(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 4, Number 25
[ Page 3379 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: On behalf of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside, I would like to introduce in the gallery Mayor Bob Cross from the city of Victoria and councillor Bea Holland, who are here for a special announcement. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: A gentleman who belongs to my riding in North Vancouver and who is a former member of this House is here in his Pecksniffian splendour, Dr. David Schreck.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I would like to join with the member opposite to welcome Dr. Schreck to the Legislature, and also to welcome with David Schreck, Cindy Stewart, the president of the Health Sciences Association and a first-rate community activist. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is Nancy Sly. Nancy is the executive director of the College Contract Training and Marketing Society and a longtime educator here in British Columbia. Accompanying Nancy is Brandy Weber, a grade 12 student from Maple Ridge Secondary School, who is with Ms. Sly as part of her work experience placement. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to ask the House to help me welcome my executive assistant, who is down for the afternoon. Joining us in the gallery is Doug Creba.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that Alec Macdonald, the former Attorney General of British Columbia, may be in the precincts. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased to welcome 35 students from Sir Matthew Begbie Elementary School in my riding. They are here on a school trip, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Siller. I understand it is their first time here, and I hope that we will make them welcome when we see them in the Legislature.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
This bill amends a number of statutes. They are the Court Order Enforcement Act
I will, of course, elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON
NO-FAULT INSURANCE
My question to the minister responsible is: when does the minister intend to tell the public that he's made up his mind and that he is going to impose his version of no-fault insurance on the people of this province?
Hon. A. Petter: The only deception here is in the way the question was framed by the Leader of the Opposition. The memo concerned, which the member refers to specifically, indicates that presentations are being made to groups in order to assist government in deciding on alternatives being considered with respect to insurance reform. Yes, these alternatives are being considered, and in fact there are presentations being made. Those presentations are based upon the report of an advisory committee that was set up by ICBC, and my understanding is that such a presentation is being made this very afternoon to representatives of various lawyers' groups from around the province. That's what's happening as we continue to work through the process in order to arrive at a decision.
G. Campbell: The internal document makes it very clear that the government has indeed made up its mind. The minister will know that there have already been resignations from the advisory committee, because they feel the government has made up its mind. The memo points out that an advertising campaign is planned for May 19, and I think it's important to note that people in British Columbia deserve to know the truth.
I have in my hand a letter from the MLA for New Westminster, who points out that the government will be debating this issue over some time: "I also want to assure you that the government has not yet made a decision on this matter and that the entire caucus will be deliberating on this issue in the coming months." While the NDP caucus is supposedly deliberating, ICBC is training 12 disciples of no-fault to spread the word, is planning a television campaign and is planning to flood the province with newspaper ads.
[ Page 3380 ]
My question to the minister responsible for no-fault is: is the member for New Westminster not sharing the facts with his constituents, or is the minister not sharing the facts with his caucus?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me read from the memo concerned, because apparently the Leader of the Opposition is not capable of reading for himself. "In addition, our experts are also raising presentations to various groups identified as members of the Coalition Against No-Fault in an effort to provide some facts about the insurance alternatives being considered by the government."
Yes, there is work going on in respect of communications and advertising groups, directed at trying to correct the misinformation that is being provided by some groups, groups who are trying to suggest to the people in this province that if changes aren't made, rates will stay down, which is not true; groups who are trying to misrepresent this government's commitments and who are trying to suggest that this government is trying to deny access to the courts, which we are not doing; groups who are trying to suggest that this government is trying to reduce income replacement when we're trying to do the very opposite; and groups who are trying to suggest that good drivers and bad drivers will be treated alike. That kind of misinformation needs to be corrected, and work is going on to ensure that we do correct it.
G. Campbell: With this particular minister responsible for no-fault, it's not too surprising that no one believes a word he says on any subject in the province of British Columbia. The same minister who misled people about the budget is now trying to orchestrate a campaign that will mislead them about the reduction of victims' rights and about the reduction of accessibility to the courts through his no-fault scheme.
My question to the minister is: when is he going to come clean with the people of British Columbia and stand up and tell them exactly what he's trying to do, instead of playing these propaganda games day in and day out?
[2:15]
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, you can always tell when the arguments start to run out, because that's when the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues start to engage in ad hominem attacks. You can always tell when the arguments run out.This government is committed to keeping insurance rates reasonable for British Columbians -- something the members over there appear not to care about. This government is committed to ensuring that there is fair and adequate compensation for British Columbians -- something that the members over there would prefer to ignore in favour of partisan, ad hominem attacks.
Yes, we will continue to consult. Yes, we will continue to work, because we're determined to maintain premiums at a reasonable level for British Columbians and to make the changes necessary to do so.
CONSEQUENCES OF
B.C. FERRIES WILDCAT STRIKE
Can the Minister of Labour tell the families, the small businesses and the truckers of B.C., who suffered personal costs yesterday from the illegal act by the ferry workers, what disciplinary action will be taken and what consequences will be faced by the ferry workers who broke the law?
Hon. D. Miller: As the minister responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, I want to say that I share the member's concern and all British Columbians' concerns that this kind of illegal activity has inconvenienced travelling British Columbians.
The Ferry Corporation sought immediate redress through the Labour Relations Board. We're satisfied that with that order, approved by the courts, there will be no repeat of this, and we're attempting to quantify the costs. As well, the Ferry Corporation has invited people who were inconvenienced to contact them with specific claims that they may have.
D. Symons: That answer sounds exactly like what they were saying in 1992, and nothing happened. When there are no consequences for illegal acts, then they're bound to happen again. People are asking what the government is going to do today to send a clear message to the ferry workers that like the rest of us, the law binds them also.
My question to the Minister of Labour is: how does the government intend to send the message that breaking the law and holding families, small businesses and truckers hostage will not be tolerated in B.C.?
Hon. D. Miller: I hope the member would appreciate that you cannot legislate against people doing ill-conceived things -- in fact, rather dumb things, which I consider this little illegal work stoppage to be. But, hon. Speaker, with all due respect, there is no legislature in the world that can legislate against that kind of behaviour. What you can do is take immediate action when it does occur, which we have done. We are satisfied now that the travelling public will not be inconvenienced. And I think, as I said, we've invited those who feel that they were inconvenienced, on a cost basis, to contact B.C. Ferries to have that issue pursued.
D. Symons: One final question -- very simple. What penalties will there be, and who will pay the costs?
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, we have a system of dealing with labour relations issues that I think is recognized and in fact is similar to the kinds of systems that exist worldwide in democratic countries. We have a Labour Relations Board. There are avenues for aggrieved parties to pursue redress; it is through a recognized system. I'm sure the member is not arguing that we should get rid of that kind of system in favour of something that I think would not work.
HOUSTON EMERGENCY AND
RCMP PRESENCE
According to the town administrator, there were no RCMP officers in Houston when the gas line ruptured. And
[ Page 3381 ]
the reason there were no RCMP officers on hand to respond to this emergency is because of cuts to the Houston RCMP detachment.
My question is to the Attorney General, a minister who promises more police officers but actually delivers cutbacks: what is his plan for dealing with the emergency taking place in Houston as we speak?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, let me first remind the hon. member that there is a global contract in place for RCMP services in British Columbia, and there have been no cutbacks to that global contract. In fact, what we have done with police officer positions that have come free is allow them to remain funded, and this government continues to allow those positions to remain funded.
With respect to the emergency, I will be seeking more information. I will advise the House as soon as I have it.
G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, this Attorney General and his government made an election promise to increase community police officers in British Columbia.
G. Farrell-Collins: By 100.
G. Plant: By 100.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members -- both sides, please.
G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, Buck Creek is flooding, and the town of Houston will soon be under water unless an emergency dike is constructed immediately. And now there's a gas leak. The townspeople of Houston are desperately hoping that what happened in Quesnel will not happen to them; yet when they look around for government resources, the nearest RCMP officer is in Topley, a half-hour drive away.
