these boards and councils?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I honestly do not mean to be cheeky about this, because I don't want to use the reference "if the member could read the Blues," but the accountability framework for health authorities was discussed at length yesterday. I outlined specifically how that accountability was going to take place, including the measurements, how we were going to determine the measurements and what follow-up there would be for that accountability. So I'm a little bit at a loss as to what more I could add to the discussion -- unless the hon. member wasn't present for that.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, we're told that there's going to be a streamlined bureaucracy, that there's going to be more money put to direct service and that these are actually going to be measured -- there are going to be measurable outcomes. Are there assessment tools developed? If there are not, then there are not. And if there are not, are they being developed? How is the ministry going to evaluate if the regional health boards are actually going to do the goals that have been set for them to do?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is what I read into the record yesterday, hon. Chair, and this is why I'm referring the member to the Blues from yesterday. Benchmarks for performance in specific areas will be established by the Ministry of Health in conjunction with the industries. These benchmarks will be made public, and the performance of providers relative to those benchmarks will be documented. Among the specific areas where benchmarks will be established are: waiting times for selected procedures; quality-care indicators such as readmissions, infection rates, postoperative mortality -- stop me if this is sounding familiar -- length of stay for selected admissions; availability of appropriate services, such as preadmission clinics, postoperative community care, appropriate community day care services; and patient satisfaction. I will publish an annual report on the regional authority's performance. Is any of that sounding familiar?

S. Hawkins: I would say that that does sound familiar in generalities, I guess, and we're looking for specifics.

You're talking about benchmarks. Well, what tools are being used to measure those benchmarks? Do you have anything in place, or are they just being developed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: My frivolity has nothing to do with our debate. My apologies for that.

The benchmarks will be decided by the. . . . Well, first of all, benchmarks exist now in the industry. Some have been used in this province, and others have not. But we will make the benchmarks public, and the industry is working with us on those benchmarks right now -- the specific tools that are being developed for them right now.

The areas that we have put forward for the industry to consider are budgets and expenditure plans, payments for physicians and other practitioners, beds and program seat slots. Those are the input measures. Input measures have been extensively reported in our annual report and also in the Public Accounts for many years. Those tools are already within the industry.

What is done with the inputs is an important aspect of accountability, but it also. . . . What has to be an output is the accomplishment after these inputs have been measured.

S. Hawkins: I'll get on to the Better Teamwork, Better Care model, then, because there were areas of priority that were listed in that document. There were eight priorities, and the first one was "ensuring access to the service you need 

[ Page 3343 ]

when you need it." We know that in cancer care in British Columbia today, the B.C. Cancer Agency goal is that the time from referral to first assessment will be no longer than four weeks, and that the time from the first assessment to treatment of a cancer patient will be no longer than eight weeks.

I want to know what measures have been put into place to ensure that these kinds of guidelines will be met, in terms of performance standards by regional boards. What are they doing to address those kinds of guidelines?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Without commenting on the specifics of the numbers put forward by the hon. member, those are exactly the kinds of matters that will be addressed in the quarterly reports for waiting times and health outcomes as a result of our waiting times.

S. Hawkins: The next area of priority was "providing the best possible quality of care." I'm wondering again what the ministry has put into place for these regional health boards. Or are they just developing their own standard of quality? What is the ministry using to accept or demonstrate that this objective is met by the boards and councils?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are the accountability measures that I read about three or four minutes ago. The determination for the way in which those are assessed, in terms of performance outcomes, will be on best practice -- and then published in the annual report.

S. Hawkins: We will be looking forward to that report and to reviewing the accountability framework and whether the boards and councils are meeting quality objectives as outlined by the ministry.

The third objective was "keeping hospital lengths of stay as long as needed, but as short as possible." In this context, the measure which is used in hospitals to determine workloads and budgeting is the concept of patient-days per thousand population per year. This measure, as I'm sure the minister knows, has been steadily declining since the report of the Seaton royal commission. So I'm wondering: what target is being used as the optimal number of patient-days per thousand in the province today?

[2:45]

S. Hawkins: Does that mean each region will differ in patient-days per thousand population?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just as the Seaton commission averaged the patient-days per thousand because of the recognition that different care levels are given in different hospitals and with different population bases, I would imagine that the measurement would differ from region to region, just as it now differs from institution to institution.

S. Hawkins: How will we determine that those targets are appropriate? How will the ministry determine that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've already listed the input measures and the output measures, which are the service measures. The appropriateness measures will consist of a comparison of appropriate care, compared to the guidelines and protocols. In some larger organizations, they will go beyond even guidelines and protocols and into care maps. The quality measures will be the performance on those as against established standards which are now measured through accreditation procedures and can be built upon but are in place now.

S. Hawkins: Does the ministry foresee that these targets will be reflected on an optimal level of care or an adequate level of care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Optimal.

S. Hawkins: Will the regions be financially penalized if they fail to reach targets for length of stay in patient-days per thousand that are set for them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I don't believe the language is intentionally being adversarial, because I know the opposition's concern for patient care. We're taking a positive approach to this: that never will there be funding penalties that affect patient care, ever; that there will be a reward for meeting targets in the form of funding levels. But if we ever reach the state where even after much assistance measures are not met, then the penalties would be on administration and not patient services.

S. Hawkins: The fourth priority was "keeping wait-lists as short as possible"; that was in the Better Care model. Does that mean the regions will have the budgetary certainty to treat patients who are wait-listed within the recommended time periods that are acceptable clinically as adequate but not optimal?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the question was, will the funding meet the optimal standard? the answer is yes.

S. Hawkins: I'm sure the minister understands that the adequate wait-period for heart surgery is 12 weeks, and for cancer treatment it is eight weeks. As it stands now, those aren't being met. Those are adequate. If you're saying optimal, then do I understand the minister to say that she's going to be giving more money to the regions to meet their optimal wait-list needs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're taking time with this answer because we want to be careful. This is of as great concern to us as it is to the members opposite. I know how sometimes these things get used outside this forum.

The funding levels that we're providing are, just as we said, in better teamwork care so that patients receive the services when they need them and have access to those services where they need them. We will be providing the funding for that. To distinguish between adequate and optimal is a health outcome that's only determined by the physician.

I am not a health care professional, and I admit this on record. If somehow there is an industry standard to say that every single heart patient needs their heart surgery by 12 weeks, this is not something I have ever been told by a physician -- any physician. If you're asking whether we're working with the physicians, the medical community, to make sure that the funding is in place to deliver the care when people need it, then yes, that's exactly what we're doing. Are changes taking place in the way that care is delivered amongst 

[ Page 3344 ]

surgeons in this province? Yes, as recently as last month different protocols were being established to make sure that things which interfere with waiting times of patients are eliminated as well. But the funding will be there; the funding will not be an issue for delivering the care when people need it.

Hon. C. McGregor: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my very great pleasure to introduce the first class visit that I've had, actually, from a school in Kamloops. It's Aberdeen Elementary School. A longtime friend, John Dittrich, is their teacher. These are grade 6 students, and they think the Legislature is pretty cool. They think it would be even cooler if they had their names written in Hansard, so I am going to read their names aloud at this time to introduce them all: Grant Taillieu, Casey Wiffen, Gordie Henderson, Kyle Lawhead, Joselyn Franklin, Justin Gill, James Walsh, Zach Loxterkamp, Matt Fredrikson and Lindsay Stobbe. Would the House please make them all welcome.

S. Hawkins: We will probably be discussing the wait-list issue later. I was just clarifying whether the regions would have the budgetary certainty to deal with wait-lists within the recommended periods of time, as they fall within the regions.

I'll just continue with the priorities for Better Teamwork, Better Care. The fifth priority was "encouraging and providing innovative new services." I'm wondering if these will be accompanied by new funding.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have already given a lift to funding, in every area of health care this year, the responsibilities that are being transferred to regional health boards and community health councils. I hope that they use this lift in funding in innovative ways. But they also have the flexibility to innovate amongst their current services -- and some regional health boards are already doing that -- knowing that if their innovation results in cost savings, they will get to keep that money and use it in patient services again. So there are two areas: increased funding as well as the guarantee that they get to keep whatever savings result from innovation.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate that answer. The new therapies or the new innovative services: how will it be determined that they demonstrate any kind of superiority? What kind of guidelines are going to be used to decide yes, that's a good, new innovative service or therapy, before the ministry gives another funding lift to them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are three parts to the answer: one is that innovation will have to be science-based, evidence-based; secondly, any innovation put forward will have to be subject to the same accountability measures as current services; and then thirdly, the innovation. . . . Actually, I would welcome the innovation from the community, because we know now that the Ministry of Health, while doing a very good job of trying to meet the needs of all of the community in terms of the appropriate services, are not all-knowing. So it will be good for the community to come forward with ideas -- based on those criteria, though -- and then we can work in partnership to determine funding.

S. Hawkins: The sixth priority was "ensuring patient satisfaction." I'm wondering what tool is in place right now that does that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The accreditation process for institutions now requires a form of patient satisfaction. The larger organizations have developed sophisticated surveying for patient satisfaction. It will be on that that we will build to use across the system.

S. Hawkins: So just for clarification, there is no universal tool in place right now. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no universal mandate. Previously there wasn't, and there's no single tool. In fact, I would suspect that there may not be a single tool in the future but there will be a single mandate.

S. Hawkins: I would just bring up an issue here. The minister mentioned that institutions that are accredited. . . . That is included in the accreditation process. Is the accreditation process something that the ministry will encourage in institutions that fall within regions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Accreditation costs money, and there are cash-strapped institutions out there. In fact, I heard from one; I believe it was G.R. Baker in Quesnel. They didn't have the money to do their accreditation this year. Is that something the ministry is encouraging and will give a funding lift to do? This is an issue of whether facilities and institutions are meeting standards, and certainly the Canadian accreditation process has a good standard of quality -- it keeps people on their toes. I know that personally, having gone through the accreditation process as a nurse running a ward in a facility. Is the minister aware of that situation, and is that something that the regions can expect to get funding for so that patient standards are met?

[3:00]

Just very briefly on the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital funding, I did meet with representatives from the community two weeks ago, and I had good input from the member who represents Quesnel, as well. They have brought forward their issues, and the ministry continues to work very carefully with them, as it has in previous years. I have committed to getting back to the delegation by the end of this month. They weren't necessarily asking for a solution, but they're just making sure that I was on to it by the end of this month. We're working very closely with them on their concerns.

S. Hawkins: I totally understand that hospitals spend the money the way they choose. This hospital chose to spend it on patient care, because that's where they felt the greatest need was. I think the minister is quite aware that this hospital has been running on 44 beds and, as I mentioned yesterday, patients are being cared for in the hallways. So if they don't have the money to spend on accreditation, I think it's because they have judiciously spent it on patient care.

I guess as a follow-up to what the minister was saying about accreditation, I would say that it is obviously something that the ministry appears to value. Is it going to be something 

[ Page 3345 ]

that will be nice for institutions to have or something institutions must have in looking at the quality or the standard of care that they provide?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be strongly encouraged as we continue. . . . I don't want to belabour this, but the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital has made significant progress in providing the appropriate level of acute care, and that's what I discussed with them. They've reorganized nursing and administrative staff, and they've strengthened their board policies. They're actually now rescheduling operating room times and making operational alterations to accommodate what they admit is very much a fluctuation in the workload or care demands because of the resource-based economy they have. But even after all this, the hospital and our ministry agree that the utilization rates are still 20 percent above the provincial average. So that's the issue we're continuing to work on with the hospital.

S. Hawkins: I'm sure the delegation that came to visit the minister also visited our side, and I hope they get satisfaction from their discussions and meetings with the minister.

I'll just carry on, then. The seventh priority was "ensuring we make the changes needed that will keep our public health system." I'm just wondering if the minister can tell me exactly what that seventh priority means? If she can just clarify that for me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there's always a concern amongst health care providers that public health is key. Many would say that it is the key to the future of our health care system as well and that a shift needs to be made from acute care, which grew out of medicare. I'm choosing my words carefully here, because I very much value the acute care system and know that we have to sustain it. But the public health system takes as great a priority as does our acute care system.

S. Hawkins: I wasn't sure if that was the public health system or the publicly funded health care system, so that's why I asked the minister to clarify.

The last priority just says "affordable for the future." I'm wondering what the projections for the rate of increase for health care utilization or spending are in broad terms by the ministry. Does this ministry foresee an increase per year? Is that the assumption of growth for health care spending in the future?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It would be inappropriate for me to predict what next year's spending would be. It would be beyond my mandate or the mandate of these estimates. But we do know that the pressures on the health care system will change as a result of the aging population.

S. Hawkins: Are there any other priorities, other than the eight listed in the "Better Teamwork, Better Care" document, that have been recognized now that the boards have been set up and are up and going? This document was released back in November. Are there any other priorities the communities recognize that should go on this list?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The boards haven't formally agreed on adding any priorities, but we've certainly had very interesting discussions around community involvement -- making sure that the boards agree that their highest priority is patient care from a community perspective. It was a little bit surprising in that they also wanted to ensure that there was a strong ministry role in terms of provincial standards and that there would be equity across the province -- no matter where you live -- in terms of standards being set, etc. It was interesting feedback, because when the regional assessment team went out. . . . If there was one villain, it was the ministry, and that villain had been recognized decades ago. Now that we've made the change, though, the regional health boards and the community health councils were very interested in confirming that there was a presence for a legislative mandate, and a policy and standards-setting mandate.

The other priority that arose out of the community health councils and regional health boards themselves was that they very much wanted to work together. Even though they had regional responsibilities, they wanted to join together regularly as a group in order to share in the designing of the system. I have committed to that and will be meeting regularly with them, as well.

K. Whittred: As the minister knows, I have partial responsibility for this ministry. Hopefully, I will be addressing the concerns of continuing care and seniors in a block at a later date. For the moment I would like to address some of the issues arising out of continuing care that I see as being paramount and that are particularly affected by regionalization.

The first thing I'd like to do, if the minister doesn't mind, is to return to the CHSSs and the role that they play. Do I understand correctly that these CHSSs are the employers, if we can use that word, for the people who do not have a regional health board -- that is, for the amalgamated CHCs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Not in continuing care. In continuing care, the employer is this community health council.

K. Whittred: I am now going to just quote for a moment from a document from your ministry, the Ministry of Health, about the regionalization implementation. Where I'm going with this is: who has the responsibility for continuing-care planning? Like my colleague, I have been out around the province and I have spoken to a great many of these people. One of the principal issues that seems to have arisen is regarding the planning and strategy, if you like, for continuing-care services, particularly in areas that do not have regional health boards.

So my first question to the minister, then, is: who has responsibility for long-term continuing-care planning in areas such as the West Kootenays, where there is no regional health board?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Can I just offer this to the member? I'm going to talk about two aspects of long term care planning: the institutional planning and then also the service delivery in the community that's outside of the institutions -- unless it's just the institutional planning that the member wants me to address.

K. Whittred: Both.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Both, okay. The Kootenays is a good example to deal with this, because this is an area that's in transition from. . . . They had a regional health board that did look at a bed study for long term care, and now their community health council model.

Two things will occur. The institutional planning for continuing care will be at the community health council level. We 

[ Page 3346 ]

had an interesting discussion this morning -- and I would just refer the member to the Blues on that -- about regional hospital. . . . Oh no, that's not for continuing care anyway, unless they're attached to a hospital. That will rest with the community health councils.

How long term care services that are outside of institutions, such as home support services, are shared will be under the auspices of the CHSSs, as they are now, under the community and public health division that used to report directly to the Ministry of Health. Those services are being devolved to the CHSSs.

I am aware of the problem in the Kootenays about "Where are the beds?" and "Are the beds being planned in the right areas to meet the community needs?" We recognize that in the transition to community health councils in the Kootenays, we need to get people back to the table to reassess that, and we're doing that quickly.

K. Whittred: In looking at the document that was sent out on regionalization implementation, it goes through -- and I certainly won't go through all of this -- the role of the ministry, the role of RHBs, CHCs, and so on. And then the rest of it is just. . . . The continuing-care part appears to be a mimeographed section that's taken from the old documents and simply says: "Responsibility for continuing-care programs and field staff will be transferred to regional health boards as part of the New Directions initiative." And it goes on to say: "The transition services branch is engaged in the transition process. . . ." Now, that would lead me to believe that, at this point in time at least, there really is not a system in place. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

[3:15]

K. Whittred: It's really not that old; in fact, it's really quite recent. But we'll leave that for the moment. I want to return to my original position about the situation in the Kootenays. It is not unique by any means; it also exists in the Cariboo and other areas that do not have regional health boards. I think I understand the process when it comes to the planning of facilities. What I do not, or cannot, get my head around is which of these levels of organization. . . . And I'm assuming that it's the CHSS, although I am told by the people in the field who live there that the CHSS has no planning component. So the problem still remains that if each community health council is responsible for its own long term facility planning, what we end up with is no regional picture. We have no agency, no forum for any kind of regional planning. That is the essence of the problem.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me offer this to the member: my view of exactly why we put in place CHCs and not regional health boards in these non-urban communities. We heard over and over again, when the regional assessment team was out, that the community diversity is such that the local control of services such as acute care and continuing care should remain within the community, that there was no reason to justify planning between Castlegar or Trail, for instance, on these matters. Please don't hold me to the communities, because I keep confessing I'm an urban person and I may use the wrong names of communities -- my apologies if I offend anyone. There was a distinctiveness to each community, and they themselves wanted the planning for long term care. That was exactly the reason why community health councils were established and have responsibility for long term care planning.

There has not been a regional approach to these communities in the past because of the very argument that each community deserves to be considered on its own. That argument was successfully put forward to the regional assessment team.

K. Whittred: If that is the case, then, can I go on to the next logical question? If in fact long-term care is a community matter in areas that have community health councils, and continuing care is a provincial registry. . . . So what we find, of course, is that -- to use the example that you gave -- people in Castlegar are being moved to New Denver or to Nakusp or to some other place for extended care because there is no bed in Castlegar. I am told by the local people that nobody at the local level has the authority to redesignate the beds. I'll leave it at that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is exactly what I was referring to earlier when we had to redo the bed allocation in light of the fact that there is no regional health board and that it is strictly the community health councils that are going to determine the needs of the community. Again, I just want to make it clear for the members that in all of these allocations of resources, there is a fiscal side to the allocation of the resources, as well.

K. Whittred: Do I understand the minister correctly that in areas such as the East and West Kootenays, the Cariboo and the Peace, areas that do not have regional health boards, the planning of long term care resources will remain with the ministry? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The community health councils and, where appropriate, regional hospital districts will work in concert with the Ministry of Health to make sure that. . . . We had a good discussion yesterday on how we allocate resources. We'll work as a tripartite group to determine the allocation of resources. But the entity for the community will be the community health council, in determining the allocation of resources.

K. Whittred: I don't want to dwell on this forever, but I do have a really serious concern about this. Perhaps it has to do in this instance with the definition of community. A community, if we use the East Kootenays as an example, might mean Creston, if that is where you live. However, in terms of one's health needs, the community becomes larger, because if one wants any kind of specialized care, you have to go to Trail. So I will make the comment that to me, this doesn't make sense. I'm hoping that this is something that the minister will take note of.

I think it is essential that in geographic areas, regardless of whether there are regional health boards in place, there has to be some sort of mechanism for the communities that are close geographically to get together and make some sort of sense out of the allocations of things like intermediate care beds, extended-care beds and so on.

I will leave that topic now. I want to move on to a more specific one, and that is, of course, my own North Shore

[ Page 3347 ]

health board. I am reading from a September 1996 regional newsletter that is put out by the health board. It states "the board highlighted the successful amalgamation with Lions Gate Hospital, North Shore Home Support Services. . ." and so on. That was in September. Since then, we have seen the firing of the second hospital administrator, I think, in about a year. We have seen a community petition for the head of the regional health board. This saddens me somewhat, because the North Shore health board was one which was a bit of a flagship for the province. It had been humming right along; it was the model that was held up. I am worried that this is a little bit of a stormy time for the whole process of regionalization.

I'd like to mention that I have no quarrel with the general reform of the regional process, nor the general concept of moving closer to home. Both of those things, I think, are international movements in almost every country. I think where my quarrel is with this government is with the implementation of this process. So I would like to address that just for a moment by looking a little bit at what went on in North Vancouver, because I have been involved in that process very intimately.

Beginning last fall, at some point the North Shore health board embarked on a number of focus groups. This appeared to be the right thing to do. It seemed that the North Shore health region was doing what was required. It was consulting with the community; it was drawing people together. They were getting large numbers of people out to these particular groups, and it seemed as though things were going along very smoothly.

The first meeting I went to, we were presented with a model. It was said that this is what the future model might look like. A few weeks later, we got exactly the same picture, saying: "This is the model." I think my point here about implementation is that there was a sort of preconceived idea of what was supposed to emerge at the end of it.

More recently, we have been delivered of a model. Again, this is part of the whole regionalization process; it's supposed to cut down on bureaucracy. This particular model has 60 different boxes on it, and it looks like it would rival the D-Day invasion plans. I read from the instructions things like:

"The triple boxes represent members of the regional executive group, and shaded boxes represent members of the larger regional senior management team."

"Dotted lines indicate where relationships exist. . . . The role of the community health planning coordinator has been deleted with the appointment of the incumbent. . .to the position of regional community health director. Four positions of community developer have been created."

With that little summary as a background, I wonder if the minister could comment on how this process is reducing bureaucracy.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think your point is well taken. I also appreciate that there is intellectual support from the hon. member for regionalization. Without commenting on the specifics of the good illustration that the hon. member makes, let me assure you that some regions are doing very well at putting their management plan in place and others are not. We are working with both very carefully to share the good and work toward eliminating the not so good, and service contracts will be signed and put in place on a regional basis when the good is achieved.

[3:30]

K. Whittred: I would like to take a few moments to look at what is coming out of the new regionalization process. I'm not sure whether this is actually part of regionalization, but I think it probably fits into this section. I was going to suggest to the minister that I think the ministry has taken on a huge task. At the present time the ministry is not only reforming the governance of health through regional boards, it is reforming the delivery of service by moving into the area of community health centres at the same time as it is amalgamating with the new Ministry for Children and Families. It is this massive integration that I want to speak about for a moment.

We have recently read in the press about the community health centres in Vancouver -- these are also underway in North Vancouver. These are to be massive integrations, not only of health services but of a number of services from Children and Families. Nothing I have been able to read convinces me of what these are going to look like. Could the minister give me her impression of what one of these community health centres is actually going to look like?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Right now I can only offer my opinion as a mom, which I would assume is not nearly as valuable as Minister of Health. As a mom, I know exactly what people want, which is to be able to have access to health care that meets their family needs in the way that best makes them healthy. Literally every time I go and talk to people, whether it be nurses, health care providers or health administrators, that's the intent.

What will that look like? At this stage, there is no concrete plan in place that has been signed off by the ministry or that in any way has had a cost-benefit analysis from patient or consumer care done on it. That is exactly what the regional health boards are working on right now. Frankly, I think that the editorial in the Vancouver Sun yesterday was right on: that the idea is wonderful, but as we move toward the model of community health centres, we have to make sure that we're doing it in a way that best meets patient care from a cost-effectiveness point of view as well.

The complaints that have been made to me by British Columbians in terms of the health care delivery system would suggest that maybe a good, working community health centre is the right answer. One is: is there a necessity for us to have to visit several different offices dispersed across the community to get our health care? Or could you have those services located in one place? Is there any way you could offer me my health care services at a time when I'm actually available to take my kid or my mom or dad to be treated, in terms of hours of operation? Physicians say to me: "Is it appropriate that people use the emergency rooms as the equivalent of a community health centre? Isn't there a better way that we could offer those services to people who don't have a stable relationship with a family physician?" Those are some of the questions that I think are appropriately answered by working on a design of a community health centre.

[ Page 3348 ]

To address the point about "the times have changed" that we are going through, the member is absolutely right. There are times of change, and I know that change, on its own, brings about anxiety. Whether that change be good or bad, change brings about anxiety. We're well aware of that, and we're doing everything to mitigate the anxiety but at the same time move forward on much-needed change.

I work very closely with the Minister for Children and Families, as we both move forward on reform, to make sure that we do so in a way that best meets the needs of our children. It's gratifying to know that the debate on both sides of the House recognizes that many of the needs of a child are health care needs, even though we may describe them in some other fashion.

K. Whittred: Continuing along the same vein, one of the things you mentioned was that it's often said about the delivery of health care: "Why should we go to several different spots?" I think all of us on both sides of the House would agree with that. My question to the minister is: under our system, what is to prevent people from doing both? Is there a danger that the community health centres will become an add-on rather than the main source of delivery?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's an interesting point and, in terms of community health centres, I appreciate the member's comments. I have heard that concern expressed in other areas of health care delivery, but I do take her point.

We monitor utilization in terms of different methods of delivery of health care. We monitor utilization both statistically and demographically, but -- not identifying any patient -- we also monitor in terms of Medical Services Plan billing, for instance. If your point is that that should be an indicator of success or that proper utilization of our health care services be a requisite for a community health centre, I would absolutely agree.

K. Whittred: Continuing on the same theme, I would like to have a little bit of a dialogue with the minister, perhaps sharing some of the concerns that I have picked up about the regional health centres. One of them is basically focused on the theme: are we trying to do too much? Are we trying to deliver too many services in one place?

I will try to give some specific examples: the services to youth who are being treated for drugs and alcohol in the same place as youth who are going in to get their inoculations; youth perhaps being treated for forensic psychiatric problems along with programs for the frail elderly. What I have heard from a great many people in the field is a caution about whether or not people will use these services. I hear this particularly in the case of seniors. Will frail seniors actually go into the same location as youth who are being treated for drug and alcohol problems?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I do want to caution that drug and alcohol programs have been transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families. So with that caveat, I will certainly let the Minister for Children and Families know to expect your question in this area as well.

Let me reassure the member, from the area for which I have responsibility, that the public health system will still deliver for the frail and elderly in the most absolutely appropriate fashion for their needs, regardless of the transfer of alcohol and drug programs to the Ministry for Children and Families.

K. Whittred: I brought that up as an example. I'm well aware that Alcohol and Drugs has been transferred to the Ministry for Families. I'm also very much aware that these programs are going to be part of the community health centres. The community health centres are going to be a physical location, such as this House, which is going to be shared for both the programs of the community health centre and the programs of the Children and Families ministry. So that is where that particular question came from.

Now, to go on a little bit, in terms of the amount of things -- if I can use that expression -- that the ministry is trying to reform at this time, one of the questions which always comes to my mind is: why has the ministry been so reluctant to first pilot the concept of regionalization and/or the idea of community health centres in one place to get some of the bugs worked out before moving on to the whole province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I was well aware that that was the opposition's point of view, both during the last election and as we had the regional assessment team tour the province. This matter has been discussed in our own province since 1990, with the Justice Seaton commission. We have had experience ourselves, actually taking the bull by the horns in 1993 with New Directions, and we have learned from that. And we have the experience of, frankly, what is an industrialized-world trend in this area, including other parts of Canada. People said to us, "Get on with it; get this issue put in place," and we chose to listen to those people.

If I could, just on the issue of community health centres, I hope that the hon. member understands that nothing has been signed off in terms of a community health centre in any region of the province to date, save for the nursing centre in the Comox Valley. I certainly believe quite clearly that we should proceed cautiously and make sure that all of the accountability measures and the performance outcome measures are in place as we move toward community health centres.

I do know, though, that I had a. . . . It was just an interesting perspective. I only note it; I don't comment on whether I agree or not. In a meeting with the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. a couple of weeks ago, there was a delegate there from Quebec. He had just moved from Quebec and was very surprised at the differences in our health care delivery system because of Quebec's emphasis on community health centres, and he noted the absence of any here in British Columbia.

K. Whittred: In fact, that was going to be my next question. The minister anticipated me. What specific models or programs can be offered as part of the research that the ministry did in preparing for this particular model of service delivery?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For clarification, is the member referring to the model of community health centres?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, okay.

The Vancouver regional health board and the North Shore health board are the boards now proposing community health centres. I just want to make the member aware that the ministry is well aware and monitoring the situation closely and participating where needed in the development of the models. But there are models of community health centres that exist in other parts of the industrialized world, which I 

[ Page 3349 ]

expect the Vancouver regional health board will be looking at. One is in Quebec. There are models in Ontario, as well. There are models in Saskatchewan. Without ever giving any credit to these models, there are models that exist in the United States, as well, and in France.

[3:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: If you're asking me if I have those studies at hand, I don't have them available. I can certainly make that research available to you, in terms of the research about the effectiveness of community health centres. Our indicators of effectiveness will be based on the best health outcomes in the most cost-effective way.

K. Whittred: I look forward to getting those studies.

I will leave this now with just the comment that I know that our respective sides of the House have disagreed about implementation, with our side, of course, favouring a more cautious approach. I guess I would just conclude that if perhaps a more cautious approach had been used, we would have had a smoother delivery, and in the case of my own region, where we've spent almost a million dollars on severance and had great amounts of upset to the community, perhaps that might have been avoided.

I would like to move on now to another area that I think regionalization applies to in terms of the continuing-care system. This is the area, in many, many long-term care facilities. . . . What we have is that 20 or 30 years ago, for the most part, all kinds of organizations -- namely, the Kiwanis, the Moose, the Elks, the Lions and all those good people -- built care facilities. Since that time, of course, they have played a very, very active role in the delivery of services, both in housing and in long term care. What we're seeing now is the amalgamation of those facilities, including the assets, into the regional health boards.

My questions on this issue have two parts to them. I know how the present system is administered. If we take just North Vancouver as an example -- and this could be multiplied all over the province -- we have one, two, three, four, five Kiwanian facilities that I'm aware of. These are being amalgamated. At the present time, these facilities are administered by one person -- a caretaker -- a secretary and a great deal of volunteer labour. My question is: how is the regional health board going to provide that same level of administration that has been given for some 20 or 30 years for free?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry for the member's misunderstanding. The organizations such as the member has described will not be amalgamated. There will be service contracts developed with the regional health boards to carry on that expertise just as she outlined.

K. Whittred: Could I just make sure that I understand correctly? Perhaps I have been mistaken. When we speak of amalgamation of facilities, are we only speaking of the administration of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Amalgamation means the transfer of assets to the regional health board. The assets that will be transferred are hospital assets and continuing-care institutional assets, where the continuing-care and hospitals are not run by a denomination or a service club. We have made that agreement with both those entities.

K. Whittred: I'm going to continue to pursue this, because I think I understand correctly that in North Vancouver and in other areas, two intermediate care facilities have been amalgamated into the North Shore region. Now, does amalgamation include the transfer of assets and the responsibility for the administration, or not?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be more than happy to investigate a particular situation, either in this chamber or afterwards, if the member would like to bring the specific details to me.

K. Whittred: Yes, I would be happy to discuss this with the minister, but it does point out. . . . This is something I have been approached about from all over the province, and therefore it cannot be just a local issue. This issue of the transfer of assets has been through service clubs, through home care societies, through all sorts of people who are concerned about how this is working. If I've had that many inquiries about it, it concerns me that the minister does not seem to be aware of it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member's comments. As I said earlier, I certainly understand that with change, even if it's positive, there's anxiety. I suspect that these concerns may be based on fear rather than fact, because as I've tried to make clear, voluntary service organizations will not be required to amalgamate, nor will denominational institutions -- formerly known as churches.

K. Whittred: I did not mean to imply that anybody I had spoken to was afraid. Nobody is afraid. In fact, as far as I know, the amalgamations that have occurred have occurred voluntarily.

My original question was, and remains: how can the regional health board provide the same level of administrative service as the service clubs did? The service clubs did it for free. That is something I do not understand. Could the minister clarify that for me?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's good that staff are able to provide the expertise on this.

There have been service organizations that have voluntarily amalgamated. They are mainly outside the lower mainland. They have come forward and voluntarily asked to amalgamate. Nobody is being forced to; in fact, nobody is being asked to. But some organizations have said: "We want to amalgamate."

On the question around administrative costs: are there increased costs because of that amalgamation? No. Previously, if an organization provided administration, the ministry basically funded that to the service organization. That administration will now be done by the health authority of the area. So it's a zero-sum cost.

The volunteer aspect came through board members, just as there was a voluntary aspect to former hospital societies, 

[ Page 3350 ]

etc. But none of the volunteer aspects of the societies precluded administration costs, which are now being done by the health authorities.

All of these amalgamations that have occurred to date have been strictly by the request of the service organization.

K. Whittred: Thank you for clarifying that.

Continuing along the line of the amount of service that has been given by volunteer organizations. . . . I'm going to limit myself here to the organizations that largely financed and contributed to the building of facilities. Has the ministry tried to do any research that puts a value. . . ? I'll use the Kiwanians as an example, because a number of years ago the Kiwanians made senior housing and care facilities their particular mandate. I'm wondering, in this move toward regionalization, whether or not the ministry took that into account. Have they attempted to put any kind of value on the amount of work and service that went into providing those particular facilities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If you're asking whether the ministry has quantified that value in some sort of academic study, I would suspect the answer is no. But certainly we value, hour for hour, the contribution made by every single volunteer in the system. I've actually met with the service organizations. The provincial organization of auxilians has made representation to me. They expect that their contribution will continue -- in some situations in a different form. They may be concentrating less on actual administration and more on the direct service delivery of their volunteer hours. Some have actually welcomed that change of duty. All I can offer is this: the work is seen as invaluable, and we hope it will continue. We'll give full recognition to that voluntary contribution.

[4:00]

The second thing I want to address is regarding the movement of what are considerable assets from non-profit societies and service organizations to the regional health boards. I wonder if the minister can clarify for me what is happening to those assets.

Hon. J. MacPhail: When a society voluntarily asks to amalgamate, it is to transfer their assets to the regional authority: the community health council or the regional health board. So where there was voluntary amalgamation, the assets went to the new authority.

K. Whittred: Then do I understand correctly that once assets have been amalgamated. . . ? Just let me get this absolutely clear in my mind. In the case of a Kiwanians intermediate care facility that's now been amalgamated, the regional health board now owns that property and can sell that property.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Because of the voluntary nature of this, they may have reached an agreement on amalgamation about the future disposal of assets, etc. I would prefer to deal in specific examples, if I may, just so I don't rock the boat unnecessarily by a hypothetical question.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if I might interject here with a brief introduction.

In the gallery today are 40 and more grade 5 students, several parents and their teacher, Mr. Carr, from the Catlin Gabel School in Portland, Oregon. Would the chamber please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: The minister has asked for a specific example. The example I will use is the West Vancouver Kiwanis Lodge.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Kiwanis Seniors Housing Society of West Vancouver operates the Kiwanis Lodge of West Vancouver. That's the example that you're referring to?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. They want to shift their focus onto just seniors housing in the future, as opposed to continuing care. The plan is to combine the operational funding of Kiwanis Lodge with that of Kiwanis Lynn Manor, which is operated by the Kiwanis Care Homes, and have this funding transferred to the new Parkway multilevel care facility on the North Shore, scheduled to be completed in '97.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is it in an opposition member's riding? Let me take that into account. [Laughter.]

The Seniors Housing Society is asking us to expedite the process of developing the Parkway multilevel facility, and I'd be happy to hear from the hon. members opposite about their points of view on that. They therefore want us to transfer the day-to-day management of the operations that are now providing the multi-level care, as opposed to just housing, to the North Shore health board. Then they want us to pay the monthly rent to the society for use of the Kiwanis Lodge prior to the completion of the Parkway facility, and then reimburse them $320,000 to upgrade the Kiwanis Lodge to provide seniors housing.

This is a complicated set of negotiations, where the Kiwanis are doing exactly their job -- what they're supposed to do, which is get the most bang for the buck in terms of delivering services to their community -- but in no way is this an. . . . Well, I shouldn't say it; maybe there are all sorts of interesting negotiations going on around this across the province. I think this is an example where the Kiwanis wants to turn over to the North Shore health board the health care services, and they deliver the housing services separate and apart from those that require health care services.

[ Page 3351 ]

So we're in discussions with them, along with the health board and the Kiwanis Seniors Housing Society, around how we best carry on with the development of the Parkway facility, and around amalgamation and the best facility utilization. The negotiations are complex -- and they're more complex by virtue of the fact that everybody's got a lawyer involved. No formal agreements have been signed yet, but I really think there's interest on all parts in moving forward on this rejigging of a business agreement.

K. Whittred: Again the minister anticipated what was going to be my next question, because I had been involved in some discussions around this. What have been the legal costs of this particular negotiation for both sides, if the minister has that information -- if not, from the ministry's perspective?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We can get that information for you.

K. Whittred: I will move now to another issue. I alluded earlier to the problem of planning for residential care for continuing-care facilities through the regionalization process, and I believe we addressed the idea of who is responsible for planning.

There are one or two other things that I want to address in that section, and that is, first of all, the status of the private institutions. I'm sure that the minister is aware that continuing care is basically a blending of many, many private functions -- society services and so on -- and I know that one of the concerns of the private care institutions is that they are ultimately going to be left out of the process. I'm wondering if the minister can comment on what role she sees for the private institutions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually had a very good meeting with Pricare yesterday. They were having their annual general meeting on the 20th, actually; it was a great celebration. I gave them complete reassurance of their continued involvement in the system and referred to all of the areas, certainly in capital construction, where our interests would meet. I would be happy to provide the member opposite with my remarks in that area. But it was a good meeting of reassurance of our continued, and perhaps even expanding, relationship. Pricare is the association of private care operators.

K. Whittred: Moving now to another concern that I have, which I believe is an outgrowth of the regionalization process. . . . It has to do with contracts and people's places in the formula. I would like to offer the minister a sort of composite. This is another issue that has been brought to me many times and shared with me on many occasions. As the team-building occurs in the regions, people are brought in on these teams from a variety of sources.

Perhaps I can give you an example. In geriatric outreach, you might have a person assigned to a new position somewhere in the community care program who has previously been a hospital nurse; you might have another one that has worked for community services; you might have someone else who has worked for public health. Now, these people are all similarly qualified, and they are all doing similar or the same work, but they have previously all been on different contracts, some earning significantly more than others.

The scenario, as it has been painted to me, is that you now have this group of people who are all doing the same job but being paid significantly different amounts of money. Of course, my question is: has the ministry assessed this either upward or downward movement of personnel as this process takes place, and secondly, how much is it going to cost?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a complex area of negotiations that is going on right now, as a matter of fact. We hear about it in the public -- the changing role of health care providers from an institutional setting into the community setting. You may have read about the complexities of the negotiations and whether to strike or not to strike.