Will the Attorney General now finally admit that the cost of his broken promise to add 100 new community police officers is that the people of rural British Columbia lack the police service they need at the very time when they need it the most?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said this during estimates, and I'll say this again -- I understand the hon. member has some difficulty understanding arithmetic -- there are 41 more police officers in British Columbia than there were last year; we're going to add at least 50 more by the end of this year. If there is an emergency in Houston, I will seek advice from the provincial emergency preparedness program as to what steps they're taking. They are the ones that coordinate emergency services. The police detachments are governed by the RCMP. The RCMP deploy resources as they see fit, and Houston is part of the global contract for services with the RCMP. I have given the opportunity for the hon. member to come and get a briefing from my ministry so that he understands how this system functions. Obviously he hasn't taken up that opportunity.
WOMEN AND GAMBLING
K. Krueger: This government's own surveys have disclosed that almost 4 percent of British Columbians are already afflicted by problem gambling and pathological gambling. The tragedy of the Jiany family brings home the consequences that British Columbians are facing as the NDP launch their massive gambling expansion. A gambling addict stands accused of attempting to murder his wife and daughter by setting them on fire.My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality: does the horror of this event persuade the minister that gambling expansion is an issue that affects women? And if so, what will she do to protect women in British Columbia?
Hon. S. Hammell: Everyone in this House was horrified by the description of violence that we read in the paper this morning. My heart -- and I'm sure everyone's heart in this House -- goes out to Mrs. Jiany and her daughter. The type of behaviour described -- whatever its cause -- has no place in our society. Attempted murder and arson are serious crimes and are treated as such. However, let me remind the members opposite that I cannot comment on the specifics of this case.
K. Krueger: What the minister can comment on is what she will do to prevent that from happening to a whole lot more women in British Columbia.
Last summer, this government promised help for gambling addicts in British Columbia, and all we've had since is talk. This spring, the NDP announced a massive expansion of gambling, an 1,800 percent increase in projected revenues to this government from gambling. We know that the more venues that are available, the more victims will result.
The Speaker: Question, please.
K. Krueger: So my question for the same minister is: will you stand up for women? Will you urge the Premier to cancel his gambling expansion?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members, please.
Hon. S. Hammell: Violence often accompanies pathological behaviour, and family violence often happens in the home. That's why it is, as the member has said, so important that we support and treat those who suffer from psychological disorders. That's why we are increasing funding, and new programs are being developed to help people deal with addictive and abusive behaviour.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
"That you, as minister responsible for the exploration and delivery of oil and natural gas, intervene immediately to stop the proposal by Kaiser Energy Ltd. to extract same from the location described as Kaiser, Fort St. John, 7-35-83-19 (W6M)" -- that's west of the 6th meridian. "Said location is some 400 metres from the southwest boundary of the city of Fort St. John, in the area known as Grandhaven.The Speaker: Thank you, member. May I remind members at this moment that it is not necessary to read verbatim the entire petition. A simple description will suffice."That you subsequently act to develop legislation to prevent similar applications to explore for natural gas and oil in areas which conflict with existing residential developments; that an acceptable minimum distance and location with respect to prevailing winds be incorporated into that legislation, with special consideration for sour gas drilling proposals."
[ Page 3382 ]
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 40: minister's office, $462,000 (continued).
[2:30]
R. Neufeld: The minister may have addressed this issue already. But as I understand it, we're on the issue of CHCs and RHBs, and an issue in my constituency which I've been asked to present to the minister is from the North Peace chapter of registered nurses.They, I think, have a good position: why do they not have a place on the CHC? They are so much the front-line workers that really work with the patient all the time and work with the services that the hospital has. They would really appreciate the ability to have a place on the board, much the same as is presently given physicians and the union -- so they can have a voting position, I guess I should put it.
Right now they can sit as an advisory, which is fine but still doesn't give them the same ability that they would like to have, and that's to sit on the board, with voting privileges, to bring forward issues particular to the registered nurses.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I did address this issue over the course of the last two days, but knowing the extra duties that the member has, I'll be happy to repeat my answer. I met with the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia. They suggested that there was a need for adequate representation from their profession on the boards and councils. Certainly the boards have never been intended to be a group of special interests, and in no way do I say that in a derogatory term -- that the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. is a special interest. What is important is that the nursing profession be adequately represented on the boards and councils.
Yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon suggested that maybe there was an overrepresentation of nurses. Over the course of the next few weeks, I have committed to give a listing of the professions, both retired and current, of the board members across the province. But I would say -- and yours may be the exception -- that we have on almost every single board and council either a practising nurse or a nurse who is not currently practising -- retired or out of the workforce.
So that's a long way of saying that I understand the nurses' concerns. I think they are adequately represented, though, but this is one of the issues we will be monitoring over the next two years as we move toward establishing a process for renominations of appointments.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: I apologize again for not being in the House earlier when the question was asked, but it is difficult to be here to follow all the discussions and, sometimes, to be able to get recognized to ask some questions at a particular time.
I would like to say to the minister, and put on the record, that in both the Fort St. John and Fort Nelson CHCs, I am pleased -- and I think the communities are, too -- with the appointments made by the minister to those boards, generally speaking. I'm not trying to say to the minister that I disagree with what took place there, because I think most people are very happy with what happened in the north, although there was some disruption in going from an RHB to a CHC. It's understandable; they accept it, and they'll go on with it.
So in no way am I trying to say that people up there are really unhappy with it. I think what the minister has relayed to me is that she has had enough representation made to her that the nurses have a good point. I agree with you. I'm not trying to talk about special interest groups but more from the fact that the nurses
So I'm pleased, and I'll relay that message from the minister to the nurses association in Fort St. John, that you're going to review that and keep in mind that those things may change in the next while, in the next year or two -- if I could just get the minister to confirm that. Would I be correct in saying that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am committed to putting in place a community process for nominations for the appointments to the councils and health boards. It is important that our boards have a community reflection and also a broad representation of expertise -- business expertise, health care expertise, community expertise -- and that there be a proper gender balance, multicultural balance and first nations balance, if there is a first nations community.
So what you can tell your constituents is that how we nominate for the next round of appointments, which will be effective April 1, 1999, will be decided over the course of the coming months. I am asking communities to come forward with a nominating process that I can consider, one that would work for their community.
L. Stephens: I have a few questions today about regionalization, and I'm going to confine my comments and questions to the South Fraser Valley regional health board.
There are a number of other issues that I'd like to canvass in the Ministry of Health around some women's issues and some other areas that we will do at another time, when we get to those areas. So today I'm just going to confine myself to the issues around regionalization, and two issues primarily: governance and funding.
As the minister knows, the South Fraser Valley board is made up of the four hospitals in our area: Langley, Delta, Surrey and White Rock. Langley was the last to amalgamate -- and not voluntarily, as the minister knows, largely because the community and the society felt that this forced amalgamation was undemocratic. However, the amalgamation has taken place. There are representatives on the regional health board that represent all of the acute care hospitals in the region with the exception of Langley. This is an issue that is very pressing for us.
I wonder if the minister would confirm that there is an intention to appoint a representative from the Langley hospital board to the regional health board. When might that be forthcoming?
[ Page 3383 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the member's concern. We have had good discussions about the composition of boards: the need to properly reflect community interests and then to make sure that communities are represented. Let me just offer to the member that I will take her comments into consideration and continue to work away at making the board properly representative of the community.
L. Stephens: I know the minister is aware that we have two representatives from the Langley community on the board. Neither of them is a representative from the hospital board that represents the acute care facility of the hospital. I would suggest that if there are no spaces presently available on the board, one of those two positions be rescinded -- whichever position the minister chooses -- and one of our hospital board members be appointed -- again, whichever hospital board member the minister chooses -- to represent our acute care facility.
You know, we're talking about the only hospital in the region not represented at the regional board level. If we're going to be talking about fairness and equity and inclusiveness, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it really does need to be addressed soon. The community is very upset about this -- not just the hospital administration and the board but the community, as well -- because they see it as being grossly unfair. So I just want to reiterate to the minister that this is an issue that is pressing and encourage her to move with all speed.