Let me just say that this issue consumes a great deal, if not the majority, of the time of the Health Employers Association of B.C. The matters are negotiable, though, in terms of transferring from one employer to another and what, if any, change there is in the wage rate. There are a series of estimates in terms of the cost or savings in this area. Ultimately, though, it's a matter of negotiation and therefore an agreement reached between the unions representing the workers and the Health Employers Association of British Columbia.

K. Whittred: Following along on the same topic, I'm wondering about any guidelines that the ministry may have put in place regarding this particular issue in the planning for the movement toward community care. I think, as a rule of thumb, that in the past hospital personnel probably would have been at a higher pay scale than community personnel, and if we have a movement in that direction, I'm wondering. . . . Well, I am simply giving the benefit of my experience; I have never in my life seen a downward scaling. What I have seen is a grandfathering, on occasion, where people who have been on a higher scale are grandfathered in until the salary scale catches up. So I am wondering whether the ministry had any guidelines in that direction.

[4:15]

Ultimately, given all of the academic information about who the new employer is; what the job duties are; the new job duties, if any, as a result of the new employer and the new health care system; what the proper classification of those job duties is; how one determines the proper rate for those job duties. . . . Ultimately, these are all issues for the bargaining table and are in fact on the bargaining table as we speak.

K. Whittred: I just have one or two other points, as I go through my list of things, that I felt were issues that had grown out of the community care area that were particularly appropriate for the regionalization.

I alluded earlier to what I saw as the enormous task of consolidating the new community health clinics with the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health. What I'd like to ask the minister about now is an even broader sort of integration 

[ Page 3352 ]

that always comes up when we talk about community health, and that is integration with school boards, family ministries and so on. What I see in the governance is an absence of this sort of integration. I would like the minister to address that particular issue.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the reason for the new Ministry for Children and Families is to ensure the integration of services around issues that affect children and families. That integration is unprecedented, in terms of the setting up of a new ministry. In fact, services from the Ministry of Health that are particular to children have been transferred to the new ministry.

Our relationship with schools is an interesting one, and I know the member opposite has a wealth of experience in this area. I believe that our community health care system -- public health system -- works well within the context of our school system, but if there are areas of improvement there, I would be more than happy to gain from her experience.

Certainly the regional health boards and community health councils themselves see the new model as a much better way of ensuring coordination of services than the old model, where decisions on a community basis were made in Victoria instead of within the community.

K. Whittred: I thank the minister for those particular remarks. I won't pursue that particular aspect any further.

The final thing I want to mention is simply to follow up a little bit on the remarks that my colleague was making this morning about representation and balance. I know the minister did comment on that. I want to just give an example of that from the urban perspective. In North Vancouver -- and I don't think this is anybody's fault; I think it's just the way it worked out -- at least half of the representatives on the board are from West Van. This leaves the impression that although West Van has a third of the population, it has half of the representation. Although there is supposed to be this community focus and so on, I think that sort of thing sometimes does get a little bit miscued. So I'll simply leave that, and I know the minister addressed it this morning.

D. Jarvis: I have to get up and say a few comments to the minister and ask a couple of brief questions, because I know there are lots of people here that want to ask her some questions. You were mentioning a little while ago about the Kiwanis getting the most bang for the buck. I think generally most people are happy with what's going on with the closing of the facilities in West Van and Lynn Valley and then going out into Seymour. The two big problems I can see are that there are going to be less beds, less accommodation with the amalgamation -- and it's not a great number, but there's going to be less than there was -- and there's the aspect of where it's located, the transit end of it. It's just impossible for the seniors and for the workers to get there. Workers can't get there, they have to drive -- you know, the staff and all the rest of them. So there are a few problems that have got to be ironed out, and I know this government intends to pump up our transit system in the North Shore to such an extent that we won't have to worry about it in the future.

Because we're talking about regionalization, what I really want to say is that we're not all against change, especially if it's going to benefit patient care. That would be sort of the results from the duplication and communication costs, etc. Sometimes I wonder if this government is not throwing out the baby with the bath water when they tend to meddle in functional areas that I think have been going on fairly well, and most people I talk to in my area seem to think that it's going well. Regionalization is threatening some of the more functional areas we've had, one being the Lions Gate Hospital -- from what all the people have to say about it.

I feel that maybe we should have had a model, and I think I've said that before, even in the media, that we should have had a model situation of regionalization before you plunked it down upon us. Look at -- I'm not sure what the word is -- what has been happening to, say, the Lions Gate Hospital because of this regionalization and through this government's trying to change the health care delivery system on the North Shore. At Lions Gate Hospital, we fired one president or CEO, and that has cost us God knows how much money -- $300,000 to $400,000. We now have a second CEO that's been fired -- for $118,000 basic salary, plus there will be. . . . Now they're going to do a study to see how to run the Lions Gate Hospital, and that's going to cost $35,000. We see that the Lions Gate Hospital is now being run by three people, with two directors being paid $75,000 and one $90,000. That all adds up to about $600,000 to $1 million. How you can divide that into a salary of $118,000 and make it responsible, I find rather difficult. But that's socialist financing, and we know how that works: seeing that we're so far in debt now and that we're going deeper and deeper and deeper.

Improvements are measured by performance, as has been said before. I think we have definite problems on the North Shore, and that's been demonstrated over and over again with the Lions Gate Hospital and other functions that are going on. Staff are in turmoil, there's no question. Wherever you go on the North Shore, the people that are delivering care are upset. They don't know where they're coming from, and they honestly feel that this government is doing a bad job, to tell you the truth. But we have an appointed board, which is appointed by this government in a sense, and they say things are all right. But they're looking after their own bailiwick, it seems.

So I want to just ask two brief questions with regards to the fact that we're going to regionalization and we're going to have east, central and west centres in the North Shore. That's what's being planned by the board. Do we see any future representation from the doctors in the Medical Association on the boards? And will we see any elections to health boards in the remaining years of the NDP government's life in this province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would actually refer the member to the excellent discussion we had this morning in his absence. I'm sure it had nothing to do with his absence, but it was an excellent discussion we had on this very issue of election. I would just refer the member to the Blues on that.

Actually, there is a spot on each health board and community health council for a physician. The B.C. Medical Association has had direct input into the recommendations on who that physician is. But in just the same way that no single employer organization got to choose or nominate a single person, the BCMA did make recommendations, many of which were followed by an appointment. I think virtually every health board and community health council now has a physician sitting on the board.

A. Sanders: I'd like to ask the minister some questions on regionalization, and I'd like to break them into two specific areas. The first I would probably call Vernon issues and the issues that I feel have arisen specifically from the model of 

[ Page 3353 ]

regionalization. The second set of questions will be on what I have called broad principles and will look at those broad principles and see how we're functioning within those principles within regionalization.

I want to just read a little excerpt from a recent book that I found very interesting on health care. For the record:

"Canada's 9.8 million baby-boomers begin to turn 50 in 1997. Well before that important turning point in our demographic history, the rising cost of health care was already a major public policy issue. Every provincial government has been struggling to keep a lid on costs and to find ways to rationalize a system that has become the second-most expensive in the world, after that of the United States, as a percentage of gross domestic product. Yet if the cost of health care is a problem in the mid-1990s, demographics tell us that, as the saying goes, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

"By the second decade of the new century, when the baby-boomers are in their senior years, our health care system will be confronted with sharply increased demand. We need to find ways to satisfy that demand while keeping spending under control. Maintaining an excellent health care system is going to require a great deal of ingenuity and careful planning based on an understanding of demographic reality."

What I'm interested in here, from the minister, is what we're doing in regionalization at this point. Since 1991 the concept in British Columbia has been to take acute care and to downgrade the hospital circumstance just exactly at the time that the boomers are turning 50. Just as the boomers will be having their first myocardial infarction, just as they're admitted to the ICU for their very first time, we are in a decreasing-acute-services frame of mind. This is a group that isn't used to waiting in line: it is used to the best in services, and it is used to being served immediately. They aren't used to rationing. They aren't used to much of anything that has to do with them waiting.

[4:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Population health statistics are always taken into account in the future planning of our health care system. As one of the group, though, that the member identifies. . . . I totally agree that the reference to the Boom, Bust and Echo book is appropriate in this discussion, and I can speak from personal experience. The need for the long-term care is about two and a half to three decades away, and that book itself specifies that. We are planning for that. It's exactly the reason why, in the plans for developing into the twenty-first century, we know that there will be a shift in acute health care delivery and a shift to the continuing care health care delivery. That is exactly why there are plans where the shift is in terms of multi-level care within the continuing care structure.

I certainly don't understand at all the shift in terms of the provision of care over this decade. I don't understand the description by the hon. member in terms of the consumer of health care. The shift has been to make sure that we provide appropriate care in the best way possible. There has been no downgrading of care.

I think the best example of that is. . . . I visited the institution of Children's Hospital, where days-per-thousand bed utilization has decreased incredibly as more out-patient services or day-patient services are delivered. I know from personal experience that the way we deliver health care has changed radically over the course of the last decade in terms of the time necessary for hospital stays.

What we haven't done in our province is make use of that change of delivery to cut health care. We've made use of the change in the way we deliver health care to actually meet the needs of the changing population and fully fund the system as opposed to cut the system.

A. Sanders: In response to the minister's statements, there are a couple of points that I think are important. Number one, although there has been an increase in funding in health care, there have been some perceived cuts. These cuts are more in quality of care and have to do with waiting lists. We see, for example, individuals who have been brought to the attention of this House who have been waiting a considerable time for surgery. Specifically, we are not doing well in some areas. The areas in which we are not doing as well as we could, and need to in the future, are: cardiovascular procedures, orthopedics, ophthalmology and cancer therapy. These are the areas where we are going to have to do a better job for all British Columbians, especially with the demographic bulge of the cohort -- that is, the boomers.

I would be interested in any information that the ministry uses in terms of its reference material -- what its deputy minister and assistant deputies are reading in their formulation of opinions. If the minister would be interested in offering me that, I would be most happy to take her up on that.

I want to talk about a couple of the principles of the Canada Health Act and to look at those within the concept of regionalization. Specifically I'd like to look at the five principles and focus on two -- one being accessibility and the second being freedom of choice. What I want to look at in this area is an example from Vernon, and I want the minister to give me an explanation of how we will be going about solving these kinds of problems that come up in regionalization.

This week a constituent -- not a patient of mine, but a constituent -- wrote me a letter in Victoria asking me to help sort out a problem that has, I feel, resulted from regionalization. Specifically, she is an individual who is on dialysis for renal failure. She asked the dialysis services -- which, I believe, reported to St. Paul's originally -- if she could go to visit her family in Sechelt for several weeks in the summer. She asked considerably ahead of time, as she wanted to make sure that this was a possibility in terms of planning her holidays.

What she was told in response to that was that if she went to Sechelt, there would be a bed available for her to have dialysis Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and there were qualified people to do the dialysis. But she could not have the dialysis because the regional area of Sechelt is not willing to pay for what it would cost for her to have the dialysis. They say that she should have her dialysis in Vernon.

This is about a two-hour procedure; it occurs three times a week. And she is being told that she cannot go to Sechelt to visit her family.

To me this twice violates the Canada Health Act, and this is not the only example of this particular circumstance. I would like the minister's help in how I respond to this woman, my constituent.

[ Page 3354 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm just being advised that I should probably get the details of the specific case from you, because I don't want to give you the improper information based on the case. The program itself is a provincial program; it's a life-support system. The program is to operate on funding of the patient, and wherever the patient is, the patient will receive the service. The structure of the program would seem to be counterintuitive to what you're telling me; therefore we have a problem to resolve here. I can't comment on the specifics of the case, but we'd be more than happy to do that. I don't think we should do it across the floor of the House.

A. Sanders: It's important for the minister to realize that, first of all, I'm happy to solve this out of the House; but secondly, this is not an isolated problem. This is something that is brought forward quite often.

My view of any regionalization process is that the money should follow the patient, so if the patient is in any area in British Columbia, they would get the service. What I can tell the minister is that that's not happening. The money is staying with the area. This woman can have her dialysis as long as she's in Vernon. But that precludes her being somewhere else. That is a real problem, and it needs to be sorted out at the ministerial level, because it is not happening at the organization that plans for the entire province.

Another example of that same problem with regionalization is with cancer assessment. There are some problems with cancer assessment and psychiatric services in terms of those services going to adjacent towns. One example is getting cancer assessment for patients in Vernon, who have been treated in Vernon, and now we have no cancer specialist -- and those people going to Kelowna and the Kelowna system being unable to handle them because of budgetary circumstances and lack of bed time.

I received a comment from one of my constituents, who is an RN at Vernon Jubilee Hospital, which I found interesting and which I will share with the minister. She wrote, on Tuesday, May 12:

"Who knows the big picture? Who knows what will happen to Vernon Jubilee Hospital? Why are there so many changes happening, back to the way things were years ago in this area? I remember that Bob Ferguson used to be the administrator of Vernon, Enderby and Armstrong. That was in place for many years, and then it was abandoned for the concept of everyone for themselves. And now we're back into the regional concept! All of these changes cost money!"

An Hon. Member: Different sizes, though.

A. Sanders: Different sizes -- for some of us.

I want to share with the minister a couple of things that I think are working well in regionalization -- maybe because it's a circumstance that she might not hear of from this side of the House. Therefore I will tell her what those are before I take a round at her.

One of the things that's working really well is the quick response teams. These are the teams that work in the hospital to intercept people who come to the door of the hospital, kicking their suitcase in front of them, for admission through the emergency department. These teams are working extremely well in terms of keeping patients that could possibly be seen by other services and that the emergency staff do not have time to liaise with right at that moment. These teams do so. In many cases, where other services may have done just as well, we're having fewer hospital admissions.

The second one that's working very, very well is the mental health quick response team. And this, again, is another unified team that provides crisis-type services all the way through to psychiatric in-patient care. It is especially important in rural areas. This adjuvant that's come on board in the last year has been an excellent addition to how we keep people, who may not necessarily need to be there, out of acute care facilities.

The third one that's working very well is something called the home intravenous program. This is a program where now -- especially when we have what is called in the press "super bugs" -- we can treat people on intravenous at home, when they are reasonably capable of looking after themselves, except that they have to have intravenous therapy for ten days. Being able to treat them at home is an excellent program, which I feel is saving a considerable amount of money.

The fourth thing being done through regionalization that I think is working very well and that has helped to increase and coordinate services within my community is the inventory of services that came as a result of regionalization, where we had to look at the umbrella, see who actually sat under it, who wasn't sitting under it, and how to get all those services together. I think it's created a road map for a community, in terms of utilizing their health care, that has been beneficial. Whether it has been beneficial for the money spent is another question, but that is not the purpose of my talk today.

I want to talk about regionalization in terms of the roles and responsibilities. I have heard a lot of discussion over the last two days from other members in the House concerning this, and I will try not to spend time on those areas that have been covered. I am going to focus on Vernon specifically.

One of the questions I was asked by two members of the regional health board, when I phoned them to ask if they had questions for the minister on regionalization, was specifically: "If you can find out something about what's going on, would you let me know?" There has not been much happening, and I wondered if there was a deadline set up by the ministry to get regional health boards up, running and knowledgable about what they're supposed to be doing.

[4:45]

A. Sanders: Well, I wouldn't want to get us all disturbed here. It's 5 o'clock, but nevertheless, hopefully, we'll look into that on both sides of the House and see what that means.

My second question in terms of roles and responsibilities concerns. . . . I guess power would be the key word. In the delineation of roles and responsibilities for the ministry, the minister is all-powerful in prescribing conditions under which regional health boards and community health councils operate, and she also has the power to revoke their power.

My question to the minister concerning this point is: from an ideological point of view, how do we put more power into the hands of a local community if, in fact, under roles and responsibilities, all power resides with the minister?

[ Page 3355 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I actually view it as responsibility. It is the exercise of responsibility. And ultimately the responsibility lies with my government under any structure of service delivery, just the same way that I know the hon. member holds the Minister of Education accountable for a system, for everything that happens in the system. Ultimately, the collector of the taxes and the funder of the system is responsible for the outcomes.

But let me answer the question at another level. The system makes more sense, in my view, having those that are part of the community responsible for determining the needs of that community and how those needs will be met. I don't in any way assume the statutory responsibility for carrying out those duties in a way that's an exercise of power. It's all about patient care and making sure that patients get the best possible care for what the needs are in their own community -- which will differ from community to community.

A. Sanders: What I'm hearing the minister say is that the power the minister has will be enacted to ensure patient services, and not differentials between ideological drives of communities and government. Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, of course the answer to that is yes. But I am sure the question isn't devious, so. . . . Ideological warfare has no part in a health care system. The Canada Health Act makes that quite clear -- about what services are to be delivered and who pays for those services. However, our government is very committed to the current health care system, which is encompassed by the five principles of medicare. We're so committed to it that we entrenched it in provincial legislation.

A. Sanders: It would be very helpful to me, and I think to all of us, to know and understand that ideological principles do not drive decision-making processes, but I think the reality of politics is that in fact that often is the case.

There are two areas that for me should never, ever be partisan. One is education; the other is health care. As soon as we cross the line with those two particular areas of responsibility, we as government then can become suspect in terms of our decision-making ability, in terms of the amount of power we have.

The backdrop for that, which I think is really important, is that British Columbians are in a circumstance this year where education has come to be perceived as a partisan affair, with 11 schools going to NDP cabinet ministers' ridings and the Speaker's riding. One of the questions that was often asked of me, as an individual in this House, was: does that mean that in the future we can anticipate -- based on regionalization and especially with the minister being all-powerful -- that this too could become a forum where how individuals vote within their communities can determine the kinds of services they get?

I think what British Columbians need from the minister is the affirmation that in fact that will never be the case in British Columbia. We will not have "have" and "have-not" regional health boards, depending on who is the political power in that community.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just as I don't accept the member's premise about the funding of education being an ideological matter for this government -- because it simply is not -- I commit to the fact that funding for and delivery of health care in this province is based on need and need alone.

A. Sanders: I appreciate having that on the record from the minister.

The question that I'm interested in with respect to regionalization revolves around what the ministry has outlined as the benefits of regionalization. My first question to the minister concerns MSP funding. Is it the will of this minister that the funds for MSP will become the responsibility of the regional health board? The addendum to that is: if yes, when?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd love to make a facetious remark, but I've learned that facetious remarks never appear as well in print as opposed to live, so I won't.

Generally, no, but allow me a little leeway. There are certain aspects of MSP funding. . . . In fact, I've already discussed them publicly: lab reform, for instance. That is MSP covered. I think there are ways of dealing with lab payments that lend themselves to some sort of geographic context. I don't want to get anybody panicked about it, and I don't want anybody to think that there's a grandiose scheme here. But we've already been approached by several of the institutions in a region, saying: "Hey, here's a way where some administrative savings and utilization savings could be made." That's part of the MSP budget.

A. Sanders: I'd like to carry on with that particular issue a little bit more. Specifically, the minister has mentioned lab funding, and that leads into another question that I have with respect to MSP funding and the lab.

Associated with one of the medical clinics in Vernon is a private lab. This is one of the oldest medical clinics in Vernon; it has been there for quite some time. Patients who go to that clinic, which is probably staffed by somewhere around 20 physicians, have traditionally gone to the lab because it is right next to the washroom in the building. It's exactly the right location, whether you are 70 or four, to go and have your tests done.

The lab in Vernon that is associated with the hospital is two or three kilometres away, up a very steep hill, with not particularly adequate bus service and not particularly adequate taxi service. What the clinic has been told by the ministry in the last couple of weeks is that the patients who go to the medical clinic are no longer allowed to be sent to the medical lab that is in the medical clinic. The reasons they've been given for censorship of that private facility are: (1) because it's so easy for them to go to the lab, the doctor will order more tests; (2) the money should be going into the hospital rather than into the private lab; and (3) the government doesn't particularly like to have private enterprise facilities within health care, and therefore this private lab should be avoided.