There are a couple of other issues around amalgamation and the fact that the society is no longer in place. One of those issues is the hospital foundation, which raises a significant amount of money for the hospital to purchase assets and capital equipment. Our particular foundation has raised over $2 million since '91. I would like the minister to confirm that hospital foundations will remain intact, that the assets that have been accrued through the foundations will remain there for the use of the hospital, and that any future contributions to the foundation will also stay at the local hospital to be used for the purchase of capital equipment and whatever assets the hospital may deem appropriate.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I confirm that.
L. Stephens: Thank you very much, minister. That is good news.
There's another issue around revenue, as well -- protection of revenue. Our particular hospital has room differentials, which raises a little bit of money, and also parking income. Again, the extra moneys that are raised from these operations at the hospital -- user-pay, in these two cases -- are going to, in our case, the implementation of quite an advanced information system. I wonder if the minister could also confirm that revenue raised in this way by the hospitals will also remain at the hospital to be used for upgrading facilities or providing service or equipment or whatever it is that the hospital deems to be appropriate.
[2:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Those matters will be decided by the regional health board.L. Stephens: Could I inquire as to whether or not this would be part of the advisory committee's responsibilities, or will these kinds of decisions be made by the CEO and the executive of the regional health boards?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The policy of the charges to be levied and where the revenue as a result of those charges will be expended will be determined by the boards. It will be a policy decision of the regional health board. I would expect that the advice they receive in reaching their decision would be from a range of expertise in the community.
L. Stephens: The other issue at the hospital -- and again, I'm sure this applies to most of the hospitals in the region -- is the transition period, from the facilities going their own way to merging into the region. Our particular hospital has some strategic plans in place, as I'm sure they all do. So in that period between now and being completely amalgamated, what kinds of transitional plans are in place to assist the acute care facilities to move from their individual strategic plans into the regionalized whole?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The regional health board is fully functioning now. There isn't a transition period. This is exactly the kind of issue that the regional health board will grapple with. It's their business to do this, and they're to do it in the best interests of patient care. I actually look forward to four hospitals in a particular region working together on making sure that individual strategic initiatives are met, but in the context of working together with the other acute care hospitals. This is exactly what the regional health board, both on the administrative side and the board policy-making side, is working on as we speak.
L. Stephens: Ensuring quality care and services for patients is what the minister is talking about, and I'm sure the boards are moving in that direction, too, as individual institutions have done. Under the regionalization process the boards are an entity, but I would suggest to you that they are far from up and running in a way that is assuming the responsibilities that we're talking about here.
The minister talked yesterday about benchmarks and assessments. In our particular hospital we have a quality management program, and we have a risk assessment program. I wonder if the minister is aware of whether or not the health boards are going to be encouraged
Hon. J. MacPhail: We had a very good discussion over the course of the last two days about what those benchmarks are. They're on the record. Perhaps I could refer the member to Hansard, and if she has any subsequent questions we could deal with those.
L. Stephens: I will have a look at the Hansards and determine whether or not the questions were answered fully. If not, we will come back.
On a per capita basis, the South Fraser region was underfunded. As I'm sure the minister knows, we have a very large seniors population and a very rapidly growing community. Does the '97-98 budget reflect a correction of this inequity in funding in our region?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The budgets that are out this week do reflect a recognition of the previous underfunding of the region, but I expect that we could assume that the region
[ Page 3384 ]
would not think it would solve the problem. I hope to offer the region the comfort that probably later this fall we will be starting discussions with the regions on a method of funding that recognizes the perceived -- and in some cases real -- inequities of funding amongst regions. That will commence in the fall with the regions.
L. Stephens: Could the minister indicate how much of an increase -- either a dollar figure or a percentage amount -- that will be for our region? The second question is: when will the funding for the regional health boards be handed over to them to actually begin to administer the money for programs and services in the region?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The funding was transferred to the regions on April 1. What I was referring to was the hospital budgets that will be released over the course of this week. I can get the information for the member on the hospital operating budgets for the hospitals in her particular region. I'll get that this week for her.
L. Stephens: I have the amount for the Langley hospital. The amount we have been allocated for our hospital operating appears to be sufficient, and we are not unhappy on that score. The region is the one that needs to be looked at as far as the funding is concerned, because we are underfunded. That's the one that I really want to stress. The funding amount that is going to the regional health board needs to be seriously looked at. My understanding is that at this time the board is not in a position to allocate funding. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. My information is that they feel that there's another year before they are actually ready to allocate dollars to the different programs and institutions.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Never say that I disagree with prudence, but that is the prudence of the regional health board. They now have the authority to allocate, but I also understand that a regional health board may want to proceed cautiously in the first year of operation.
L. Stephens: Could the minister indicate the funding for the administration of the regional health boards? Is there a percentage of funding that goes to the health boards to be used or not to be exceeded -- administration costs?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Is the question on funding for administration for the regional health board structure itself? Oh, okay.
We gave them some infrastructure money, in terms of getting the administration started up. But future funding for regional health board administration is to be found within the region and is not to come from clinical or patient programs. It's to come through cost savings.
L. Stephens: I have been told that the acute care hospitals in the region have been asked to set aside 1.5 percent of their funding to go back to the regional health board to provide for the costs of administration of the regional health board. Is that something the minister agrees with or has knowledge of?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Without knowing specifically whether the figure is accurate, let me just comment generally on how the regional health board will deal with its administrative costs. It makes sense for a regional health board to say: "We are amalgamating financial services and administrative services. We are joining together to have some administrative cost savings, and therefore you, acute care hospital, will need less to invest in your own individual administration. We need that money to make the amalgamation happen." So that kind of situation is possible, and I support it, with these two caveats: one, that patient programs and client services programs are not to be affected; secondly, that there should not be money flowing from community care to acute care. The flow of money should be transferring from acute care into community care.
L. Stephens: I understand there are going to be a number of efficiencies from the acute care hospitals, if they're not having to
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a very good question. Each regional health board has to put in place a management plan that puts in place the proper management for dealing with all of the aspects of health care in its particular region. The management plan has to reduce overall administration and have cost savings in the administrative area. The boards have also been told that when they achieve that, though, that money will be left with them to be put into patient care.
The management plan has to be agreed upon by the Ministry of Health before the final strokes are put in pen to paper. But also, I just want to say that the concept here is to have less administration. The administration may be all in one place now and therefore may seem substantial, or it may not. But it will all be in one place rather than dispersed amongst several institutions. We have a target of cost savings in the area of administration. By the year 1999 it will be, overall, $24 million across the system. That's exactly what the regional health boards and community health councils have been told that they have to achieve -- and can.
[3:00]
L. Stephens: The staff running the health boards -- I wonder what kind of management skills and experiences they have in running facilities, acute care hospitals. A number of the staff have come from government, from the bureaucracy -- from, for instance, mental health or continuing care or whatever -- and have never run a large organization or an acute care facility. So I wonder if the minister could give me some comfort that the people that are in place -- the CEOs of these regional health boards -- have the level of expertise and training they need to do this job.Hon. J. MacPhail: The regional health board is required to hire, to make sure that there is a team assembled and that the administration team at the regional level carries all the full range of expertise. In your particular region, it would be safe to say that range of competent expertise is distributed across the whole team. The regional health board is mandated to ensure that this competence is in place and to make changes where it isn't.
[ Page 3385 ]
I would actually give recognition to the member's region. The hospitals in that region have a good record of very efficient and competent management. The transfer of people from the acute care sector onto the regional health board to continue that competence is appreciated.
L. Stephens: The hospital administration in our region is, I believe, exemplary. The individuals, the management that I was talking about, are the CEOs and staff members of the regional board. Whether or not
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I reiterate that the full complement of health care and management experience should be reflected on the regional health boards. I appreciate the member's concern about the complexities of acute care hospitals. But there are other complexities in the health care system -- public health, mental health -- as well, that are complex systems and that require management skills. So there is a wealth of experience which we can tap into across the health care system; I say that with the greatest respect to the acute care hospital sector. But there are other ranges of experience, as well. And then, yes, all of the benchmarks and accountability will stem from proper administration.
L. Stephens: Yesterday the member for Okanagan-Vernon talked a little bit about an example from her constituency, about one of her constituents moving from her particular area to Vancouver Island and not being able to receive a medical procedure. I'd like to know if there are in place, because
I wonder how we can prevent a sort of fragmentation or balkanization, if you like, of health care services in the different regions, because part of the recommendations of the review panel was to recognize that each of the regions are different and require different kinds of service. I wonder how the ministry is going to try to maintain a level of service in every single region and not allow a fragmentation or balkanization of services that are available in those regions to the people who live there -- and indeed to those people moving in or on holiday, as in the case that the member for Okanagan-Vernon talked about yesterday.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand that the doctor from the area brought this to our attention. We had a chance to investigate this particular example. So because it's the only example brought forward, let's use it as a problem -- as how we reached a solution on it. It is a program that we fund on the basis of the patient needs. It's a life-support system, and he or she needs that system. How do we accommodate that life-support system and the family needs and lifestyle issues as well, all of equal importance?
Just to give you an example of how this was resolved, it is true that initially the Sechelt centre only had accommodation for the two patients in that area that required dialysis. In the meantime, we have made arrangements -- and this was done before, of course -- for the patient to be treated in the interim at the St. Paul's in-centre dialysis unit. Then the health council, Sechelt, is moving to expand the hours of operation to accommodate the patient. There is a transition period, very brief, in which dialysis will be provided at St. Paul's. The ordinary operation of the dialysis unit will be extended by three hours while the patient is in the area.
S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Hawkins: In the gallery today -- I think they just arrived -- are students from my constituency of Okanagan West. They're a grade 7 class from the Kelowna Christian School, and they're here with their teacher Mr. MacArthur. I saw a whole bunch of chaperons with them as well. I understand they've been visiting in Victoria since Monday; they're going home on Friday. They've just finished a tour of the Legislature. And just as the Minister of Health asked us to be on our best behaviour when her mother was here, I'm sure she'll do the same and show the kids that we're very civilized here today. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
L. Stephens: I'll just carry on a little bit with the level of service that can be expected in each of the regions. I'm sure the minister knows that currently in the rural areas of the province, there are some services that are available and some that are not. There is some equipment that is available and some that is not.
Under the regionalization, is there a deliberate plan to make sure that each region would be sort of a compact whole, with services available in each of those regions -- the equitable services available in those regions? I'm now thinking primarily of the north, which suffers greatly. The lower mainland has everything within a short distance. I know that in the north some of those services are available, but the issue is time -- whether it's five minutes, ten minutes or two hours or three hours. So I wonder how the regionalization is addressing those two issues: the services and the timeliness of those services in the regions.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Each region will be self-sufficient in primary care and secondary care, but tertiary care is a provincial planning exercise, and we will continue to do that.
Also, just for the member's information, because we discussed this earlier, the funding will be on the basis of where the patient receives the treatment and not where she comes from. So there will be adequate funding for those that provide tertiary care to the other parts of the province, as well.
L. Stephens: I'd like to ask a couple of questions around private care. I know the minister was at the annual general meeting of the Pricare association. I understand that about a third of the intermediate care and extended-care facilities in the province are private. I have a number of them in my constituency -- as every constituency does -- and they're
[ Page 3386 ]
concerned about their futures and with all of the changes with regionalization. Everyone is just trying to feel their way through and wondering what changes will come to private care around the intermediate care and extended-care facilities.
Could the minister perhaps give us a little bit of an overview of her comments to the private care annual general meeting, to tell the House what some of those issues are?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, we did talk about this yesterday, but I don't mind discussing it again.
There were two themes. One is that the relationship will continue where it makes sense and, in fact, makes sense from a capital point of view. That commitment is there on the part of our government. I referred the Pricare association to the capital review plan published by the Minister of Finance at the beginning of this year, with cost containment strategies, and there was a great deal of interest expressed in that.
The second message was that private care institutions will not be required to amalgamate with regional health boards or community health councils. But I certainly urged them to begin a cooperative relationship with the boards and councils in their area, because that made good health care sense, and they certainly agreed with that.
L. Stephens: I have one final question, and it is on the private care again. Are there or will there be opportunities for private-public partnerships around this particular sector? It does have a large private component to it. I'm thinking primarily of multilevel-care facilities, which we are going to be looking at in my constituency. I think a lot of the areas around the province are looking at a very substantial increase in the number of seniors in the not too distant future.
Is that one of the areas where these opportunities for partnerships with private individuals will be encouraged or certainly discussed? Is that something that is beginning now? Or when does the minister see those kinds of initiatives taking place? Is it going to be from the ministry, or is it going to be primarily from the regional health boards that this particular direction comes from?
[3:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the capital review plan that I referred to that was made public at the beginning of this year indicated that the area of multilevel-care, continuing care, was a prime candidate for private-public partnerships for future capital development. That certainly is not only a demand of the Minister of Finance but will be the direction of the Ministry of Health as well.B. Penner: I am pleased to get up and take part in this estimates debate of the Minister of Health's budget. I am going to ask for some indulgence from the minister, because I'll be asking for some background explanation just to help clarify the situation in my mind and, I'm sure, in the minds of many of my constituents as to how the regionalization process is working in the upper Fraser Valley -- or, at least, how it is intended to work.
One of the most consistent questions I get as an MLA in Chilliwack is: what is happening with health care in our community? Specifically, people are interested to know: what stage are we at in the regionalization process? What authority does the regionalization process give to local boards? What does this mean in terms of elected representatives for community health councils and regional health boards? And finally, what will it mean for services available at our local hospital in Chilliwack?
Obviously there's been some controversy at our end of the Fraser Valley in recent months, and I'll just begin by asking a question of the minister about what stage we're at in terms of appointments to the regional health board. I believe its title is the Fraser Valley regional health board. Perhaps the minister could correct me if I'm wrong on that.
There were some appointments made, then I understood that one person was leaving the province to accept a job or a career opportunity outside of British Columbia. That person was appointed from Chilliwack, and I am wondering if that position has been filled and just how many appointments in total are being made to this new regional health board in the Fraser Valley.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it would be my view that the Fraser Valley health region is functioning very well and is well on its way to being a success story. The appointments are made, except for the aboriginal representative that still needs to be appointed, and we have a consultation process with first nations communities about appointments to regional health boards and community health councils.
Yes, I am aware of a potential vacancy there, of a person who was from the community of Chilliwack, and I am currently working to make a new appointment. Certainly I would be pleased to have the member's input on that.
B. Penner: Just for clarification, then, is it correct that the minister anticipates the Fraser Valley regional health board will have a total of 14 members on the board? Is that the expected total, or is it 15?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is 15, including the aboriginal appointment.
B. Penner: Again just to confirm matters for me and my constituents, it is my understanding that the Fraser Valley regional health board will have jurisdiction over not only hospitals in Chilliwack but also the MSA hospital in Abbotsford, and, I believe, the Fraser Canyon Hospital in Hope and perhaps a facility in Mission. I am wondering if that understanding is correct and if the minister could indicate whether there are any other hospitals or medical facilities under the jurisdiction of the Fraser Valley regional health board.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just name the hospitals again: Chilliwack General, Fraser Canyon, Matsqui-Sumas-Abbotsford General and Mission Memorial. They have all amalgamated. There is the Menno extended-care hospital; it's a denominational facility, and we'll have an agreement negotiated with the
[ Page 3387 ]
B. Penner: I'd like to thank the minister for that response, and I was interested to learn about the Menno long term care facility. In years gone by, members of my extended family spent some time in that facility, so I am somewhat familiar with the services provided there. It will be something that I continue to watch in the future.
Again, I'll ask the minister's indulgence in terms of giving me and perhaps other members of this Legislature some education. I continually get tripped up in my own mind about the interplay between regional health boards and the community health councils: on just what the real connection is going to be to each other and who is responsible for what. For example, will the Chilliwack General Hospital take its instructions directly from the Fraser Valley regional health board? Or will the Fraser Valley regional health board issue directives -- for lack of a better word -- through the community health council and then to the hospital?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Part of the Better Teamwork, Better Care announcement made late last year was that where there is a regional health board, there will no longer be community health councils, and vice versa: where there is a community health council, we will not have regional health boards. We eliminated the duplicated bureaucracy. But we have also encouraged regional health boards to make sure that where a regional health board represents more than one community, there is some substantial community input, perhaps on an advisory basis or whatever. But there's no spending authority, and there's no legal authority other than the authority that rests with the regional health board.