There is a list of physicians, I believe, who have. . . . This isn't even tied to the patient; it's tied to the physician. There is a list of physicians who were originally at the clinic who have some kind of contractual arrangement that doesn't allow the government to remove their ability to use the lab, but all of the other physicians who are there now have patients who have to go up to the hospital to have the laboratory testing. I am interested in any comments the minister has on this particular issue, and then I will question her further based on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That kind of direction. . . . If it is coming from the ministry, I'd actually like to follow up on it and correct the source; the direction is not coming from us. What we are exploring, as in all aspects of regionalization of health care, is whether there are cost efficiencies that best meet patient care. If something is efficient for patient care -- cost-

[ Page 3356 ]

effective and community-based -- why would we change it? I'd be more than happy to investigate the source of this directive and get back to you on it with proper direction.

A. Sanders: That's a very important issue for a very large number of people in Vernon, and there is a significant. . . . There is an elderly patient who goes to this clinic because that's where all the original physicians were, so it's kind of a museum for doctors and patients combined. It's very important for that to be sorted out, and I appreciate the minister spending some time doing so and correcting what I consider to be a problem that did not exist.

My second question about regionalization. . . . Is this government, under this minister, still having its interest piqued by the Victoria model of health care delivery outlined by Dr. Kilshaw?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If I could just clarify from the member, I believe the report the member is referring to is the one done for the national committee looking into primary care. It was a national report. It was done by Dr. Kilshaw and therefore is called Victoria because he is out of Victoria. Is that the one?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. That was an investigation done in terms of health reform; it was done for the provincial-federal-territorial ministers. It was in the second meeting that I attended that this issue was dealt with. Here were our comments -- and it was on the reform, if any, of primary care.

Our province was actually considered to be an important voice in responding to this report, and I think we disappointed several of our colleagues across the country -- particularly Newfoundland and Ontario -- because we said that our primary care system is not in need of the massive reform that was suggested in the report. The report indicated moving towards an HMO type of model, with much more emphasis on salaried physicians, as well. We indicated that at this time there was no consideration of us moving in that direction in any way. We also offered to our colleagues elsewhere that any change in the delivery of primary care would have to be in partnership with the physicians delivering that primary care.

[5:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We discussed yesterday that the concept for funding is on the basis of where the health care service is delivered. We fund according to where the service is delivered, not where the patient lives. I do appreciate the particular situation that the member brought up. I am very much interested in looking into it and literally getting to the bottom of it, because we have to pay particular heed to provincially funded programs. Regionalization is funded on the basis that the area where the service is delivered gets the funding, not where the patient comes from.

Secondly, the regional health boards and community health councils themselves are coming together as a provincial health association in order to discuss exactly these issues. But that organization is just being assembled now.

A. Sanders: It pleases me to hear that there will be a provincial health association. That was the kind of body I was looking for. I think this is one of the areas where problems will arise in terms of the hybridization of one region with another, in terms of patients and the movement of the patients between those. So a provincial health association will help there.

I'd like to look specifically at regionalization with respect to mental health. As the minister knows, this is an area of extreme concern to me in terms of my patients, and an area of interest as well. What I'd like from the minister is for her to outline what the mental health circumstance is with respect to regionalization at this time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Children's mental health has been moved to the Ministry for Children and Families. Adult mental health services are now the responsibility of either the regional health board or the community health services society -- CHSS. Riverview continues to be governed by its own board.

A. Sanders: To carry that point further, I'd like to understand from the minister what is, in one region, the delineation of the role of the mental health centre versus the psychiatric facilities within an acute care hospital.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I failed to mention the acute psychiatric services that continue to exist as well.

Acute psychiatric services will still be provided through the hospital structure, and the community mental health services will be part of the regional or community structure. They were separate services before. Now, because they are under one auspice, I anticipate that there should be some coordination. I know that in my own community there is an issue of a need for better coordination, rather than having people with mental illness admitted through the emergency ward. The mental health services in the community need to be strengthened or better utilized to avoid the admission, which is not always in the best interest of the patient either.

A. Sanders: Does that mean that there will be an aspect of enforced cooperation? In other words, will some benchmarks be put in place to encourage cooperation between the mental health facilities and the psychiatric acute care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I really appreciate these questions, because it is such an important area of our health care system, and sometimes the patients themselves get treated as second-class citizens.

The quick answer to your question, "Will there be strongly encouraged integration?" is yes, in fact, to the extent where some of our regional health boards are now actually putting in place a director or a VP responsible for mental health services who will have responsibility for both aspects of the care, both in-patient and out-patient.

In terms of how we determine whether it's working, there will be performance outcomes based on the best clinical practice outcome, which is probably a model that you're familiar with. It's an evidence-based model.

[ Page 3357 ]

A. Sanders: There are many visions for mental health around the world. I was hoping the minister would share the vision that this ministry is working on, so that I may interpret my questions within the vision the ministry has chosen.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be more than happy to do that. I'm wondering if we could do that when we discuss mental health, because it is an area that I'd like to spend some time on myself. We could start it now, if you wish. Anyway, I leave it in the hands of the hon. member. I do expect that we should do it as a separate chunk, and I look forward to the discussion.

A. Sanders: I'm happy to do that, as I too feel that this is an important and somehow separate area.

With respect to regionalization, one of the things that fits in integrally for all of us who do not live in the lower mainland is Riverview. Riverview downsizing, albeit another separate topic, does fit into regionalization very importantly because of the increased demands that will be accrued on the areas outside the lower mainland, with changes in population at Riverview.

For the benefit of the record, Riverview had 1,200 beds and was decreased to 800. There were quite significant public outcries, specifically from patients' families and the media -- as the downsizing occurred. The hon. member from Prince George -- the member for Prince George North -- was the Minister of Health at the time, and at that time he halted the downsizing of Riverview for more investigation as to the applicability and the ability within the real world of handling that decrease in residents at Riverview.

The assistant deputy, Mr. Corbeil -- who I see is here -- was quoted in the press in '97 as saying that there would potentially be another 60 individuals discharged from Riverview this year and that the location of these individuals would be outside the lower mainland. What I would like to know from the minister is: what is the status of those 60 individuals at this point?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll keep my remarks in the context of regionalization here, and we can explore these further later. The member's putting on the record of what has happened is accurate. May I just offer this: the mental health plan -- which actually had its origins over a decade ago -- is now being reviewed and updated because of the changing views of mental health delivery over the course of the decade. The mental health plan will be in place by September of '97, and that will hopefully take into account the changes that have occurred in the whole system since 1990. There has not been a review done since 1987.

In the context of the plan -- the previous plan saying that downsizing of Riverview should first take place for patients who are from outside the lower mainland -- we have said that yes, we agree that's the order in which downsizing should occur. But we're not even going to downsize on that basis until the final plan is completed and those community housing resources are also in place. They're being constructed as we speak. And it is a matter of supported housing for people who live outside the lower mainland. There are other even bigger issues, as you know, for people who live in the lower mainland.

Can I also offer this around the issue of Riverview? We are aware that there is a problem with getting admission to Riverview. It is a problem that was actually brought to our attention as we did the emergency room review, and then our bed utilization review as well. Since that time, we have directed Riverview Hospital to immediately and substantially increase their occupancy. They are to permit direct admission from regions now, to specific beds, so that the regions can meet their critical referral requirements immediately. There was a question that even with the downsizing as described by the hon. member, utilization was much below even the reduced beds available as well. We've reversed that.

A. Sanders: I'd appreciate knowing from the minister what the occupancy of Riverview is at this time if we are, in fact, allowing more admissions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get the exact figure of funded beds. I assume that the hon. member means funded beds. I'll have that available for you by tomorrow.

A. Sanders: For this section, one other question that I am interested in on mental health, with respect to regionalization. . . . This again has to do with Quesnel. I'm not quite sure why such a little, teeny place gets so much time in the House, but I think that they are well represented by us all, in terms of conversation. As the Chair knows, Quesnel is a pet project of mine, having spent seven years of my life there. One of the issues that has been brought to my attention and that I wish to ask the minister about is the crisis stabilization funds that were tagged for Quesnel in January of 1997. Were those funds in fact delivered?

[5:15]

A. Sanders: Did those funds include capital funding?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The funding included operational funding. I understand that the institutional support was there already, in terms of what was needed, and what was requested was the operational funding for the beds. I think there were five beds.

A. Sanders: I'd like further clarification on that from the minister. One of the comments in the Cariboo Observer, October 27, 1996. . . . At the time there was no capital funding, and Donna Payette from the community health council felt that it was absurd to have operating funding before capital funding. I just wondered if this is an old clip, or whether or not that funding was later found, in terms of capital.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just tell you about the discussion I had with the Quesnel delegation last week. They thanked us for the crisis stabilization of beds and said it was working well. I assume that's confirmation.

A. Sanders: Those are my questions on regionalization.

The second group of questions I'd like to spend some time on have to do with broad principles of decision-making process under regionalization and, more broadly, with health care. First, I'd like to look at what I call consultation. To me, consultation is one of the most important things that can exist. It is a circumstance that when we consult, we have decisions that everyone can live with in the end. What I'd like to ask the minister, to start with, is. . . . I'd like the minister to describe for me her view of the function of the Select Standing Committee on Health as it exists in the British Columbia Legislature.

[ Page 3358 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the same as any other standing committee. It's a committee composed of members of all parties and can have matters referred to it by government as government sees fit.

A. Sanders: I'd like the minister to apprise me of the number of times that committee has met in 1997.

Hon. J. MacPhail: None.

A. Sanders: How many times did that committee meet in 1996?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm absolutely thrilled to be giving my views as Government House Leader, but I'm not sure what relevance this has to estimates. Anyway, I'll answer the question: none.

A. Sanders: The importance to me of this role -- and how it has very much to do with estimates -- comes from our talks on regionalization yesterday. Specifically, what the public needs to understand is that when we have select standing committees. . . . That in the last two years, for example, these committees have not met. So the opportunity for all sides of the House to deal with matters that have to do with, in this case, health care, has no actualized substance. There have been no meetings; there has been no opportunity for dialogue on health care, other than in the House during estimates. Therefore to get in your ideas, this is the only place that we're playing ball, so to speak.

The reason I have asked this question with respect to regionalization has to do with the hon. minister's opening comments yesterday with respect to the review on regionalization that occurred across the province. Specifically, across the province last year we conducted a regional assessment in the summer, and this team went across the province looking at the regionalization process and the Closer to Home initiative. The minister commented on that particular regional assessment team yesterday both in her opening remarks and in the dialogue with the member for Okanagan West.

One of the unfortunate statements that was made that I really wish to clarify was the minister's statement that there was a great deal of valuable information obtained from meeting with the communities and that it was unfortunate that by virtue of just reading and not participating, the opposition -- this side of the House -- didn't know what was going on and really hadn't participated. The inference, I think to many who watched, was that the opposition were not in fact interested in participating with the regional assessment team, and I wish to make the point that this in fact was not the case.

In Hansard of August 15, 1996, the hon. minister at that time stated:

"I also understand that the government and the opposition will not agree on the structure of the regional assessment team. Having said that, I'm going to make sure that every opportunity is given to the members opposite to have input into that."

"It's not very comforting to know that we are going to just have some input. I think, again, that I made it very clear that health care is not an issue that belongs to one party; it belongs to everybody in British Columbia."

". . .even by choosing a less partisan team including both sides of the House in a standing committee on health" -- this is the committee that hasn't met in the past two years, which, for many of us here, is the twice total duration of the time we've been here -- "this side of the House could have offered you 20 years of training experience in the health care professions. . . . We could have offered 30 years of working experience in the health care professions, representing several of those professions. We could have offered you an entire year on a community health council steering committee. . .four years of hospital board experience. . . in a non-partisan situation, for evaluating the regionalization process without an extra dollar being spent by this House in terms of gathering people.

"No matter whether the minister feels that this partisan group can do the job properly. What's really important for all of us is that when it's all said and done, the public feels that it's been done properly. I don't really think it matters whether we feel it can be done fairly or not; it's a matter of what British Columbians feel. Has this House done the job? Health care is a non-partisan issue. Have we dealt with it in a non-partisan way? Have we moved forward to make decisions that will be for the best health of all British Columbians?

"We need to have health care work. No matter what side of the House you come from, I really, truly believe that side of the House and this side. . .want that to happen. I'd like to see us working together to do that, but not in the context of saying that this RAT pack" -- the regional assessment team -- "will decide what New Directions and regionalization will do. I don't think it's realistic, and I'd like the minister to reconsider that."

What I want to know from the minister concerning that consultation, which I feel is the whole answer to getting things happening in governments of any kind, is: with respect to regionalization, will there be any debriefing, will there be any summarization? Will there be any downloading of information concerning the regionalization process with the Select Standing Committee on Health?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know.

A. Sanders: I am wondering why the minister doesn't know.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a decision of government to take in the future, and I'm not aware. . . . I don't know that government's going to do that now.

The Chair: Hon. members, issues of future policy and current and impending legislation are not part of estimates discussions, as I know you're aware.

A. Sanders: I completely realize that. This is actually something of past history, from the way I look at it.

[ Page 3359 ]

Nevertheless, based on the fact that we have a standing committee, that there has been no consultation, that we are now, on this side of the House, being accused of not participating in the process. . . . You know, you can't dance if no one asks you.

I'm in a situation where I'm wondering what the purpose is of having the Select Standing Committee on Health if the minister doesn't know whether it's ever going to meet again. Perhaps we could get rid of some bureaucratic red tape and dissolve the committee, so that there isn't an inference from the public that this side of the House actually has any participation in anything that's being done in the health care field with respect to legislation or resolution of issues that are before the House.

Well, feeling totally satisfied with the information I got from this particular list of questions on consultation, I want to bring forward another aspect of consultation which I feel is incredibly important, and that is with respect to the ministry, the ministerial staff and the minister. I was wondering whether or not we were going to have a briefing in estimates by the ministerial staff.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The opposition did have a briefing.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: That was clarified. It was a very short meeting and three pages of information on a $7 billion ministry. Three pages of information -- very unfortunate.

I think, again, this is a good example of consultation. Hon. Chair, $7 billion does not distill down to three pages. I think what we need to do here, for the sake of brevity in the House, is have appropriate briefings with the ministry for the opposition, so that we do not take the ministry's or the minister's time unnecessarily by having to go fishing for answers, when that could have been done ahead of time.

The second broad principle I want to look at is conflict of interest. Previous to the regional assessment team going out and doing whatever it is that they were doing -- I actually don't know what they did, but I'm hoping it was a good summer for them -- what we had for conflict-of-interest guidelines for community health councils and regional health boards were very, very broad-based.

Specifically, what that meant was that if you had any involvement in health care in any way, shape or form, you were precluded from sitting on the community health council or regional health board. That took up a very large percentage of the population, and excluded a lot of people with very valuable knowledge for our communities.

What I'm looking for is. . . . After the regional assessment team's report, people were no longer elected; the election procedure was in the dumpster. People were now appointed. Could the minister outline the new conflict-of-interest guidelines as those apply to membership on community health councils and regional health boards?

[5:30]

A. Sanders: If the guidelines are being drafted at this point, how will those be retrospectively applicable to those people who are now sitting on health councils and regional health boards?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Common sense will prevail. Also, there are examples of conflict-of-interest guidelines that exist now. People will be required to use their best judgment, and will probably err on the side of caution. I certainly would.

A. Sanders: Does that mean that the conflict-of-interest guidelines, when being retrospectively applied to the people who are already sitting, will be up to the individual members to activate? Or will they be imposed by the minister?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't anticipate that the guidelines will be retrospective. That would be impossible. What I'm saying is that the direction is for members to use their best judgment and to err on the side of caution until the guidelines are in place. I would anticipate that there will then be a requirement of board members to receive the guidelines and sign that they have read and understood them in order to indicate the full force and effect of the guidelines.

A. Sanders: When I listened to the debate concerning regionalization yesterday, one of the questions from the member for Okanagan West that I found of interest was a concern that there were not enough of a certain profession on the overall composition of the boards. My interest in this was piqued by that comment. What I would like to address to the minister is: do we have a breakdown by profession of who sits on our new regional health boards and community health councils?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have a written biography of each member of the board, and we could certainly tally those up if that's a useful exercise. If the opposition wishes us to do that, we certainly will.

A. Sanders: I think it is a useful exercise. None of us here are looking for extra work to do when we don't have the time to do what we've been charged with, in many cases.

But I think the question that the member for Okanagan West asked and the answer from the minister were very important, in that in my quick analysis of a number of regional health boards and community health councils. . . . In fact, for example, there were a large number of nurses on our community health council. I don't consider that right or wrong; it's just a fact. The inference was that because the boards do not have an appointed nurse per se, that group was in fact not represented. From the ones that I am familiar with, I would probably suggest that there may in fact be an overrepresentation of that one group, if there is such a thing that exists.

I'm also interested in political affiliation, and I wondered if the minister could tell me if there are any card-carrying Liberals on any of the regional health boards.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I only know by their public profile. Certainly political affiliation was not a factor in choosing the board members. I do know that we've had an endorsement about regionalization from the former executive director of the Liberal caucus. So I think that's good news. She came out and did that -- Judy Kirk did that -- on a political panel. The government should be given credit for trying to get on with it.

[ Page 3360 ]

Some of the examples of high-profile members who have taken a position publicly, from a political point of view, are Murli Pendharkar from Kelowna; Judd Buchanan, who is a former cabinet minister -- not an NDP one; and Ross Belsher, a former Tory MP. We have heads of chambers of commerce. Now, they could be of any political persuasion, but. . . . Murray Dykeman, who is the North Shore. . . . He's the former mayor of North Vancouver and certainly has made his political views, of a particular political party, known. Those are just some examples. I was sitting here in the Legislature one day, putting together some of those examples.

But again, it's only because of their public positions. They certainly didn't have to indicate, one way or the other, their political affiliation.

A. Sanders: This information is, I think, more important and illuminating than all of us in the House can probably imagine, when we actually look at it in terms of where people come from. I would suggest to the minister that it would be very interesting to have a breakdown of the representation on our RHBs and CHCs in terms of profession -- or retired profession, if they are now retired and did previously work. In addition, you know, we control for a number of variables such as gender, etc., but we do not control for variables such as how many of those individuals were card-carrying Liberals, how many. . . . Maybe there were one or two NDP-card-carrying individuals. If there were, how many union representatives from health care unions in their previous jobs. . . ? And how many nursing, physician and ancillary staff having to do with health care? That kind of information may be very illuminating in terms of looking at future decisions made by these groups and ascertaining control of variables in the future, should the minister feel that these groups are not going in appropriate directions. I would suggest that that would be something I'd be interested in obtaining from the minister, should she be willing to provide that.

I'd like to look a little bit at volunteerism. This is a very important principle, and it's a principle that some in my community are concerned about with respect to regionalization. I'm also aware that other members, such as the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, have talked about volunteerism and about whether or not volunteerism is going to have a premature death in B.C. with respect to the impact of regionalization.

In Hansard, in her opening remarks with regard to the estimates for Health, the hon. minister, in reviewing what the regional assessment team did, said that they received input from elected officials who were mandated to sit on the regional health board as trustees or councillors and that those individuals said to the minister: "Please don't appoint us, because we have a big job already."