B. Penner: To summarize, then, what I understand the minister to say is that the Fraser Valley regional health board will have direct responsibility for the Chilliwack General Hospital. I see she's nodding her head in agreement, so I'll take that as confirmation.
One of the concerns that was expressed at the time the appointments were made to the Fraser Valley regional health board was about the relatively small number of people from the community of Chilliwack who were appointed to that board. My understanding is that initially, two out of the 15 positions were filled with members from Chilliwack and that subsequent to those appointments, one of the people appointed -- a woman -- has indicated that she may well be leaving British Columbia to pursue career opportunities elsewhere. This has led to some controversy in the community, particularly from people who have been involved in the past in a voluntary capacity serving on hospital boards, about Chilliwack not getting an adequate voice on the Fraser Valley regional health board.
In fact, you don't necessarily have to take my word for it. I'll just refer the minister to an article that appeared in the Chilliwack Progress dated March 4, 1997. The headline is: "Diehard New Democrat Blasts Health Board." In that article, Rollie Keith, who represented the NDP provincially in the election of 1996 as well as in the provincial by-election in Abbotsford in 1995, says that he agrees Chilliwack is not getting a fair shake in terms of the appointments to the regional health board.
I'm just wondering what kinds of criteria the minister uses in terms of making appointments to regional boards. I realize that this question was asked in a different sort of way yesterday, and the minister provided some answers at that time. But I do intend to explore in more detail the appointment process and just what types of criteria are used in terms of people's educational backgrounds or work experience backgrounds and also, I guess, their geographic locations.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is quite right. We've had a very good discussion on exactly this issue over the past two days. I don't want to cut off debate, but maybe what the member could do is read Hansard and then we could explore beyond that. But I'll summarize it very quickly for you.
There's a balance of interests and experience that needs to be represented on the boards. There has to be multicultural diversity, business experience, health care experience -- but, most of all, community experience and a commitment to delivering all the health care services that are mandated under the Canada Health Act and provided by our governments beyond the Canada Health Act.
It is recognized that in some regional areas, there is more than one distinct community represented. And it's important that we not only have a balance of community-by-community representation but also an understanding that health care services are not delivered in isolation in one community but are shared among a region, and therefore an understanding that the planning and delivery of health care extends beyond one community.
B. Penner: I'll be happy to review Hansard, but I would like to get this on the record and address the minister directly while I have the opportunity. There is a feeling afoot that perhaps one of the things the ministry is not considering sufficiently is the issue of people having relevant experience before being appointed to these regional health boards. As the minister pointed out, in our case they will have jurisdiction over four hospitals in the Fraser Valley.
Again, longtime New Democrat Rollie Keith was quoted in the Chilliwack Progress on March 4 as saying that "out of the blue," the ministry appointed two "neophytes" unfamiliar with health issues to the regional health board. And he said that this left Chilliwack without "proper representation." Again, these are not my words but the words of a longtime supporter of the NDP.
In terms of the overall weighting that takes place -- I know the minister just mentioned a few of the criteria that are considered -- I'm wondering whether in fact greater weight should be placed on people who have some experience in the health care field. Could the minister give us some comfort that more emphasis will be placed on people who have some experience in terms of either administering health care or working in the field?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope all members in the House noted that I'm under severe criticism from a New Democrat for the way that I'm proceeding, so they will lay off me in other areas.
On the issue of experience, let's use the board that covers the member's region. Six of the 14 current appointments -- less the aboriginal appointment -- have previous hospital board experience, but there is also a requirement that there be a great deal of other experience represented on the board -- for instance, business experience and perhaps an understanding of other community issues that affect health care.
In terms of health care experience, the review team that went out over the course of last summer came back with the recommendation that New Directions didn't recognize the value of including health care professional experience right on the boards. That's why we changed and said that there should be one seat on each board and council for a physician and one for a front-line health care worker. We took that recommendation. So amongst the 15 appointments, one will always be a physician and one will always be a front-line health care worker, as a minimum. In fact, many of the boards go much beyond that.
[ Page 3388 ]
B. Penner: So in the Fraser Valley regional health board case, the minister is indicating that at least two of the 15 positions would be reserved for people with direct medical experience. I see that she's indicating that that's correct, hon. Chair.
In terms of the administration of these new entities -- in our case, the Fraser Valley regional health board -- I understand that in the past there has been some discussion about a requirement for additional funding being provided to help these entities carry on their functions. I believe George Peary, a person from Abbotsford, has now been appointed to be the chairman of the Fraser Valley regional health board. He's quoted in the Chilliwack Progress, this time on April 1, 1997, indicating that some time ago there was an indication from the minister that some decision about funding for the new entity would be forthcoming. However, he then said that administrative funding won't be increased until at least the next fiscal year, in April 1998, despite a written promise to double the Fraser Valley board's funding to $864,000.
I wonder if the minister could provide some background and explanation about what this extra funding is for and where we're at in terms of a decision about the appropriate level of funding for this new regional health board.
[3:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I don't know where the commitment came that there would be a doubling of funding. We committed to infrastructure money that could be used in transition for regional health boards to set themselves up from an administrative point of view, and that was the $432,000. It doesn't in any way indicate that that funding will continue. In fact, beyond this year the regional health board will be required to find their administrative funding from within the region -- and certainly not from clinical programs or patient service programs.B. Penner: If I understand the minister correctly, what she is saying is that there will be $432,000 made available on a one-time basis to assist the Fraser Valley regional health board in creating its own, I suppose, internal structure and management structure so that it can get on with the job. I just wonder if that is correct -- if it's a one-time payment only of $432,000 to help them create their own structure.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The funding was for '96-97 and '97-98. But these administrative costs have been rolled into the base funding now, and if there is any need to change the funding for administration of the regional health board, the regional health board will have to do that themselves.
B. Penner: I am just seeking some clarification. Was there a separate sum of $432,000 that was committed? Was that in '96-97 and an additional $432,000 for '97-98, for a total of $864,000? Or was it a total of $432,000 over two years?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In 1996-97 they received $432,000. In 1997-98 they will receive $432,000, for a total of $864,000 over two years.
B. Penner: I presume, then, that in future years -- as the minister indicated -- that the Fraser Valley regional health board will have to find its administrative funding from its existing funding base for the whole region in terms of all operations.
I'm wondering if the ministry or the minister has set out any guidelines for the various regional heath boards in terms of what an appropriate amount of spending would be in terms of administrative costs. I wonder if there is any kind of a guideline that the ministry has put out or a rule of thumb that can be applied. Do the regional health boards have completely free rein in terms of how much administrative costs they build up, or is there some rule set out by the government in Victoria?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I appreciate that the member might have been busy earlier today when this question was asked, so I'll repeat it. We are going to save $24 million in each fiscal year to 1999, and it will come from administrative savings. The regional health boards will be able to keep every dollar they save, when they put it back into patient services. There are a couple of caveats in terms of expenditure of administration after these savings. One is that savings cannot affect patient programs or clinical support programs. You can't take administration expenditures out of clinical support programs or patient service programs. In any case, there should not be any money flowing from community care into acute care. It would be fine to move money from acute care into community care, but not the reverse.
B. Penner: One topic I want to touch on just briefly is an issue that flared up around the same time that a number of hospital boards were dismissed. It was an apparent
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I stated earlier when the member asked for the criteria for appointment, people must be committed to delivering all of the legal health services required under the Canada Health Act and be committed to delivering them in an accessible way to their members who live in their community. That's the criteria for appointment.