We received feedback from across the province, and the feedback that the minister gave to the House in terms of what she had been told was to keep the voluntary aspect of appointments. I think it's important to look at this particular statement, at this newly formed species of this sitting of the House called the "volunteer appointment." I'm not a linguist in any sense of the word, but to me volunteer appointment is an oxymoron. More common oxymorons are things like jumbo shrimp or NDP consultation. There are different kinds of words that are oxymorons. I'm looking at what the officials said in the readings that I did of the regional assessment visits.

An Hon. Member: He called you a dummy, April.

A. Sanders: I've been a dummy all my life; it's just something that comes naturally for me.

I'm very interested in the term "volunteer appointment." What I'm wondering from the minister is: if those individuals in the community, those elected individuals who spoke to the RAT team, in fact said: "Keep voluntary aspects to our boards. . . ." I would be very interested if there's any difference, in the minister's mind, between voluntary workers and voluntary appointees. That differential is very large to me, and I'd appreciate the minister's comments as to whether she feels that is the same person or type of job.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There was no coercion involved in any of the appointments.

A. Sanders: To phrase the question differently, for simplicity: is a voluntary appointment the same thing as a volunteer?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The aspect that was under discussion. . . . I don't think we need to do this by the Socratic method. What was made clear to us across the province was that the societies in the health care system had been unpaid positions. There were no per diems or honorariums attached, and we were urged to keep that system in place.

A. Sanders: The point remains, no matter how we look at it, that there is probably a significant difference between the words "volunteer" and "volunteer appointment." Appointment is someone who is from a much smaller pool of individuals and is picked for a position -- appointed under the rules, regulations and guidelines that the group who is picking that person decides on and delineates -- and therefore is not a volunteer in the 1996 version of the word, which is basically someone who comes forward and offers their time and effort to a community for a non-remunerative position.

And the importance of that is that we had volunteer boards; we had people who were elected from the community. There is a very large difference between those individuals in terms of volunteerism and a volunteer appointment. This is seen in my community quite substantially. In our own newspapers, individuals who have volunteered at the hospital for, in some cases, 25 or 30 years, have said, speaking about the amalgamation. . . . This was quoted in our paper in Vernon: "The amalgamation crushes the spirit of volunteerism. Volunteerism is essential for the smooth operation of many sectors of society." So contravening the view of the minister that volunteer appointees are equivalent to volunteers and will work just as well, it's important for her to realize that in the communities there are individuals who do not feel that is the case. They are having some growing pains trying to pull themselves through the circumstance where they are no longer in charge of what used to be their hospital and their facility.

[5:45]

[ Page 3361 ]

pist in Vernon who donated land on which Vernon Jubilee Hospital now resides. Many members of that family, still residing in Vernon, were very much against the amalgamation -- which they call expropriation -- of the hospital into the regional health board.

We've had some questions from the member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale about what happens to those facilities that belong to non-profit groups, and I think this is a similar concern. The statement made by the minister at that time was: "This is why we've moved forward: better teamwork, better care, and moving health care decision-making out of Victoria and into the communities."

I'd like to ask the minister, in the remaining few minutes, for some answers that can be directed back to the people who live in Vernon. One of the statements made by the chair of the society of the Vernon Jubilee Hospital was, "The workload will get to the trustees, or it will be a rubber-stamp board," meaning that they will not actually be making decisions because they will be so overwhelmed in a volunteer-appointee position.

New Directions means all directions will come from Victoria. It crushes the spirit of volunteerism that is essential to the smooth operation of many sectors of society. The minister has stated that Better Teamwork, Better Care, will move health care decisions out of Victoria. When we can't even make a decision about whether or not our hospital lands become property of the government, how can she resolve, for the individuals who will ask me in Vernon, the question of how many more decisions will be made in Vernon?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the hon. member's comments are a tiny bit ironic, because a chair that she refers to was appointed by the previous Minister of Health. The board that was in existence during the period of time that you talk about was an appointed board. It was the exception in the province. So that's interesting in itself; there was actually no transition from elected to appointed between those two boards.

We have given assurances over and over again to all the community of Vernon that the land that was donated, on which the hospital was built with public funds, will remain dedicated to hospital. It's as simple as that: there will be no change in the use of that land. That reassurance has been given over and over and over again.

A. Sanders: I am aware that the board was appointed. The board was appointed, prior to my arrival in Vernon, because of concerns over an abortion issue and some disagreement between the government and the hospital society at that time.

On a point of interest that, again, I've been asked to bring forward on my behalf of my constituency, much of the hospital equipment that the community considers to have been expropriated was funded solely by the labour of the hospital auxiliary and volunteers. Do we as government lay claim to those possessions within the hospital that were funded by volunteer money?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are the assets of the regional health board or the community health council. Just as in any bequest, the asset from any fundraising that's done in any public institution becomes part of the public institution. I'm sure you're well aware of situations that occur in colleges, universities, schools. The same situation applies.

A. Sanders: I appreciate that clarification, as I was unsure of the answer.

My next question to the minister concerns the land in Vernon. With the advent of bringing these large pieces of property into the regional health board, will we find the value of these pieces of property owned by hospitals, for example, on the credit side of the ledger in terms of the government's assets?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

A. Sanders: My interpretation of that question would be, for example, that in owning two acres in Vernon, in the estimates of the budget analysis that we have now for the Ministry of Health, there would be no figure that would include the now-gained millions of dollars from the land as an asset?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Correct.

A. Sanders: Thank you.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and 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. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, before we adjourn, I want to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow. With that, I wish everyone a good evening and move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

Hon. J. Cashore: Just to go back to some of the discussion this morning about the FTEs, I'm going to read this answer, if you'll bear with me. I want to make sure that I follow the sequence here. In the blue book for 1996-97, the ministry had 

[ Page 3362 ]

175 FTEs, but this did not include co-op students -- 11 FTEs -- or the executive interchange -- two FTEs. These salaries are budgeted for and paid out of STOB 1, but the positions were not counted as FTEs against the ministry budget.

For the 1997-98 blue book, the co-op and interchange FTEs were added to the ministry total. The 1996-97 numbers were restated to be consistent with 1997-98. You might want to note that there were originally 175 plus 11 co-ops plus two interchange, which equals 188 as restated. For 1997-98, the ministry has 152 FTEs, including co-ops and executive interchange. This is a reduction of 36 FTEs from last year -- 188 minus 152. The ministry has seven co-op students at present and has budgeted for 11 co-op students.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can quickly canvass a couple of issues relating to the minister's own office. I'm relying upon some of the org charts that the deputy kindly presented to me. I will perhaps summarize this, and the minister can correct any errors I have. I understand that he has five individuals within his office: Mr. Peart, Ms. McPhee, Ms. Moniz, Ms. Asgeirsson and Ms. Caulfield, who, it appears from my documentation, replaced one Tammy Gotto, if that's correct.

Hon. J. Cashore: Could we just clarify if this question is relating to this point in time or to a point in a reporting period the member is referring to?

M. de Jong: I'm relying on an org chart that was provided to me with the date April 1, 1997. That's where I'm taking this information from.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I have that org chart in front of me now. Yes, except that I don't see the name Joan Caulfield here. She has left our office. My recall isn't good with regard to the exact date, but that was several months ago now. Just to reiterate: the minister's office of Aboriginal Affairs, ministerial assistant, Bob Peart; the executive assistant, who works out of the office in my constituency, Linda Asgeirsson; the administrative assistant, Linda McPhee; and support staff, Nancy Moniz and Tammy Gotto. I believe that both. . . . At least with Nancy, she is not working full-time.

M. de Jong: I'd also like to confirm with the minister that there have been organizational changes insofar as we now have three departments as opposed to four, which would formerly have been the case. Can he confirm that?

Hon. J. Cashore: We now have three divisions.

M. de Jong: Thank you. I'm sorry I used the incorrect term; that is divisions.

I'd like to pursue a line of questioning related to a particular issue that is applicable to this ministry but also across government, I think. I will begin by saying this. There is a sense in the public that for all the talk we hear, government downsizing tends to be a bit of a game of smoke and mirrors. We talked about that during the course of our discussion about FTEs.

I think that people are particularly cynical when it comes to people at the senior levels of the bureaucracy -- except in those fairly well-known cases, and I hope the deputy will excuse me -- where for political reasons, such as a change of government, there might be some change at the senior level. People understand that. Aside from those circumstances, there is this notion that once you rise to a certain level within the bureaucracy, it's very difficult to find yourself without some work, and that in several cases, it's not unheard of to find yourself with several sources of income at one time.

Within the context of the changes that have taken place within the minister's own branch at the senior level, let me ask him this, if I might. When the term "severance" is presented to the minister, what does that mean to him? In a very general way, who should be entitled to a severance pay-out?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that there are different components to a definition of severance. One component is that which exists within either a contract or a standard for a uniform way in which those employees are treated.

M. de Jong: Let me suggest to the minister that most people's notions of when severance would be payable. . . . You would get general agreement in the public, I think, that an employee who was dismissed with cause -- that is, someone who wasn't performing their duties satisfactorily and any attempts to improve that performance had failed, or the employee was guilty of some misconduct -- wouldn't be entitled to severance. Does the minister agree with me that far?

[2:45]

The standard, across-the-board arrangement that was available for people in that category who left government at that time was six months' severance pay. I am advised that the standard for someone who is fired without cause is, under the common law, one to one and a half months per year.

M. de Jong: I should advise the minister that one of the documents that I am referring to in pursuing this questioning is the auditor general's performance review of executive severance packages. On page 26 of that document the auditor general refers specifically to the issue of re-employment, and it says. . . . It's not lengthy; I'll read it.

"Concern over re-employment (or 'double-dipping') was addressed by PSERC in a 1987 directive. That directive requires employees to reimburse the government a portion of severance pay relative to the notice time remaining after gaining re-employment elsewhere within the public service.

"The new PSERC policy reinforces government's position on re-employment. . . . It also more clearly defines the employer as including both the public service and public sector and outlines government's payment conditions should alternative employment be obtained within the private sector."

". . .the new severance policy excludes deputy and associate deputy ministers. Senior executives at this level remain covered by the Treasury Board directive 219 (dated August 31, 1989). This directive does not address current concerns over double-dipping. . . ."

[ Page 3363 ]

"As part of its periodic review of severance arrangements with senior executives at the deputy and associate deputy minister levels, government should consider both strengthening measures to control 'double-dipping'. . . ."

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to make sure that I understand the question. I think it's related to a recommended standard in that report that the hon. member is referring to. Is the question: would I recommend that that standard be applied? I'm just wondering if you would clarify the question.

M. de Jong: The recommendation -- I'll read it quickly again: "As part of its periodic review of severance arrangements with senior executives at the deputy and associate deputy minister levels, government should consider strengthening measures to control 'double-dipping'. . . ." I guess the question is: does the minister agree with that recommendation, and would he seek to apply it both to his own ministry and across government?

Hon. J. Cashore: My own view is that I have taken and will continue to take the position of seeking to avoid double-dipping. The operative, functioning part of government here is PSERC. Insofar as I'm part of the entire process that sets that mandate, yes, and I believe we have done that and are doing that.

M. de Jong: It won't surprise the minister, I don't think, to know that I have asked those lead-up questions because I'm curious to know how his approach would apply to at least one of the individuals that recently left the employ of the ministry, and that is Mr. Brant. I should say that the minister knows. . . . There was some controversy around his departure, more so, I think, in the jurisdiction to which he transferred -- that is, the Yukon.

The essence of the controversy seems to be as follows. Mr. Brant left in 1997, but in December of 1996, at the time he resigned as the chief negotiator for the province at the Sechelt table, he was telling reporters of his decision to move on to the Yukon. He indicated that his decision to leave was related to recent cuts at the ministry, where he was working as assistant deputy minister. The job had changed, he said, and he is quoted as saying: "There was no longer a position for an ADM."

Those comments give rise to a whole series of questions, actually, the first being that for an individual who is leaving -- I think this gets to the heart of what the auditor general was talking about. Mr. Brant was leaving to take a specific position and had apparently negotiated that in advance. That's fine; no one's quarrelling with his right to do what he believes is best for him, his family and his career. At the same time, however, to opt into a six-month severance pay-out that, quite frankly, left him with the dual source of income for that period. . . . I think what the auditor general is saying and what the average person on the street would say is, "That doesn't seem right," given that he had secured alternate employment and knew where he was going apparently as early as December 1996.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that's a very valid concern. I think, however, that part of the assumption behind the way the concern is stated is based on the words that the hon. member stated -- "had apparently negotiated that in advance," meaning a new job in the Yukon. I think that's important wording that the hon. member uses: ". . . had apparently negotiated that in advance."

That is something that is apparent to the hon. member; it's not apparent to me. The way the hon. member could really resolve that is either to talk to Mr. Brant or in some other way. I just want to state very clearly that that is not apparent to me; therefore I cannot share that fundamental assumption. It may be an assumption that's based on either a literal excerpt from an article that took place either in Sechelt or somewhere like that; I don't know. But all I'm saying is that it is not apparent to me.

M. de Jong: Well, with the greatest respect, for obvious reasons it's convenient politically for the minister to assume that position on the matter. The fact is, however, that it was apparently well known to Mr. Brant. I am advised that he and only he. . . . With respect to this position in the Yukon, he's the only one to have been interviewed by Mr. Walsh. The evidence, if I can put it this way, is in my view somewhat overwhelming that Mr. Brant, at the time he opted to avail himself of the severance pay-out, knew full well that he wouldn't be missing a beat in terms of collecting another paycheque.

The minister can choose to say the evidence wasn't as clear to him. I think he's guilty -- again, with respect -- of a bit of wilful blindness in that respect. But perhaps the question that flows from that, if he is assuming that posture or that position, is: is he content? Regardless of whether Mr. Brant knew or didn't know, or whether he knew or didn't know, is he satisfied that a former senior employee in his branch for a period of time was content to collect that dual pay?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not going to create a showdown over this, but I would encourage the member, out of respect, to withdraw the words "guilty of wilful blindness," even though I realize there was some care taken in the way in which those words were stated. As I'm saying, I'm happy enough to just have it on the record that I've asked the member to do that. I hope that he would withdraw those words. But if he doesn't, then that will be fine, and we'll proceed.

I just want to say that the fact that the hon. member himself, whenever he makes this statement and uses the word "apparently," indicates to me that the hon. member and I are very close to being on the same wavelength here. Otherwise, I think he would not use the word "apparently" and would state it in a much more deliberate way when he makes this reference with regard to Mr. Brant.

I will just simply say again that I have been given copies of articles that were written in newspapers. I've had conversations with Mr. Brant. I don't really want to get into a lengthy discussion on what he said to me and what I said to him. But when I say what the member states is apparently the case, that is not consistent with what I understood to be the case when I personally talked to Mr. Brant.

M. de Jong: I will address the first part of the minister's comments directly, because I don't want there to be any doubt. If my choice of words was taken to imply some notion of 

[ Page 3364 ]

complicity or criminality, certainly that was not my intention. I certainly withdraw any suggestion or impression that it may have been left.

I think employees and senior bureaucrats as well will make career decisions. They don't necessarily discuss them with their employers or the minister. They just happen. The minister is telling me that there is insufficient evidence for him to come to the conclusion. In fact, I think he goes further and says the evidence that he has suggests that Mr. Brant didn't leave his position here to go to a position he had secured in the Yukon. I am inclined to draw a different conclusion, based on the available evidence and the personalities involved, including the individuals who were and are in charge in the Yukon. The minister politely challenges me to provide something in the way of conclusive evidence. Of course I cannot do that, but I think the evidence is very circumstantial.

But the one thing the minister hasn't done in defending the actions of Mr. Brant. . . . And I don't think, quite frankly, he has to defend Mr. Brant or any other employee who will seek to get the best deal they can upon leaving their employ.

[3:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: Just to go back to the first point, I never suggested that the member was accusing me of any kind of criminal intent. I just asked him to withdraw those offensive words "guilty of wilful blindness." I don't think they're parliamentary, and I would appreciate it if he would withdraw those words.

The hon. member unwittingly mischaracterizes my point by stating, in reference to Mr. Brant: ". . .didn't leave his position here to go to a position. . .in the Yukon." The point that I was making was not to comment on what the circumstances were, what the sequence was between his leaving government and going to the Yukon. The only point I'm making, notwithstanding what may have shown up in articles, is that Mr. Brant told me that there was only a discussion about a possibility. At the time that I spoke to him. . . . I can actually go to my diary and cite the day and event and place where I talked to him, because we attended a wedding together. He told me at that time that the things he had been discussing -- my words -- weren't going to happen, that basically it was off at that time. So to say that somehow. . . . To characterize what I'm saying as that he left, or didn't leave, his position to go to the Yukon -- I don't know that. All I'm saying is what I do know and what I don't know. Therefore I don't think one can say. . . .

Again to go to the use of this word "apparently," the hon. member referred in his statement to the fact that he doesn't have conclusive evidence. I want to make it very clear. I'm not saying what I'm saying to defend Mr. Brant; I'm trying to set the record straight as I know it with regard to events around that time. So I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the hon. member has conclusive evidence. It's just that the fact that he uses the word "apparently" indicates that he too, like me, isn't absolutely sure of all the things that were going on. Only Mr. Brant can answer that; I can't answer that. I think I'm being completely open and forthcoming on that issue.

With regard to the question, do I think there should be a mechanism to avoid such things. . . ? Let's cut to the chase here. As a person who is working for Canadian taxpayers in British Columbia and being paid and then going and working for Canadian taxpayers in the Yukon and being paid, it's a bit of a fine line to say: "Okay, you know, it's not our jurisdiction. Therefore we wash our hands of it." I think that's a very legitimate question. And yes, I've thought about it quite a bit, seeing the fact that some people have gone from one government to another in another jurisdiction because of -- I guess you might say -- a technicality. They wouldn't necessarily be caught in those kinds of rules that are put in place, unless they are put in place by some global entity such as the federal government or maybe some kind of a federal-provincial entity.

I'm not the Minister of Finance, hon. member, but I think this is a worthwhile avenue to pursue. Have I pursued it heretofore? No. It's something that I have certainly been thinking about, but I haven't pursued it.

M. de Jong: Firstly, I disagree with the minister that the words "wilful blindness" are unparliamentary. But for the purposes of this debate he advises me that they cause him concern, and I'm happy to withdraw them.

By the way, I trust the minister wasn't officiating at the wedding he referred to that he attended with Mr. Brant.

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Brant and I were jointly officiating at that wedding.

M. de Jong: I don't want to hear any more about that.

It is the last part of what the minister said that interests me the most, hon. Chair. I wonder if, confronted with a similar situation again, he has determined what steps, if any, he could take to prevent a similar situation from developing.

Here's what we do know: we do know that an employee left. . . . I presume because I've not heard anything to the contrary that for a six-month period of time -- that hasn't yet elapsed -- Mr. Brant, in this case, has been collecting his salary in the Yukon. And he is also the beneficiary of a six-month severance pay-out -- which again I presume. This might be something the minister can advise me on. When these severance pay-outs occur, they are, as I understand it, lump sum payments given upon departure.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that's my understanding: they are lump sum payments. If that period of history were to go by again, is there anything I would have done differently. . . ? I don't believe there is. I believe that everything that was done was done on the basis of the standards and the circumstances that we had in front of us. I don't think at that time there would have been a way in which one in my position could have or should have interfered in what, at the most, would have been speculation about what was going on in terms of discussions that Mr. Brant was having with the Yukon government. The fact is that I did have a chat with him, and I still believe he was telling me the truth at that time.

M. de Jong: I hope that Mr. Brant doesn't feel like he's being picked on, but I find it is easier to have these discussions when we are dealing with a specific example.

[ Page 3365 ]

I am aware, as I think the minister will be, that recently the committee charged with the task of developing a set of guidelines around MLA compensation, pension, severance and all of those things that are relevant to the MLA's compensation package have examined the severance rules that apply to us. As I understand it, the recommendation includes the fact that severance not be paid for voluntary departure. And I think that's a fairly cut-and-dried recommendation that if one leaves voluntarily, there would be no severance paid. But beyond that, the other issue relates to the notion that when severance is paid -- and I think this is what the recommendation is -- it is payable to a maximum of six months, it is paid incrementally on a monthly basis, and it is only paid until such time as the former member has secured employment, to a maximum of, I think, six months. Is that a model that in the minister's mind has application to the senior civil service?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's certainly worthy of review. There are certain aspects to this where I think other counsel would have to be given, dealing with all the various circumstances -- just as when the issue of the MLAs was dealt with. There was a very wide study of those particular circumstances. But certainly I think that should be a matter for consideration.

M. de Jong: Just with respect to the articles I've referred to, one of the comments that Mr. Brant was reported -- and quoted -- to have made was: "The job has changed. There was no longer a position for an ADM." Am I to understand from that that the position Mr. Brant occupied is no longer part of the establishment?

Hon. J. Cashore: I state on the record that there's a disagreement of opinion between Mr. Brant and myself, and Mr. Brant and the deputy, over that. I can tell you that the deputy offered Mr. Brant a newly defined ADM position which was not accepted.

M. de Jong: Was that done prior to Mr. Brant making known his desire to leave?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the answer is no; I'm trying to remember how the question was phrased, so they get it right -- yes or no. But the fact is that Mr. Brant knew about that prior to it being reported in the media.

M. de Jong: Is the sequence of events, then, as the minister knows them, that Mr. Brant was advised of a pending change to his duties and responsibilities and expressed dissatisfaction? And then the offer of the voluntary severance was made? Is that the sequence of events?

Hon. J. Cashore: For people in his type of position leaving government, there was a policy -- a severance policy availability -- that I think was there to help facilitate the fact that there was some downsizing going on. And he chose, for reasons that only he can ever adequately describe, to access that process of severance.

M. de Jong: As Mr. Brant would tell it -- and he, of course, hasn't spoken to me -- he was under the impression that his position was being deleted from the ministry's establishment, and he chose to take the voluntary severance package that was available. I'm afraid I'm still a bit unclear as to whether, if his position was to remain. . . . I take it that it's the minister's position that he simply left; he chose to leave.

[3:15]

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, in those circumstances where a position and an offer to continue in that position exists, albeit with slightly changed duties and, I presume, comparable pay -- I presume there was no change in pay -- and Mr. Brant, as the minister said, for one reason or another that only he knows, chooses to go elsewhere. . . . I also recognize that this program existed, and one wouldn't blame Mr. Brant for availing himself of it. But does the minister think that it's appropriate to be paying someone severance in those circumstances?

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to say again that I would encourage the member not characterize what I said as "slightly changed." I didn't say that. It was changed. I think that's a matter subject to judgment as to what degree it was changed. But there were changes in the job description. Mr. Brant did not find that acceptable.

With regard to the answer to the question, is this appropriate? the fact of the matter is that it was not a decision of this minister or this government to make. Mr. Brant chose to access a policy that was available during a time of government downsizing.

M. de Jong: Is it fair for me to suggest that that policy would have been created to respond to the specific cases of individuals who, as a result of downsizing, found themselves out of work?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I think the hon. member would have to ask the Minister of Finance that question.

In this particular case it was a policy that was there, and it was available across the board.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I appreciate that the minister would prefer that these questions be directed elsewhere, but I'm afraid I'm going to insist in this case.

This is an individual who was a senior official within his ministry who left and availed himself of a pay-out package that was available. Yes, it was available across the government, but in this case it was the minister's employee. I've only asked the minister -- I'm going to ask him again -- to provide me with some indication of what gave rise to the policy that I presume he, as a representative of his government, agreed with: that is, was this a policy that was intended to provide for employees of the government of British Columbia whose positions were going to be lost and who were going to find themselves out of work as a result of government downsizing?

[ Page 3366 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Although I'm not the minister responsible for the questions on this policy, it's my understanding that that policy was put in place to encourage government employees at that level to leave, where they would access that. That was made available. That's what happened.

M. de Jong: Well, that's helpful. It sounds like what this was was an early retirement incentive package. If that's what it was, that's what it was.

Hon. J. Cashore: There were two packages that were available, whether or not the job was redundant. One was a retirement package, and the other was a voluntary severance package. I'm advised there were two separate packages.

M. de Jong: Well, I think we've. . . . I'm certain that I'm not entirely satisfied with the responses I'm getting. I suppose I'd like to leave the issue with this submission to the minister. Presumably. . . . Maybe I should ask this question: does the cost of financing, in Mr. Brant's case, the six months of severance come out of his budget?

Hon. J. Cashore: It comes out of the Finance budget.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to urge the minister in his capacity as one of the members of the executive council to review this whole matter of voluntary severance and voluntary departure. I think that there are two issues that we've sort of focused on here. One relates to the departure of employees who have a destination in mind at the time they depart -- we can only speculate -- and have gone down that path. I don't propose to revisit it here. But more importantly, where a senior employee has left who is being paid the kind of dollars that senior employees in government get, where that decision to leave is voluntary in the truest sense of the word -- the position remains open to be filled by them, yet they choose to leave -- it strikes the person on the street as a bit odd. All of us have the choice to leave our work. We assume certain consequences when we do that. I would urge the minister to exercise the influence he has as a member of the executive council with the Finance ministry to review that policy with a view to, I think, providing better custody of public dollars.

I wonder if we can turn now to a particular branch of the ministry, and that is the aboriginal relations branch. I'm using the minister as a resource here as much as anything. As I understand it, we used to have an aboriginal relations division, and that division no longer exists. It now appears as a branch within the negotiating support division. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: When that kind of realignment takes place within a ministry in an age of downsizing -- that we have one less division -- what does that really mean? "We're a branch instead of a division." What gave rise. . . ? What was the logic behind doing it, and how does it result in savings? Does it mean fewer people? How does it influence the budgeting process within the ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: It generally comes under the headline of operating efficiencies and reporting efficiencies. This particular branch, aboriginal relations, which again comes under the ADM, negotiation support division, is. . . . In the overall global situation, we have one less assistant deputy minister. We used to have one in policy, and it brings the policy and mandate function and the aboriginal relations function under the same umbrella with significantly fewer people doing that work.

Some of it reflects work that is no longer carried out by this ministry. Some of it reflects the fact that much of the policy work that was done and was ongoing during the early years of this ministry during this term in government was completed and that we moved on to another phase, which you might say goes from policy development to policy delivery. When you're into policy delivery, that manifests itself more in the areas of treaty negotiations and some of the things that go on in relations with virtually all aboriginal people in the province. We have a relationship, much of which relates to certain legal obligations and much of which is simply a recognition that we are trying to build a new relationship with people of first nations.

M. de Jong: Is the minister able to say with any degree of certainty how many of the 36 reduced FTEs we identified earlier are attributable to this particular organizational change?

[3:30]

The 36 FTEs. For the aboriginal relations division, it's ten. A brief answer on the reason for that is that the social and economic initiatives branch were consolidated. The treaty mandates and implementation division is nine; that's because the aboriginal policy branch was eliminated. The consultation branch is 13, and that's because of communications branch reductions. Management services division is six, with general reductions -- subtotal, 38. The number the hon. member has referred to is 36, and that's because of two in the treaty negotiations division, where there was an increase. We lost 38; we added two, so that equals 36.

M. de Jong: For those individuals affected, and I heard the numbers ten and 36, does the ministry track whether those individuals find employment elsewhere? If it was within the ministry, I assume they would know that. But does the ministry track whether those individuals affected find employment elsewhere in government?

Hon. J. Cashore: Of the 36 positions impacted by staffing reductions, 12 of those positions, as I said yesterday, were already vacant. Fifteen accepted voluntary leave under the voluntary leave programs, three were auxiliary staff who left at the end of their assignments and six were placed in other positions in the ministry or in other ministries. I think that covers it.

M. de Jong: With respect to those individuals who took voluntary leave, is the minister able to say what the cost to the government of those departures was?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's information that PSERC would have. Again, I think one approach on that would be for us to notify the Minister of Finance that this question has been asked and to be prepared to respond to that during the Finance estimates.

[ Page 3367 ]

M. de Jong: Within the aboriginal relations branch, responsibility formerly included -- or perhaps still includes -- the heritage, language and culture program. My understanding is that the legislation that gave rise to the creation of that program provided for a set number of years within which it was to operate, and that that may have now expired. I also understand that the minister formerly indicated that responsibility for that programming was transferred to another ministry -- I think Small Business was spoken of. Is that the case, and what's the status?

Hon. J. Cashore: No. That was a plan at one time which did not happen. We were heading in that direction, but we decided not to do that. The heritage, language and culture program. . . . The hon. member is correct; it was a five-year, one-time-only fund. At the end of the five years, we continued it for an additional year at the same amount. As that year went on, which was the previous fiscal year, I believe that we had some of that money taken back by budget measures during that fiscal year.

For this current fiscal year, that budget is down to $700,000, and there is no certainty at this point with regard to the future of that fund. Although as we canvassed it with the member for Vancouver-Langara yesterday, it is something that we have looked at in the context of the fact that there has been quite a bit of federal off-load. We believe it's important that we continue to remind the federal government of their historic responsibility for those kinds of programs.

M. de Jong: A couple of questions arise out of that. Because I read some of the material that the minister provided several years ago about the plan to transfer responsibility, I would be interested to know what compelling reasoning arose to alter those plans.

Hon. J. Cashore: I could go on and on and cite different reasons, but I think it all boils down to the fact that the aboriginal people who were on the board of heritage, language and culture were not comfortable with the program leaving this ministry. For a time, we tried to convince them that that would be a positive move -- consistent with my philosophy that most programs should be handled by other ministries, not creating what would become an ongoing institution similar to the Ministry of Indian Affairs federally. The fact was that they were not comfortable with that. They made that point forcefully, and we ended up not forcing the issue.

M. de Jong: Off the top, I should say to the minister that I have not read the act that established this entity. So my questions, if they appear overly accusatorial, are not meant to be. But I am curious about this: given that the fund and the organization that grew up around it rely upon a specific statutory authority that within its legislative parameters saw an expiry date after five years, does it trouble the minister that some might see the fund as having lost its legislative legitimacy to continue? I think the minister can probably. . . . In fact, the member for Vancouver-Langara would help him by offering all sorts of strong arguments in favour of the fund continuing and continuing the work it is doing. Nonetheless, if it is doing that kind of good work, one might have expected the ministry to come forward with an act extending the existence of the fund within the legislative parameters.

Hon. J. Cashore: At the risk of giving ammunition, I don't feel good about not being able to continue this work. For instance, if you were to look at the recent very upsetting revelations coming out of the residential school situation, one of the things that we hear is that one of the real impacts is language. I think the potential loss of an aboriginal language is similar to the loss of any other entity that goes back in time. So I think that the purpose of the fund is very valid and continues to be valid.

My own view is that it would be best if such work was not done through an institutionalized Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs -- which we don't want to see become institutionalized, given that one of the factors when this was first set up was that it had a sunset clause, at least insofar as the fund itself was concerned. That may not be the case as far as that act was concerned. I honestly can't remember that, but as far as the fund was concerned, it had a sunset clause. We did continue it for a year. When it came to the issue of the cost-cutting measures that we had to institute during this last budget round, it had to go, because it did not gain the prominence of some of the other areas of our activities, such as treaty-making.

I've always tried to make the case that the federal government has abandoned responsibility in this area, and therefore I continue to try to make that case. I have discussed with the federal minister, in an exploratory way, the possibility of dollar-for-dollar matching grants, or maybe the feds putting in $2 and the province putting in $1, and that sort of thing.

There are other activities that relate to heritage, language and culture that I think are opportunities to enable people of first nations to be involved in that relate to such issues as self-esteem and cultural awareness. I don't think the fact that that fund is diminished and may not always be there should ever take away from the fact that some very valuable things were done as a result of it.

M. de Jong: Am I correct to characterize the present status of the fund by saying that it is statutorily gone, by virtue of the operation of the five-year sunset provision, but, practically, lives on to the extent that the ministry sees fit to fund it from year to year?

Hon. J. Cashore: We are going to have to do a little research to answer that question. The sense is that from a statutory point of view, there's probably not a sunset clause in the legislation itself. Technically, the answer could be that it isn't statutorily ended, but the reference to the fund itself had a sunset clause. So there was not a requirement within the statute that the fund be continued. We'll try to get that for you.

M. de Jong: As the minister's staff investigate that, let me say that my interest in that aspect of the fund is as follows: all of us are familiar with the stories that come out of government -- any government, right across the country -- of programs that are established and continue to operate to infinity. Over time, people forget what the purpose of the program was in the first place.

Just as we have, in the course of other debates during this legislative session, looked at the need for government to abide by the constraints that it places around itself through legislation and that the House places around government. . . . As valuable as the work is that an organization like this and a fund like this might do, I think it is still fundamentally important that the House, that members, that people be able to rely on the fact that when a deadline expires, government must do one of two things: it must either cease operating in that field or come back before the House to seek the authority to continue.

[ Page 3368 ]

[3:45]

Having said that, I agree with the point that the hon. member makes -- that when something's over, it should be over and we should recognize that. But I would have no difficulty in the best of all worlds, if the resources were available, in speaking glowingly about the work that is being done as a result of this fund and the people who have been carrying out that work.

M. de Jong: Well, I think I've made my point with respect to the need for government to abide by the statutory constraints that exist.

The only other question I would put to the minister with respect to this particular fund, insofar as it apparently continues to operate, is: what manner of indicators or studies. . . ? I'm searching for the word to better articulate what I mean. How do we know that the goals that this fund were set up to achieve are in fact being achieved? The minister referred, for example, to the preservation of language, culture. There are, I presume, indicators that the ministry is looking at and could cite in defence of the fact that for the money it has been providing, it has achieved some results. I'd be interested to know what mechanism exists for that review to take place on a year-to-year basis.

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a board chaired most recently by Ron Ignace of the Skeetchestn band. One of the programs that can be cited, for instance, is in the school at Skeetchestn, a language training program that I think has been recognized as very effective. Also, there has been support coming through this fund for work done at UBC in conjunction with first nations programs there, and other programs throughout the province. We can get an outline of that.

M. de Jong: Here's my point on this. I've seen some of the application documents, and I must say they set out in great detail the requirements one must meet in order to make an application: the documentation that needs to be there, the criteria that must be met for receiving funding under the program. I think all of that is necessary and all of that is useful.

But it's a theme we return to in all of these estimates, or are trying to anyway, from the opposition side of the fence. Having applied that rigid test to applicants who wish to access the moneys, wouldn't it make sense, or wouldn't one logically expect, that the government, prior to moving into the field, had said to itself: "We're going to set aside X dollars for a cultural program. We're going to make that money available, but in a year or three years or five years, this is what we expect to have happened. This is how we are going to determine whether that money has actually made a difference in reaching some objectives that we have set for ourselves as a government"? Does that sort of strategic plan -- I hate that word, but I guess that's the one that is in vogue at the moment -- exist with respect to this fund and the moneys that are spent as part of this fund?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that's a good point. There was some evaluation that was done a couple of years ago. I don't have that on the tip of my tongue right now, but we can try to find some of that. The board that is responsible for this, I think, is in a very effective interrelationship with our support staff that has worked with them. The sense that I get in the meetings that I've had with Mr. Ignace and his board and others is that it's being handled very carefully and very caringly. Dorothy Hunt, of course, has been involved right from the inception.

M. de Jong: I don't doubt (a) that's the impression that the minister would be left with and (b) that it is firmly held by the people responsible for administering the fund. But I have to say -- again, with the greatest respect -- that if I were in charge of the fund, that is the impression I would want to leave the minister with.

I think that in many instances, the people charged with the task of administering these kinds of funds are in the worst position to offer a dispassionate and impartial assessment of what success, if any, government is deriving or the province as a whole is deriving from the expenditure of these moneys. That's why I think -- and I make this point again -- you can't expect the administrators, the people operating this fund, to meet objectives that haven't been set for them. You go to Mr. Ignace and you say: "How's it going?" Well, he's going to tell you that it's going very well, that there's wonderful work, and he will point to examples. But at the end of the day, all you're left with is a gut feeling that yes, we seem to be doing some good, and it's very difficult to quantify that. Now, in some of these cases it is difficult, period, to quantify the results, but we're talking about a significant amount of money.

It is a theme that we have tried to return to time and time again -- that government has an obligation to impose upon the administrators of funds like this a framework around which they can be measured for their success. I must assume that that level of accountability doesn't yet exist with respect to this particular fund.

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll try to find some of that evaluative material. But the member is right. It's not an exact science. We're dealing with a tremendous paucity of material and programs out there, and the work that is being done as a result of this fund is very significant.

It's not as though you can have the kind of measurable goals that you would have if you had a comprehensive program that was able to address the need of virtually every language in the province that's on the verge of extinction and every language in the province that is almost to that point. The best we can do with these kinds of resources is to try to work strategically, and this is being done. The fact is that those who are involved in that work have a very effective way of bringing back information with regard to what's going in those programs, and that's taking place.

M. de Jong: The administrative centre for the first nations environment program was also within this branch of the ministry -- at one time, at least. Does that continue to operate?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: I do not have documentation of the sort that I was provided with on the cultural program as to the criteria for which these funds are dispensed -- the application criteria. I would appreciate receiving that. I can say to the minister also that I do not have a listing of those recipients of funds for the last year. I wonder if both those items could be made available.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we will get that. I think we can get that tomorrow.

[ Page 3369 ]

M. de Jong: I will say that one of the reasons I'm interested in receiving that information is that the rather dated information I do have leaves me with some questions about what the purpose of the fund actually is. So maybe I could ask that question of the minister, and he can enlighten us verbally today. Why was the fund set up and what were the objectives in general terms for establishing the fund? And what is the amount of funding for this year?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's $150,000. The purpose is to assist first nations and other aboriginal organizations to undertake specific community-based projects that are related to integrated resource development.

M. de Jong: I think I understand what that means, although I note that in the past, funds have been made available to assist with the location of religious sites, to assist with negotiations on parks matters. I'm just wondering whether it is appropriate, within the guise of an environmental fund, to be providing separate funding to bands who, in certain cases, are already involved in the treaty negotiation process -- to be providing separate funding through a separate program for items that I'm not sure would be construed by the average person as being environmental in nature.

Hon. J. Cashore: No, I don't see any problem with that.

M. de Jong: Well, I do.

Hon. Chair, many of the projects that I am aware of that have received funding -- watershed restoration. . . . The point is this: we seem to have a negotiating process, and the potential for duplication here is quite striking. I don't think that in any one case. . . . Obviously, with $150,000 on the table, no one band, no one first nation, is getting $100,000. But when you look at the totality of the number of programs and where first nations are going to get this funding, if it is purely an environmental type of project, I'm not sure I understand how the minister distinguishes providing separate funding for negotiations around the parks issue from overall negotiations around land selection within the Treaty Commission process.