B. Penner: I'd like to move, now, to another issue. After the Chilliwack hospital board was fired by the minister -- I believe in early March of this year -- she appointed a gentleman by the name of Donald Juzwishin as the administrator on an interim basis to look after matters at the Chilliwack General Hospital. One of the duties that he was apparently assigned by this government was to prepare a report back to the minister. Initially, we were told in Chilliwack -- and I think this was on March 25 -- that the report would be complete within a week, would be sent to the minister and subsequent to that would be made public. Several weeks later an article appeared, again in the local newspapers in Chilliwack, indicating that the report would be completed by the end of April and would be made public in very short order. We're still waiting, in Chilliwack, to find out whatever happened to Mr. Juzwishin's report, and I'm wondering if the minister could provide us with a progress report on that report.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Mr. Juzwishin, who is the public administrator appointed by me, was asked to report on actions that the previous board of the Chilliwack hospital had taken with regard to the dismissal of Etta Richmond, the CEO of Chilliwack General Hospital. He did that, and let's just say
[ Page 3389 ]
that it certainly gave us renewed vigour to pursue legislation which I tabled two weeks ago around the issue of severance.
B. Penner: Is it correct, then, that I hear the minister to say that the report from Mr. Juzwishin has been completed and is now in her hands?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I have received the advice from Mr. Juzwishin. It's ministerial advice.
B. Penner: We were told some time ago that a report would be prepared on all of the circumstances involving Ms. Etta Richmond, the former hospital administrator in Chilliwack, a person who had spent 30 years in the health care sector. We were also told that that report would be prepared in some detail, would be sent to the minister and would then be made public. I wonder if the minister could tell us if, in fact, that report will be made public.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's ministerial advice, but certainly if the member opposite wishes to engage in a discussion around severance, I'd be more than happy to do that.
B. Penner: Obviously this is a controversial issue in Chilliwack, so there has been a lot of talk amongst people waiting for the release of this report, not the least of whom are the people who feel that they've come in for some rather harsh criticism -- unacceptably harsh -- from the minister. They've been waiting to see what this report has to say. Those people include the former chairman of the Chilliwack hospital board, a person who served in a voluntary capacity for 14 years without ever receiving any remuneration, and a person who is very busy in his own private life with a large family and a busy accounting practice.
Many people have been told that this report would be released and made available to the public so that we could have an open discussion about it. It comes as a bit of a surprise to me now, hon. Chair, to hear that this report is not going to be released. We've been told repeatedly by Mr. Juzwishin and by spokespeople from the Ministry of Health that the report would be made public after the minister had had some time to digest the contents of the report.
I just wonder if the minister can explain why it is that this report will not be released to the public.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am certainly more than willing to engage in a discussion around the advisability of severance for Ms. Etta Richmond, the advice the board received prior to severing her, the lack of necessity for that severance and the cost to the taxpayer. There is absolutely no unwillingness on my part, after receiving the advice from the administrator, to discuss those issues.
The commitment to make the report public didn't come from me. The whole issue is, for me, a matter of public record, because we're dealing with tax dollars here -- tax dollars that should be going into patient care. So let's have at it.
B. Penner: For the record, hon. Chair, I'll take that as the minister's statement that she is not prepared to release the report from Mr. Juzwishin.
There were a number of media accounts at the time the Chilliwack hospital board was fired by the minister. One of the things she stated in a variety of interviews, including one with the Vancouver Sun, was that the severance package to Ms. Etta Richmond, who had been in the health care field for some 30 years, was excessive. The Health minister gave a figure for the severance package as $250,000. In fact, the amount of the severance, we now know, was $173,000.
I'm just wondering if the minister is prepared to correct her remarks, in terms of the amount of the severance package, which she overestimated by almost 50 percent.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the member misses the point here. We can talk about $173,000 of health care funding, we can talk about $250,000, or we can talk about $500,000: the money was improperly spent. It did not need to be spent, because there was no severance necessary. The Chilliwack hospital board had been advised not to make any staff changes, that personnel would be accommodated, and that there was no intent, in any way, to change the employment circumstances of the CEO of the hospital.
So it is like dancing on the head of a pin to ask what the exact value of the severance was. One dollar would have been too much, because it would have been one dollar coming out of patient care and going into severance costs that were unnecessary, unwarranted, and that the board had been advised against doing.
B. Penner: Around the time this whole issue erupted in Chilliwack -- it was in early March of this year
In an interview on March 11, 1997, the minister was asked by the editor of the Chilliwack Times why she was taking so much exception to this particular severance package when in years gone by the NDP government had seen a whole variety, a whole parade, of large severance payments to many of their longtime supporters who had been appointed to lucrative positions in this government. She was specifically asked about the severance package given to Marc Eliesen, a person who had worked at B.C. Hydro for, I think, less than two years. At that time the minister told the Chilliwack Times that there was absolutely no severance package and no money going to Mr. Marc Eliesen. We now know that in fact he is receiving something in the amount of $25,000 per month from this government.
I think that highlights a lot of the problems we have at our end of the valley. There seems to be a double standard: one for people that are longtime supporters of the NDP government, and a completely different standard for other people who have given, in this case, 30 years of commitment and expertise to the health care system. That's where we, at our end of the Fraser Valley, are coming from. We see a double standard by this government.
I would like to ask the minister, however, if she's prepared to release any letters or documentation that support her claim that the Chilliwack hospital board had been told not to dismiss Ms. Richmond as part of the regionalization effort.
[3:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: The public record also documents the advice received from the regional health board chair, George Peary, himself. George Peary is on record saying that he advised the board not to take this action. The hon. member knows full well that that's part of the public record. Those discussions had occurred directly with the Chilliwack hospi-[ Page 3390 ]
tal. Certainly, we had been continuously giving that advice through our regional health board chairs. In the face of that, the Chilliwack hospital decided to ignore that advice.
B. Penner: I've asked people in Chilliwack if they've ever received any letters with this written advice from the minister, and I've been told no. From the minister's answer here today it sounds like there was in fact no such written advice ever given.
While she's on the topic of George Peary, the new chair of the Fraser Valley regional health board, she may be interested to know that on March 18 George Peary said, in the Chilliwack Progress, that the ministry must get over its command-and-control attitude towards regional health boards, or else the latest version of the health care policy is "destined to fail." I don't think she has the world's strongest supporter in George Peary either, so she's treading on some thin ice when referring to him for support.
We all understood that the regionalization process was supposed to lead us to an era where there would be less costs of administration. It seemed sensible, I suppose, to the Chilliwack hospital board -- although I can't speak for them, because I wasn't there and I was never a member of the hospital board
If we're not going to find administrative cost savings by reducing the number of administrators, how do we find administrative costs savings?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, of course that's the direction that we will be achieving in the regionalization of health care.
And I would appreciate that the hon. member not read excerpts from news clippings out of context.
Let me say this to the member across: there will be savings achieved from administration. Those issues will be decided by the regional health board. I have the fullest confidence in George Peary to carry that out. That was the advice that he gave to the Chilliwack General Hospital. They will be finding administrative savings in areas that I've already introduced in this House, such as finance, human resources, laundry, payroll, purchasing, material management, information services and health records, to name a few examples.
The question I have for the hon. member is this: when you are guaranteed that your job is there, that there should be no layoff, that there should be no severance, does this hon. member then support $173,000 of tax money that should be going into health services now going into the pocket of a person who had a job?
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could tell us if the ministry contemplates that there will be any administrative positions eliminated through the course of regionalization around the province. Are there any administrators anywhere that this minister sees as becoming redundant as a result of regionalization in British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are.
B. Penner: I wonder why that approach does not apply to the Fraser Valley regional health board if it applies to other parts of the province.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I guess this hon. member will do anything to avoid answering a direct question.
The issue of downsizing, of achieving administrative cost savings, is the responsibility of the regional health board. I have said over and over again here that it needs to be done in a planned way. A management plan has to be put in place. And it has to be done with the priority being given to patient care and patient satisfaction -- the highest priority. It makes sense, when we're moving to a system where there will be administrative cost savings due to integration of services, that it be done in a planned and orderly way, and that we also do that by using the valued experience that exists in the region.
Many regions
B. Penner: It's certainly true that this side of the House is opposed to outlandish severance packages that we've seen all too often from this government over the last five and six years; it's completely irresponsible.
However, the longtime New Democrat supporter whom I referred to earlier, Rollie Keith, is quoted on March 11, 1997, in the Chilliwack Times as saying that the Chilliwack hospital board was merely looking out for the best representation of the community and "was not irresponsible" in reacting to the Minister of Health, the member opposite. So there are many people in our community, including longtime New Democrats, who really feel that this ministry and this minister had a completely different agenda when she set forth to fire the Chilliwack hospital board, and that the whole issue of severance in Chilliwack was a smokescreen for pursuing the particular agenda that her government is pursuing.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What would be that agenda?
B. Penner: Well, we've
Hon. J. MacPhail: Where on that list
The Chair: I ask members to please address their questions through the Chair. Otherwise we should adjourn to the bar or somewhere, where we could do what you're doing right now.
B. Penner: I'm sure the minister will take that caution from you, hon. Chair.
There are people in our community who felt there was some other agenda at stake. One of those agendas that was feared was that there was a move afoot to withdraw medical services from the Upper Fraser Valley and centralize those in other parts of the Fraser Valley. That was the concern expressed not just by Rollie Keith, the former New Democrat member of the Chilliwack hospital board, but by -- I don't want to exaggerate -- probably close to a hundred people who contacted my constituency office at the time of the Chilliwack hospital board firing. They were all concerned that this was merely a precursor to the withdrawal of medical services from Chilliwack and the downgrading of the Chilliwack General Hospital. That is where the fear is coming from. The minister asked me what our fear was in the Upper Fraser Valley, and that's what it is.
We see that the government, contrary to its earlier promise, was planning to close the Chilliwack courthouse. Then the
[ Page 3391 ]
government also fired the Chilliwack hospital board and, in making appointments to the new regional health board, appointed only two out of 15 people from our community. So although maybe the concerns are not necessarily always accurate, I think there is a realistic foundation for people to have those concerns and to voice those concerns, certainly as Mr. Rollie Keith has done on numerous occasions in our community. I wonder if the minister can address some of those remarks.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There were many unfounded fears as we went through the process of change across the province, moving toward regionalization. We dealt with the unfounded fears and worked, in problem solving, with the fears that had a basis of reality to them.
In particular, the Chilliwack hospital was told that there was absolutely no intent in any way to change the service delivery level or the way those services are delivered from that hospital. They had that reassurance before they fired -- unnecessarily -- the CEO. They had that reassurance in isolation from anything else that was going on in the community of Chilliwack hospital. They had that reassurance from the ministry. They had that reassurance from the regional health board chair.
But I guess it does please me that there is an alliance between the hon. member and a good, solid New Democrat as well, in being upset about the whole process. It truly is non-partisan, then.
B. Penner: The hon. minister is correct that there is a coalition in Chilliwack. That coalition is there to stick up for our community when we're being attacked by the NDP government in Victoria.
I'll just end with one final question. I'm just wondering if the minister has in any way extended her thanks or appreciation to the members of the Chilliwack hospital board, some of whom, as I've indicated earlier, served as long as 14 years without ever receiving any compensation for their countless hours of work and dedication. Rather than criticizing the hospital board as she's done through the media, I think it would be more constructive if she were to thank the members of the hospital board for their many years of selfless dedication to the cause of health care in the Upper Fraser Valley.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I have sent a letter thanking them for their services, recognizing the value of their contribution to the community and looking forward to continuing to work with them.
L. Stephens: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me today to welcome in the gallery, from the Langley Fundamental Elementary School, 62 students in grade 7 and their teacher Mr. Wiebe. Would the House please make them welcome.
T. Nebbeling: I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister as well. But before I do that, I would like to give some historical perspective of what has happened in my riding as far as the providing of health care is concerned. My riding is West Vancouver-Garibaldi. While West Vancouver, Bowen Island and Lions Bay traditionally have been serviced by Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, the communities of Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton have always been kind of a playball in the field of where they belong. For a long time, it was the Coast-Garibaldi health unit that was responsible for health care provisions in the Sea to Sky corridor, as I recall this particular part of my riding. That meant that health care provision was, in part, not necessarily controlled but working together with the rest of the Sunshine Coast, which is Sechelt and Gibsons.
One of the problems, of course, of being part of a health board that includes Sechelt, the Sunshine Coast and Gibsons is that in order for
Ever since I've been involved in the Sea to Sky corridor, there's always been a strong push to do what common sense would have dictated in the first place when it came to providing health care. That is to see the Sea to Sky corridor actually being married or connected with the North Shore -- West Vancouver and North Vancouver -- and have the Lions Gate Hospital, actually, as the really focused trauma and acute care provider for that particular area. While we were members of the Coast-Garibaldi health unit, that dialogue took place for three or four years to see a transfer, to get these three communities together with the North Shore. In 1991-92, it began to look like indeed the commonsense argument of going together began to hold, get some foundation. The process of transition from the Sunshine Coast -- to be members with the Sunshine Coast to the North Shore -- started to develop.
Then, of course, we got a little wrench thrown into it all, and they approached a new direction. With New Directions, the whole dialogue of the Sea to Sky corridor -- Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton joining West Vancouver and North Vancouver as one health unit -- was put on the back burner. Actually, it was eliminated as an option, because through the ministry it became clear that these three communities were still going to be part of Sunshine Coast-Sechelt, with the addition of Powell River.
To just give you the logistics of being part of a board that has that kind of representation, a board member from Pemberton would have to drive to Horseshoe Bay, which is 127 kilometres, take a ferry to Langdale, which is 45 minutes, then drive the Sunshine Coast, take another ferry and get to Powell River. That is about a five-hour trip.
Again, these members are volunteers. Of course, that was one of the reasons we had much concern in the Sea to Sky area about New Directions. The other reason that we had a lot of concern at the time was the fact that because of all the debate and the discussions that were going on as to where the Sea to Sky corridor did belong and who they would in the long term be married off to, upgrades to the Sea to Sky corridor, as far as hospital service was concerned, really fell behind.
[4:00]
Often the argument was made, when, for example, the Squamish hospital needed some upgrade and some extra funding: "Well, we have to make sure that we know exactly,[ Page 3392 ]
that we know the service will be provided in your region, and once that is all established then we can exactly identify where to put the money.
So New Directions, of course -- after the dismal success that it has delivered after three years at a cost of $40 million to the taxpayers of this province -- was abolished, and regionalization became the new fashion word, so to speak.
Again, the Sea to Sky corridor communities became part of this new drive, this new creation, and some very obvious questions were raised during that period as to how a community like Pemberton or Squamish could truly become partners with a community like Powell River, which is five hours down the road and for which you have to cross two waters. How can you make, as a region, the savings that were to be derived from the regionalization approach? This has been going on for a while. Then, of course, in April of this year the decision was made to make Powell River its own region, I believe, with Nanaimo, Sechelt-Sunshine Coast will be a region of its own, and now we see the Sea to Sky corridor being its own region as well, as far as hospital service is concerned.
My first question to the minister is: obviously now that the Sea to Sky corridor has been identified as a region on its own and considering that over the past -- and we can go a little bit further in that -- funding for upgrades or funding for essential services that the hospital should have been providing and didn't provide because it was not available
Knowing that the minister is very much aware of what's happening there, can the minister give me a bit of an overview of what she sees happening now with the Squamish hospital and how that hospital will indeed be brought into this century as far as equipment is concerned, as far as services are concerned? Then I have some other questions.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's interesting to hear the recounting of the history. I find it very useful as well.
The issue of hospital funding, of course, will be part of the community health council's responsibility in the future. I'll just tell the member what I have said earlier in that we will, starting this fall, be working with the regions and the health councils to talk about how or whether we have a different funding method now that community health councils and regional health boards are in place.
So there will be an opportune time for
T. Nebbeling: I understand that we are in the future going to have a dialogue. However, looking at the budgets, it's clear that nobody in his right mind today can anticipate fairly substantial increases to bring a hospital up to speed. When I say "up to speed," I mean bring a hospital up to a level that it can indeed serve the corridor or the area it's supposed to.
The reason I bring it to the attention of the minister, in particular, is the fact that up to now, because of the lack of proper facilities in Squamish, many of the patients that come from beyond Squamish -- like Whistler, Pemberton to a certain extent, but particularly Whistler -- are actually transferred immediately to Lions Gate. And the reason is that Squamish has just not been able to accommodate these patients. So here is a very unique
But now we have the situation where Squamish is far behind. It doesn't get the extra funding that I believe it's going to need to bring itself up to the level where it can indeed do the services -- except trauma, I suppose -- that the North Shore Lions Gate Hospital is providing for the Sea to Sky corridor. I would like to see how the minister can deal with that catch-22 that we are in in the Sea to Sky corridor today and have been for the last five, six years.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are interesting points for me to consider. If I could just seek some input, because I know this member has a great deal of municipal experience as well. Perhaps I could ask the member for his opinion -- and I appreciate your comments around the Squamish hospital -- on whether there is a fluctuation in the use of services. Would that be his estimate because of it being a resource-based community or a tourist community? Or is it his view now that basically there's year-round evenness of demand for services in the Sea to Sky area?
T. Nebbeling: Well, the population of the Sea to Sky corridor has grown dramatically. No doubt, many of the serious accidents that do happen in the Sea to Sky corridor are recreation-related, so in the winter months you certainly face more broken bones and serious fractures that often need trauma treatment before the patient can be shipped out -- or flown out, I should say, in this particular case. They go straight away to Lions Gate, once they've been brought under control. But at the same time, considering that we have industries in the Sea to Sky corridor during the summer months that also have a high level of accidents, such as the forest industry, mining industry
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's very useful, and I can give the hon. member my assurance that all these matters will be considered as we review the funding.
T. Nebbeling: Just one more point, and that is that speaking to the Squamish hospital, they have been asked to start, July 1, providing dental services for children. They've been asked by Children's Hospital to do this, based on the fact that there is a 12-month waiting time, according to the information I've been given. So I have nothing on paper to substantiate it. The Squamish hospital just doesn't have the facilities to do
[ Page 3393 ]
this. So they asked me -- that's how I got to know about this particular issue -- if I could be part of a group to start fundraising to fund the facilities that are needed to accommodate this children's dental centre in the Squamish area. That to me is very symbolic of what is happening here. Certain services are now being requested to happen in the corridor, because it is a unit on its own. The facility is not able to provide it because the equipment is not there. Rather than receiving the funding that should be coming with requests such as that, they turn around and say: "Well, talk to your community leaders, and maybe they can find the funding." So I had to ask that question because it really concerns me, looking at what else is needed in that particular hospital. The fundraising element may do a little, but certainly not enough, to bring it up to the status that indeed is a corridor hospital. That's what I'm looking for.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for bringing this item to my attention. Actually, I'll investigate it, because certainly if Children's Hospital is delegating to communities, then it should be done in a fashion where funding follows. So we need to
R. Coleman: I want to ask the minister some questions this afternoon about some of the impacts of amalgamation and transference of assets. I'd like to start out first of all dealing with the transference of land assets from either non-profit organizations or hospital societies that have paid for them with charitable dollars they've raised in the communities. Is there any compensation going back to these societies or communities that have actually raised the money and paid for these assets themselves at the local level?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I know the member may be aware that we discussed this previously, but I'll quickly answer the question. The assets are transferred to the regional health board or the community health council, but if there is a caveat on the use of the land that has been put in place by the donation, that caveat remains and is transferred along with the land. So if a particular fundraising effort was done to accumulate lands specifically for the purpose of an acute care hospital, that
R. Coleman: I understand the transference on the one side and the covenant side. I'm thinking more in terms of
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, we had an excellent discussion about this yesterday. I noted for the record that service organizations are not part of the amalgamation. Their assets are not transferred unless they voluntarily wish to do so.
R. Coleman: One of the concerns I have about the regionalization with regard to assets is, if you look historically
[4:15]
I'd like first of all to address how the regional health board system, without that community involvement, without that community commitment, which you're going to lose -- which you've already lost in many communities -- and the fact that most of these hospital trustees and boards in the local area have done things a bit differentlyHon. J. MacPhail: There is no plan to eliminate foundations.
R. Coleman: That wasn't my question. My question was on the elimination of trustees -- in other words, the elimination of volunteer health boards. In my community the volunteer health board drives a tremendous amount of that particular fundraising along with a separate foundation. Now you've basically taken one piece of the heart out; you've taken a second piece of the heart out as well.
The other one is that these hospitals in my particular area have operated on a long series of balanced budgets with the exception of the Surrey Memorial Hospital, where most of the people that have been appointed to the regional health board come from. I'd like to know on what basis and what qualifications the people
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we've certainly had a good discussion over the previous three days on this very matter. I would refer the member to Hansard -- that was the discussion around the balance between community representation and also recognition that health care planning is done on a basis beyond individual communities -- and then if he has any subsequent questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.
On the representation on the particular south Fraser Valley regional health board of which this member's commu-
[ Page 3394 ]
nities are a part, I can provide the hon. member with the biographies of the regional health board members. But looking at this, clearly there's a great diversity of community experience, professional experience, business experience, health care experience, city council experience.
R. Coleman: We might also note the experience of donating to provincial NDP campaigns and being members of slates or whatever that ran under NDP flags in our particular area. If the minister would like me to give her that list, I can provide that for her.
The other concern I have with regionalization in this particular regard is that I came across some files recently through one of the acute care facilities, where there has been what we refer to as a gift letter. A gift letter is when a society or a non-profit group or a corporation or an individual philanthropist makes a specific donation to a facility, that being an asset. Although we can pick a number of things, let's say, for instance, it's a package of items including some big-screen TVs, VCRs and some carts of stuff for the children's ward of a particular hospital. The letter states very clearly that these assets, these donated items, are to be used in that specific facility. On the transfer of assets, how are you dealing with those particular types of gift letters?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Their use will continue as they were designated.
R. Coleman: Is there any guarantee to these communities in any of these agreements, then, that they will not be moved to another community?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I do take the question seriously. The regional health board is not going to be a moving company, snatching assets in the middle of the night from one community to move them to the other. Regional health boards have been asked, and have agreed, to commit to sustaining the assets that a community has developed in that community. Common sense will prevail. I don't think there's any record of any regionalization process in any part of the industrialized world that would give rise to an example such as the member anticipates. Certainly I don't anticipate there being any different application of regionalization of health care in British Columbia.
R. Coleman: I was reviewing some of the agreements that are in place between various organizations with regard to regional health care, and, of course, I noticed that we have a memorandum of understanding between the Crown and the B.C. Buildings Corporation with regard to the physical buildings -- the leases and what have you -- that are being transferred down.
Can the minister tell me how many facilities are being re-leased to BCBC from one area of a ministry to another, as far as some sort of guarantee into their leasing arrangement?
Hon. J. MacPhail: What I will commit to provide to the member is the information on the
R. Coleman: I'll take that commitment from the minister.
I want to basically deal with a couple of concerns in that regard. First of all, the various facilities are basically transferred by either a lease or an operating agreement in principle between the Crown and B.C. Buildings Corporation. The normal practice within government is that the lease can be cancelled with six months' notice to BCBC, which then absorbs the balance of the term of the lease -- its lease-up costs and the balance of operation. I'm just wondering if we're doing that with these particular facilities as well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That will be part of the information that we'll provide to the member. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the answer to that, so I will make a commitment to provide the answer.
R. Coleman: The information I would really like, then, would be the square footage of the building and the lease as it sits today -- its expiry date. If the unit is continuing to be leased by the ministry back to BCBC, it's really not an issue -- it's information on the ones we're closing down and what the download costs are to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, so that we can determine what those costs are.
Also, in some of your information, it says that the ministry is continuing its discussions with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ensure blanket approval for amalgamations and to confirm regional health board and community health council eligibility for mortgage subsidies.
I'm just wondering what your status is with your negotiations with CMHC -- whether they are going to ensure your loans on these particular transfers when you transfer the mortgages over. I notice that you've applied for an exemption from a property transfer tax, so I assume there's obviously some asset removal under land titles taking place here. I'm just wondering what your status is with CMHC at this point in time.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I see that as part of the information I would provide. If the member wishes to put on record all of the questions he wants answered, I