Hon. J. Cashore: Frankly, I really don't understand the problem at all. Life goes on. The sum total of our relationship with first nations, if they happen to be in the treaty process, doesn't sever our relationship with them in areas that don't have the immediacy of the treaty process.

[4:00]

The eligibility criteria:

"Proposals are accepted from a first nation, tribal council, other aboriginal organization or ministry in cooperation with an aboriginal group. Proposals must relate to integrated resource management and be community-based and consistent with regional land use plans. Proposals must be for projects that can be completed by a given date, depending on the fiscal year."

"Preference may be given to training initiatives for aboriginal skill development or enhancement; projects that have a clearly identified cultural component; applicants who have not received funding previously under this program or its precursor, the sustainable environment fund; projects that are collaborative efforts by two or more organizations; and projects that have received contributions from other sources."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: It is, and I will therefore rely on the Hansard transcript for that material. He need not provide anything additional.

I wonder if we can move on now to an area separate from ministerial operations and, quite frankly, an area that in this day and age may be of much more interest. Certainly it is to me and to anyone who would participate or review the transcripts of this debate. That is the broader issue of treaty negotiations, both the Nisga'a round and the Treaty Commission process that is unfolding right across the province.

In venturing into that area, let me say right off the bat that I am somewhat apprehensive, for this reason. The standing committee is in the process of drafting its report that will be submitted to the Legislature, ultimately for the minister's and the government's consideration. I think the committee is working hard to draft its report, and I don't want to be seen as upstaging or trying to capitalize on those deliberations.

But I will say in all candour that many of the impressions I've formed over the past number of months arise out of the submissions we have heard. I certainly will not feel hesitant about referring, if it is appropriate, to some of the testimony that we've heard and that has been published in the Hansard editions relative to those deliberations. So it's not my intention, for example, to put the minister in an awkward position or to try and pre-empt the publication of the committee's report. At the same time, this is my opportunity and the opportunity of all members to put to the minister some of the impressions they have gained during the course of those hearings -- to gauge his reaction to some of the evidence, some of the testimony that was heard. I think it's appropriate in that respect for us to do so.

The minister should be cautioned, however, that my views need not or should not be assumed. . . . He should not assume that my views or any member's views necessarily represent the views of the committee as a whole, until such time as he has received that report in his hands. As we went through the process. . . . If I can say this to the minister, the questioning that I would like to put to him revolves in large measure around my desire to see what can be done to make this process work better. I'm sure that is a goal he shares.

I have been left with the impression that there is frustration right across the board with the length of time it is taking to move these negotiations forward and that as thankful 

[ Page 3370 ]

people are that there is now a process in place to proceed with the work, they are frustrated that, for example, they may only see a main-table negotiating session every two months. That is a theme that I would like to pursue with the minister as we embark upon these discussions.

It's with that in mind, for example, that I would like to address some of the areas that are of concern to people -- to determine whether there might be an ability to pursue negotiations on a provincewide basis or a regional basis, as opposed to the individual tables that are multiplying and have multiplied at a fast rate.

We as a committee heard evidence about alternate means of making land selection and the appropriate time for making a land selection -- the appropriate time and mechanism by which you can settle on, for example, the quantum of money involved in negotiation. So these are all issues that I think are relevant for us to explore, to probe the minister's thoughts, now that he has had a couple of years at least to gauge how the process has been working.

Maybe I could begin by suggesting to the minister that he and I likely have. . . . I'll pick an issue. Let's take the fisheries issue and the model that was adopted and apparently favoured by the federal government, the provincial government and, I presume, the Nisga'a for the Nass Valley. We have in previous estimates debates and other debates in the Legislature and in public, I think, articulated fairly extensively the differences that we have with respect to that model, the appropriateness of the separate harvest agreement and the allocation that exists in the Nisga'a AIP itself. I don't really propose to rehash all of that, because I think our respective positions are fairly clear.

The issue, though, that became equally clear during our hearings and as we entertained submissions on that point was that the likelihood. . . . Whether you agree or disagree with it, the ability to duplicate that kind of model elsewhere in the province is severely limited. Now, many of the parties were quick to point out that we shouldn't view the Nisga'a AIP as a template for application. People would do that with various interests in mind. But it begs the other question, which is that even if you wanted to, I don't think you could. I think a lot of people have come to that conclusion.

So that leads to the additional question: if that model isn't going to work, what is? How do we settle this question of fisheries allocations elsewhere in the province, where the claims are by many bands besides the commercial fishery, the sport fishery? How are we going to reach agreement in any sort of workable way within a reasonable period of time?

Hon. J. Cashore: I certainly do think it's appropriate to canvass these issues even though the select standing committee is underway, because we do have an ongoing mandate. Also, the Hansard is public. I do try to the best of my ability to keep abreast of what's going through that process, and that informs me with yet another aspect of a process of hearing from the public. I certainly want to commend all the members of the select standing committee for their role in facilitating this public dialogue, which I think is extremely valuable.

This question picks up from discussions that we had last year during estimates. Even though I have been paying close attention to what is being said out there, I think my answer is still quite similar: would that this issue had been settled years ago. It hasn't been. Settling treaties is not a process of putting toothpaste back into a tube. We can't recreate the past. We have to go about this in a way that engenders and embodies a very genuine respect for all citizens, aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

Therefore in any particular area of the province -- again using the fish issue as an example -- there may well be some places where not very much could be done with fish, given the circumstance of that particular area. I mean, I'm being hypothetical here. I'm not going to name any particular area, because I don't think that would be appropriate. Hypothetically, there could be a place in the province, possibly in a more urban setting, where there would be very severe limitations with regard to what could be done in negotiating around fish. In those circumstances, again being hypothetical, you may very well have to take a look at more of a cash-based or predominantly cash settlement, compared to other areas of the province where that may not be the case

Having said that, I know that as soon as I say that, others will point out the multiple uses and demands in the rural areas of the province. I'm also very cognizant of that and just cite that, you know, I've made several field trips. People have taken me to places on the land that they wanted me to see so I'd be abundantly aware of that point they are making. So, yes, there's some real challenges with regard to how we would address this in any particular area. But this whole process is based on the fundamental belief that where people come together at a table, they have a better opportunity to resolve these issues than through other means.

M. de Jong: When we return to this line of questioning, I think I will urge the minister to address his mind to the fact that regardless of how the issue is ultimately resolved, the discussion will take place. And really, my interest in the issue at this point is how we can better manage the discussion that will take place around the issue of fisheries, so that we don't agonizingly see this take place at one table after another, in many cases involving bands and first nations with overlapping claims. So it's within that context that I would like to focus the discussion.

I have assured one of my colleagues that shortly he will be provided with an opportunity to pursue a line of questioning, and I wonder if this is the appropriate time for us to take our traditional little break.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. And come back just before 4:30?

The Chair: The committee is in agreement that we recess until 4:30? So be it.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to just ask the minister a couple of questions about some of the previous debate with the member for Matsqui, particularly around the first citizens language, culture and heritage process. I think I share with the minister a belief that the preservation of language is one of the most critical elements in cultural activities in maintaining and, in fact, reintroducing language. Strengthening cultures very much revolves around language. Could the minister clarify for me the issue with respect to funding? I know that when I was involved in first establishing that group, it was seen as an ongoing process. I had a sense from the minister's answers that perhaps the funding for that particular undertaking or endeavour was in some question.

Hon. J. Cashore: I do want to say that I appreciate what the hon. member has just pointed out for the record, given his previous experience as the Minister of Native Affairs. I was 

[ Page 3371 ]

not aware that that was the perspective of the former government. I was advised that the initial intent of the fund, which I believe was $10.7 million, was for it to be administered over a period of five years and that it was a one-time-only fund. In other words, it was a finite amount of money, with the anticipated longevity being five years. As it turns out, we have still not expended the entire $10.7 million, which lends itself to being able to carry on for subsequent years. But it was certainly my understanding that there was a sunset provision in it.

J. Weisgerber: My sense of the issue, given the fragile nature of so many languages and the small number of speakers there are in many of the language groups, was that I saw it at least as something that was going to require a substantial amount of attention over a relatively long period of time. My sense was that the $10-million plus was put in there to provide some certainty at least over the first five years of the budget process, given the vagaries of the activities that we're involved in here today.

While I'm on that issue, I guess one of the troubling things very early on after the 1991 election was the issue surrounding the former member of this House, Mr. Hanson, who was working not only on behalf of the commission but also on behalf of the ministry in a number of contractual arrangements. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether any of those arrangements, either with the first citizens language, heritage and culture group or with the ministry, have been continued with either group.

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe the question was related to Mr. Hanson. I can say with absolute certainty that the answer is no. If the question is, "Have there been other contracts paid for out of this fund?" I think the answer is: not unless the board had the decision-making role in whether or not that would happen. If I do have further information on that or if I need to correct that, I'll bring that back.

J. Weisgerber: I'm prepared to leave it at that. The troublesome element there, obviously, was the fact that Mr. Hanson was working both for the ministry and for a group who were very much dependent on the ministry for funding and other activities.

I'd like to move on, if I could, and start particularly in the area of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. I'm wondering if the minister could give me a sense of what steps or activities the ministry has undertaken to adjust its existing mandates in view of that report and in view of the recommendations coming out of that report.

Hon. J. Cashore: I hesitate to put my honest answer on the record for fear it will unleash a great deal of protest. The short answer is: nothing. The reason is that our resources are finite. We believe that we can make a case that the mandate of this ministry and this government, insofar as moving forward on aboriginal relations is concerned, does fit in with several of the existing criteria coming out of the RCAP report. It doesn't fulfil all of them, because it's a very extensive report that calls for very extensive action.

I can only say that I think that probably the action in British Columbia, which you actually started, hon. member -- through you, hon. Chair -- is the most extensive of any jurisdiction in Canada -- of the provinces, anyway.

J. Weisgerber: I'm wondering if the minister could advise whether or not the government, through the ministry, will provide an official response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. We have a document here costing several tens of millions of dollars, which makes sweeping recommendations that obviously involve particularly the federal government, but the provinces as well.

Given the key role that British Columbia plays in resolving aboriginal issues, in particular the outstanding land claims, is the government going to comment on, acknowledge, make recommendations on. . . ?

I will say very early on in this debate that I think the report makes recommendations that are troublesome, that are worrisome, that are incredibly expensive and that may well be beyond the ability of any government in Canada to fulfil.

If the minister agrees with that, then I think the government of British Columbia has an obligation to say so. If in fact they agree with some or all of the recommendations of the royal commission, then I think we have an obligation to say so as well. Before I probe the minister with respect to the government's position on some specific recommendations, perhaps he could give me a sense of where the government's going to go with this report.

Hon. J. Cashore: Two things on that. The first is: shortly after RCAP concluded, there was a conference that was sponsored, I believe, by the University of Victoria and co-chaired by Herb George of the Wet'suwet'en and Frank Cassidy of UVic. I believe all of the RCAP commissioners were there -- if not all of them, most of them were there. Peter Meekison was there, as well as Georges Erasmus and others. I was asked to speak, giving a government response. The deputy has recently sent a letter to the official opposition critic, with a copy to the hon. member, and attached to that is a copy of my remarks to that conference.

However, I do recognize that you'd like to have some things on the record here. Just off the top of my head, without having that document in front of me, my biggest concern was that while a lot of work had been done at far too great an expense, it seemed to me that the report was perhaps in a bit of a time warp. Perhaps it was the type of report that would have been written at the beginning of the five years or so that they were doing their work, rather than reflecting the reality of the way Canadians address these issues at the time of reporting.

What I mean by that is that I think Canadians are more likely to respond to a reason than to a dollar figure. Perhaps this was unintentional, but the report seemed to be, with the media that accompanied it. . . . I forget how many billions of dollars were going to have to be spent over the next -- oh, $58 billion over a period of years. . . .

The point I'm trying to make is that I think that the report should have focused more on enabling Canadians to understand the circumstances that exist out there and enlisting Canadians in how to address that together, rather than starting off with placing some kind of dollar figure -- which immediately, I think, created a bit of a barrier to people being able to seriously engage some of the good research that was done within that.

There were other things addressed within the report that had to do with a historic legacy, but certainly one of the major findings of the report was the imperative of getting on with the issue of settling land claims where they have not been settled. Again, to me, that was one of the most fundamental practical outcomes of that report, which in fact is happening. I've always recognized that there's a wide variety of views as 

[ Page 3372 ]

to how it's being done and the adequacy of the way it's being done, but the fact is, that it is happening. There's been a lot of cohesion, I think, among the various parties on the political spectrum about the fact that this needs to be addressed and indeed the very substance of how it is being addressed. I guess what I'm saying is that the real response to the RCAP report is in carrying on with programs, primarily in the treaty-making process, that we feel address it in practical ways.

The other thing that I will say in response to that question is that the deputy minister recently attended a conference of ministers of aboriginal affairs from across Canada. This did not include the federal government. At that conference, I'm advised that the ministers stated that none of them has responded formally to the RCAP report. I think the implication was that they don't plan to do so until Canada responds. I can see the reason for that in a way, but again, we're not reticent about responding in British Columbia, and I believe that my comments at the RCAP conference do actually constitute the response of this government.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, I did get a copy of the letter and the attached speaking notes that were provided to the official opposition critic, and I thank you for that.

I must say, I agree with the minister in his overall thoughts with respect to the timeliness of some of the recommendations of the commission. Obviously, British Columbia had recognized the need to move forward with land claims settlements, and that was well underway at the time the commission reported.

I would like to get a sense through the minister of the government's position on a few of the key issues -- as I see them, at least -- that were addressed in that particular report and get a sense of where the government, through the ministry, is coming down with them.

The first one was a recommendation by the royal commission to provide recognized aboriginal governments with an equal option to a notwithstanding clause on the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, one would assume that that would include the Nisga'a government as we move into finalization of that agreement and also the Sechelt Indian band, which already has a recognized government. Could the minister tell me: is the government inclined to support that recommendation?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's not part of the mandate, which is the basis for the negotiations that are taking place.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I've said that that is certainly not what we would see as a parameter of our mandate in the treaty negotiation process. As frustrating as it is that the federal government has not come forth with its position -- and that goes for other related issues such as certainty language -- the fact is that they have the lead in that area. At the time that that is discussed, we will discuss it with them.

The relationship we have is not one in which the federal government unilaterally decrees on an issue like that. I don't see how the federal government could maintain the current treaty process and take that kind of unilateral action, because it would obviously be unacceptable to the province. I think the province does have some leverage with regard to its participation, and it very clearly behooves the federal government to recognize that in anything they might contemplate of a unilateral action.

J. Weisgerber: It's not my intention here to harangue the minister on this issue, but I think it's important for us to recognize this if the province defers a response until after the federal government response. And if the federal government -- given some of the tortuous twists that that body makes -- decides to respond positively, then it would be very difficult for a situation to be established where the federal government changes its mind as a result of objections raised by British Columbia.

It would seem to be far more effective and far more useful for British Columbia to simply come out now and say: we've done a review of these recommendations, and we want you to know that we don't support the application -- if that's the position of the government -- of the notwithstanding clause for aboriginal governments as it related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, there are three parties to negotiations in British Columbia. Therefore this would have to be something that was discussed in that context and agreed to by all three parties. That is one of the contexts in which the issue is dealt with.

The other is that if Canada was to contemplate changing the constitution to extend the "notwithstanding" clause to people of first nations, Canada could not do it without convening a federal-provincial conference. A federal-provincial conference would again bring in the province of British Columbia and the interests of other provinces as well, I submit, which I don't think would be that different on that issue.

J. Weisgerber: Flowing from that is a further recommendation from the commission, which is to include aboriginal governments as "one of three orders of government in Canada that are autonomous within their own spheres of jurisdiction, thus sharing the sovereignty of Canada as a whole," and that's a direct quote from the recommendations of the royal commission. I'd like to pursue the same line of thought as we had with the "notwithstanding" clause as it applies to the provincial government's position on that particular recommendation.

Hon. J. Cashore: The AIP we've negotiated with the Nisga'a makes it very clear, I think, that sovereignty is not acceptable in the way that sovereignty is usually defined. The very idea of one of three orders of government, in that sense, is inconsistent with the position that the province has been taking.

J. Weisgerber: I acknowledge that argument, but let me suggest to the minister that we're talking here about a royal 

[ Page 3373 ]

commission done for the Parliament of Canada, which was making recommendations on changes to the relationship between aboriginal people and the other two orders of government across Canada. The royal commission, in considering these recommendations, had to have recognized that in most of the areas where these recommendations would apply -- central Canada and across Canada, with the exception of British Columbia for the most part -- treaties have been in place for a century or more. Yet the royal commission, with the members appointed to it, has made this recommendation.

So one anticipates that this be not so much a negotiated change in the relationship as a constitutional change that would blanket agreements and would cover aboriginal self-governments, whether they be created now or created at some point in the future. I don't see this as being a matter for treaty-by-treaty negotiation on self-government, but rather as a change across the country in which British Columbia would obviously be one of the most directly affected provinces.

Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that the federal government can't unilaterally be decreeing such. . . . In the unlikely event that the federal government was to take that position, they cannot unilaterally decree that on the provincial jurisdiction without the appropriate methods of consultation -- meeting first ministers conferences and all those things. The way in which we in the province are addressing these issues is on a treaty-by-treaty basis.

I recognize the point that the hon. member is making about the recommendation being there in the RCAP report. The fact is that I think it is very unlikely to happen. I think it's very unlikely that Canada would recommend that that happen, and if Canada does take that position, Canada would have a long way to go in order to be able to make it happen.

J. Weisgerber: A third area that again doesn't appear to have been commented on either by the minister in his response that he was so kind to provide by way of his talk at UVic or by any other release, and that I think is an important issue to be considered is another recommendation of the royal commission to create a "house of first peoples" that is part of the Parliament, along with the House of Commons and the Senate. It seems to me rather a significant, perhaps even a rather strident, position to be taking on that issue. I will again repeat my concern that unless provinces are prepared to stand up and be heard on these issues, I see them going down the road perhaps further than good sense would warrant.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to mildly disagree with that on the basis that I don't see any incentive, any impetus. . . . For instance, on that particular issue, I don't even hear the impetus for it from the aboriginal community here in the west. Maybe there is elsewhere in Canada. It's very difficult to contemplate in the current context how, politically, any government could be moving in that direction when there are matters in our relationship with aboriginal people that are of far greater urgency and, also, given the fact that there is no historical basis going back into antiquity for any such type of forum. So I think that for a long, long time, at the most, that would only be a topic of discussion. I just cannot see any government promoting the bringing about of that recommendation when there are other issues that are so much more urgent.

My own personal point of view is that I don't think it's a good idea; I don't support that idea. As far as spending a lot of time and going through policy development on that particular issue, I think it's a non-issue. We may disagree on that, but I think it's a non-issue. It's an issue insofar as it exists within a report. But I haven't received one letter on it; I haven't received one phone call. Nobody has come up to me and said that this is something that I should be doing. I really don't see the interest in that particular recommendation out there in the public.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, there hasn't been a lot of debate around the commission report at all. One has to look at. . . . And I realize this was a federal activity, but we had here five years and the expenditure of $64 million on a report. Now, one wonders whether the lack of response means that it has been quietly considered and will be set aside, as royal commissions so often are, to gather dust in the archives, or whether the lack of any response to these initiatives will be interpreted by aboriginal politicians and activists as being a passive acceptance of one more incremental step forward in this new relationship between aboriginal people and the governments of the country. And I think that's the concern; that's where I have the concern. If the minister suggests that indeed people have simply dismissed it and that he anticipates it being set aside, fair enough, I guess. It will help me in my approach to this issue if I know where the minister is coming from.

[5:00]

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to pursue one last question, and then I will -- I'm sure to the minister's relief -- get off of the issue of the royal commission.

The other recommendation that jumps out at me is that cost-sharing of aboriginal funding between Ottawa and the provinces increase by $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year on an annual basis. I think the minister acknowledged, in his opening response to my question on the commission, the challenge that would present for British Columbia as well as, obviously, for Canada. Does the minister see there being very little interest in this recommendation as well?

Hon. J. Cashore: Actually, on this particular recommendation, I do have some interest, because I really don't understand it. I think it is an area where there could be some dialogue, not from the point of view. . . . As I said, I think it was unfortunate that the story that got out there was about all this money.

I think we now know that in that institution called the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. . . . There's a lot of concern across the country about a lot of money that seems to go into a bureaucratic process, yet we still see the poverty, the unemployment and the conditions that we find simply inadequate in most aboriginal community situations: the statistics with regard to teen suicide, the much higher rate of infant mortality -- you name it. The statistics are there that demonstrate that there has to be change.

[ Page 3374 ]

Now, money doesn't solve problems unless it's part and parcel of programs that lead to self-sufficiency, self-esteem and all of that and where you can then see money as an investment. It may well be that we have to pay attention to some of the concept behind that. But I don't think you start with a dollar figure; you start with how you develop an approach that enables that kind of self-sufficiency and self-esteem to be built. You don't start out with a dollar figure and say: "Okay, we can solve this with X number of dollars over X number of years." You start by finding out how you're going to address that in the grass-roots way.

So I'm interested in the issue as an issue of how to bring about change in those communities, so that those issues can be addressed. If those issues can be addressed in a way that there are dollars that would be an investment, we should at least start, first of all, with the dollars that are already being administered in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for aboriginal people.

In fairness to the current minister, Ron Irwin, who is retiring, I want to say that he did have a passion for trying to do just that during the time that he was the minister. I think that he tried in Manitoba and that he's been trying in the treaty process in British Columbia. He, I think, is somebody who really wants to try to start and turn that around.

But starting off by naming a dollar figure that seems to just sit there, while it may be. . . . I have to admit I haven't done this; I have not read every word in that report. I've read the summary, and I've been in a number of discussions and briefings with regard to the material in the report. But I still don't get a sense that it really answers the question of how you do that, and you don't do it by putting the money up front. I mean, you've got to do it by having the plan and the program to start with. There may be ways of going about that which don't cost additional dollars, but certainly you start with the dollars that are in that system already.

J. Weisgerber: Well, recognizing the magnitude of the report, I'll resist any temptation to chide the minister for not having read it. Indeed, if I were to pretend I had, the minister might actually want to question me instead, and I would certainly come up short.

I've looked at a couple of issues that are personal to me. In the communities that I represent, communities like Fort Ware, the lack of adequate resources there is painfully clear if one goes into those communities. This is a criticism of the federal government -- and successive federal governments. It seems to me that the combining of northern and Indian affairs has the effect of overstating the money that is spent on aboriginal issues or that goes directly to aboriginal people.

It tends to understate or to in fact cloud the amount of money that is spent in the northern territories, in particular. When the Aboriginal Affairs Committee that I sit on, along with the member for Matsqui and others, went to the Yukon, we went to Whitehorse. We visited the territorial government. A couple of statistics, just to kind of focus this: 30,000 people live in the Yukon, and they have 18 Members of the Legislative Assembly. There are about 18,000 people living in Whitehorse, about the size of a small community of which three or four would make up a constituency in British Columbia. In Whitehorse -- 18,000 people -- they have ten MLAs.

Now, I can't for a moment believe that any significant portion of the cost of that government, along with municipal government, is in fact paid for by those 30,000 Yukoners. My sense is that most of it -- and similar and perhaps much larger numbers for the Northwest Territories -- in fact makes up a good portion of the budget that Mr. Irwin is responsible for and which native people are often. . . . People make the mistake of taking that federal budget, dividing it by the number of aboriginal people in the country and then supposing that all of that money somehow goes to aboriginal people.

So I wonder, as we pursue these issues with the federal government, whether there's any chance of kind of disentangling those two things. I realize that this is something on which I'm only making a recommendation to the minister to pursue, perhaps as part of a first ministers conference or something along that line. But I think the minister gets the thrust of my comment on that issue. If he has a response, I'd be happy to hear from him.

Hon. J. Cashore: Just very briefly, yes, I will do that -- although with our frugal approach on travel, I haven't been travelling to first ministers or aboriginal ministers conferences. But I will do that. One of the things I'll try to find out is a breakdown on that federal ministry's budget. My own recollection is that, whatever the total amount for that ministry is, I believe it's $6 billion per annum in the Indian Affairs part of that ministry.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move off the royal commission if I could. I want to talk a little bit about mandates -- negotiating mandates, mandate development, etc. Could the minister tell me, other than the mandates that are posted on the ministry's web site, what other mandates are there for negotiators? What others are in the process of development?

Hon. J. Cashore: I hope the hon. member will forgive me. I am not a participant in the web site -- I am advised that we do have a web site -- and I don't have the data with me with regard to what is on that web site, so it's a little bit difficult to answer the question in the context of what there is in addition to that. I do have some information with regard to the mandate work that has been done. But it seems to me that the hon. member wants to get into a more comprehensive discussion with regard to particular mandates, and I think I may need to bring some of that material into the House in order to be able to do that.

The provincewide mandates that are completed are with regard to parks and protected areas, access, wildlife, education, courts of law, fiscal controls, fish and aquaculture, land selection, child welfare, corrections and heritage. Other work has been done on the financial mandate, which has been completed and approved for the Sechelt negotiation. Other site-specific mandate work has been concluded with regard to such things as the Champagne-Aishihik transboundary agreement and the Sechelt interim protection agreement. There are financial mandates underway. The work is underway with regard to the Ditidaht and Gitanyow negotiations, and there is work underway on major policies and corporate initiatives involving compensation certainty, overlap, dispute resolution, self-government funding arrangements and cost-sharing, Douglas treaty issues, non-aboriginal representation and treaty implementation planning. Some of this information we are careful with because of, in some instances, not wanting to declare negotiating positions publicly, especially where dollars are involved -- although I believe we have tabled a financial position at the Sechelt table, which I believe is public.

J. Weisgerber: Just to kind of help things move along, the information that I was able to gather from the web site was the ministry's policy paper on "Crown Lands Activities and Aboriginal Rights" and a mandate paper entitled "British 

[ Page 3375 ]

Columbia's Approach to Treaty Settlements," along with a policy paper entitled "Summary: Fiscal Arrangements for Treaty Negotiations in B.C." It's my intent, over the next few hours, to pursue a line of questioning based on those mandate papers. Perhaps we can both reflect on the list that I've provided to Hansard by way of reference and the list that the minister has provided, and if there are some mandate papers that are public but not posted on the web site, the minister might be good enough to share them with me.

[5:15]

The ministry's policy paper identifies a legal obligation to consult with natives as to existing rights -- "to determine. . .the existence of aboriginal rights," to quote from the web site material -- and indicates that ministries should designate the officials responsible for carrying out the process.

Given that the ministry itself stresses that aboriginal rights are in fact site-specific and fact-specific and integral to the particular activities and distinctive nature of first nations, how exactly are a band's specific rights identified? How does the ministry go about identifying those rights that apply particularly to a band?

Hon. J. Cashore: The usual process is for the first nation to identify their identification of a right which they feel is potentially being impacted, and then it's the responsibility of the line ministry to do their due diligence with regard to any consultation or investigation that needs to be undertaken with regard to whether or not in fact that is a right. Usually the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has been to monitor this process and to take the lead role in developing the policy, but it is the line ministries that carry out that policy.

There are certain circumstances, for instance, on Crown land where there's a statement of a traditional food-gathering site or a traditional site for gathering materials for a sacred ceremony or a site for gathering materials for, say, basket weaving and for the continuation of the creation of cultural artifacts. . . . Therefore where activity is planned in an area, there is a responsibility, depending on the issue, of different parts of government to notify first nations living in an area that they may wish to respond to the fact that there is an intent to go into that area with some kind of development. So there is a responsibility to notify, where there is a potential. . . . They may then wish to respond with identifying a right -- identifying what they, in their view, would say is a right.

There's another dimension of this that I'll get into, because I think it's probably part of the questioning that the hon. member's interested in -- that is, there is a problem in that this is a relatively new process which has increased a lot in the last five years. Because of that, there is a capacity issue for first nations people and for government and for third parties, and that's part of the growing pains of trying to make this work as well as we can.

J. Weisgerber: Let me then follow those steps along, because it seems to me that indeed there is a difficulty for bands to respond. Many that I talk to receive requests for response on a wide range of issues. If they have traditional territory where there is a lot of industrial activity, they are receiving, on a very regular basis, requests from ministries to respond. I think we talked about this last year, but the ministries have been incredibly reluctant to move forward until they get a response, regardless of how long that might take.

Recognizing that bands do have logistical problems, I've taken the position that in fairness to the proponents and to the government, there should be some kind of time limit whereby the bands at the very least indicate an interest or a belief that an interest exists. So if you haven't heard back in 30 days, one assumes that the band simply doesn't have an interest. I'm not suggesting by that that the band has to provide a conclusive argument within 30 days, but I'm suggesting that there should be some reaction by the band within a given time period -- 30 days seems sensible -- without which the proponents would simply move forward. I wonder if the minister would comment.

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree, and our ministry has encouraged line ministries to set time limits. I understand that time limits have been set both in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and in the Ministry of Forests. I can't say what those time limits are -- I just don't have that knowledge in my head -- but I believe we were advised last year during estimates that that was the case. But I do know that in some instances, those concerns continue to be expressed.

I don't want to be misunderstood here, but I think that in some line ministries where resources are stretched, the impression is sometimes left that a piece of work has not been concluded and that the development has therefore been delayed "because of" the aboriginal consultation. I think that sometimes, when you really analyze that, there are other factors involved as well. So it's a bit difficult to pin it down, but we do continue to monitor these situations, and I do appreciate that this is a very real concern and one that needs diligent work.

J. Weisgerber: The difficulty I see first off is the fact that this is indeed left at the ministry level. From someone who has been around government but not involved in a specific ministry, it doesn't seem, on the surface, reasonable to me that the Ministry of Environment might arbitrarily select 45 days, the Ministry of Forests might select 30 days and the Ministry of Lands might select 60 days. It would seem to me that that's a government decision, as opposed to a ministry decision.

I know, from people who have approached me, that land decisions -- particularly agricultural leases and the alienation of land of that nature -- have waited as much as two years. The people who have made application are told time and time again by officials in the Ministry of Lands, "We simply can't respond to your request until we get a response from the band" or "We can't conclude your application," whichever it might be. There are documented cases of this taking up to two years and still being unresolved.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I think these are very appropriate remarks that the hon. member is making. I just want to clarify that the various ministries, of course, don't make arbitrary decisions about the waiting period. It is tied to their best estimate of what is reasonable in order to be able to get a reasonable turnaround in response. I do recall that during estimates a year ago when this point was made, I had encouraged the hon. members to bring to the attention of this ministry such issues where there were the kinds of delays that the hon. member just referred to.

[ Page 3376 ]

As I've said many times, the line ministries carry out this work, and it's their area of responsibility and part of their job, but we monitor because we were the ones who created the problem for them. Well, we didn't create the problem, but we were the ones who developed the policy, working with the AG ministry, and we try to monitor how that's going out there.

I do know that when my office receives anecdotal information about someone who is concerned about the length of time it has taken, we follow up on that. We often follow up through the ministerial assistant in my office. Sometimes we're able to clarify some facts that weren't readily apparent, and sometimes we're able to point out that there's obviously a real problem here that needs to be moved along.

J. Weisgerber: That's a fair response from the minister. I'll certainly undertake, as I have in the past, to provide those specifics.

I'd like to get a bit of a sense of this. When the band responds and says, "We have an aboriginal right that is going to be impacted here," and the ministry disagrees, at what level is the decision made as to the existence of that right? How is that disagreement or difference of opinion resolved? When the band says, "We have a right," and the ministry looks at it and says, "No, we don't think you do," what then happens to resolve that?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think there are various ways in which that happens. One example would be within forests, for instance. The district manager who has the responsibility to carry out the work of forestry and ensure that things do move ahead would conduct an investigation and would ascertain whether a right had been established. If that were the case, steps to mitigate would be taken. If that were not the case, the permits would be issued. That is, I think, the most usual circumstance.

Another approach would be that we do have some memoranda of understanding with some first nations around the province, and sometimes some issues would be discussed in the context of a memorandum of understanding. We have had discussions, for instance, with the Tsilhqot'in around some issues that have been difficult ones, and we have tried to resolve them at that level. There's another memorandum of understanding with the first nations on the north coast of Vancouver Island, dealing with marine activity -- fish farms, for instance -- in areas of traditional food-gathering such as clam beds.

[5:30]

J. Weisgerber: So the band responds to a consultation request, saying: "We believe that a right exists." One assumes that if the Ministry of Forests agrees, then there are steps taken to modify development plans or cutting permits, etc. And that would seem to move forward in a rather straightforward way.

The bigger question, I guess, is if the minister -- the ministry, the regional manager, the district manager, whoever that person is -- disagrees. I don't know whether the minister simply shortcuts the process; whether the district manager, if he disagrees in this example, simply goes ahead and issues the permit; or whether there is some response back to the band which lays out the reason that that decision has been taken, that rationalizes the decision and perhaps includes archaeological reports or some historic reports. I'm wondering, then, whether or not there is some registry of this, whether this takes some legal significance.

I guess one of the classical situations is around mineral licks, where bands will argue that any activity in the area of that mineral lick will harm traditional harvesting of ungulates. If it is decided that in a specific location that right doesn't exist, whether it is because of the geography of the area. . . . Does somebody then make a notation of the fact that, hey, we've looked at this site? Or do we keep going back and revisiting the issue, asking the same question year after year? I wonder if the minister could tell me that. And finally, could he tell me whether, if they are recorded, there's any legal significance to the decision that's taken by the ministry official?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure that I understand the question about legal significance. But I think the legal significance would be that if it was ascertained by one of the parties that the decision that was made by the government authority was outside the legal requirement, there are various kinds of recourse that would presumably be available, whether it's going to court or whatever. As I understand it, in the vast majority of these cases there may be a number of cases where, say, the district manager makes a decision, and I think in many of those cases there might not be complete satisfaction with that decision on the part of all parties. I think that in most cases authority is perhaps grudgingly recognized. There are cases that sometimes result in some kind of action or reaction, and, of course, they tend to take on a life of their own, depending on the circumstances.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

As far as a registry is concerned, I don't believe there is a registry as such, although I may stand to be corrected. But the various line ministries have on record all of these decisions. It amounts, I think, to the same thing, although it may be an idea that we should pursue -- in a sense, to have a running file on virtually every one of these. I know that we had a lot of discussion a couple of years ago about interim measures and having a running file on those, which we do have. At this point, I think it would be quite a huge listing of activities around the province; it would be very interesting. I don't believe we have any such document on these day-by-day decisions that are made across government, but in each of the line ministries I'm sure they do have their own systems for tracking that.

J. Weisgerber: Without wanting to again prolong this debate, I will seek from the minister some guidance as to whether he believes this is a line of questioning that should be pursued here or with individual ministers. I guess that's the other option for us -- to go to other ministries.

But before I do that -- or before I have abandoned this issue -- it seems to me that if there is the diligence done to establish whether or not a right exists on a specific location, then that surely is worthy of notation. It's certainly worthy of some precedence.

So the question I'll ask the minister -- and he will respond as he will -- is: once the decision has been made that an aboriginal right either exists or does not exist on a specific 

[ Page 3377 ]

location, does that then significantly influence future activity in that area? I'm thinking that another proposal is made. The ministry looks and says: "We examined this issue. We found that no right existed there, so bang, here's your cutting permit -- away you go." Or does the ministry send out a note to say: "We'd like your comments on it"?

The flip side of that is if in fact an aboriginal right is found to exist in an area, is that simply a decision which affects future applications? You go into the Ministry of Forests and the ministry says: "No, we've looked at that -- you can't log in that area because that's it" or "We're not going to issue a cutting permit" or "You'll have to address that." Do you get the sense of the question?

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that in the vast majority of these cases, the ministry will attempt to mitigate by identifying whether or not there is a right, and then, on a site-specific basis, to define where on the land that right exists and then to mitigate impacts on that site through certain prescriptions in the cutting permit or whatever it may be.

I think there were some other aspects to that question. Perhaps I'd better just sit down and let the member come back to them.

J. Weisgerber: Just to follow through, perhaps on a somewhat different but similar line of thought. Looking at the ministry's policy, which reflects some court decisions around this area, it appears that there are really three steps: first of all, to establish the right; secondly, to determine whether the Crown's proposed action would infringe on that right; and thirdly, to resolve matters of conflicting interest by way of negotiation. So even though there may be an impact by some activity, that may be resolved by negotiation.

I think it's important to recognize the court's decisions and ministry material on this area. Even though the answer may be somewhat in the negative on those questions -- in other words, yes, there's a right; yes, Crown actions will infringe on that right; and gee, we're not going to be able to resolve all of those matters -- there still is the ability of the Crown to simply justify the infringement based on competing interests, etc. Can the minister give me a little bit broader sense of how that actually works?

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to go back to an earlier question. I think the hon. member said: "Should I be asking other ministers?" I think what happens is that those who have been through estimates with me -- I think this is the fourth time -- know that I try not to duck questions, knowing that they are questions that come up in other ministries, because I believe that we in Aboriginal Affairs have a vital interest in what's going on at those ministries, and I think it's a helpful discussion.

But I know that there's some understanding, too, around the fact that when you're dealing with approaches that are taken by a wide variety of ministries, I might not have all the detail that would be helpful in this discussion.

Where there's a site where it behooves us, in the interests of global issues, to proceed with the project, again there has to be a site-specific awareness of what exactly that issue is and how extensive it is, whether there can be any mitigation at all and still get on with the project, or whether it simply is not on and it means that there is a loss of that right in that area.

Where that happens, again every effort must be made to try to address that right in a way that is acceptable to the party that has that right. In some ways it is the other side of the coin of third-party compensation, which is another important part of this whole dialogue. But I don't think there is any set procedure other than a procedure that seeks to protect the interest of the province, seeks to enable the commerce of the province to proceed in a timely manner and seeks to represent a fair and just alternative where the circumstances preclude being able to entirely protect that right.

J. Weisgerber: The minister made reference to third-party compensation. I'm curious to know whether that third-party compensation includes compensation for the band, the tribal council or the community that might have an existing right.

I'm thinking now, for example, that in an area of a major mining development -- a mountain that is going to be mined or perhaps an open-pit mine -- the band might well argue that they have a traditional right to gather berries, to hunt, to fish, to trap on that mine. There's really no practical way to mitigate the damages. I mean, they're absolutely right: there isn't going to be any berry-gathering or hunting or trapping on that mountain.

Is one of the options for the government to assess compensation to the band? Has that been going on as a result of these processes developing?

Hon. J. Cashore: I am not able to come up with an example right now that helps me to answer that question. I will try to get something overnight so that we can come back on that.

Hon. Chair, at this point I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada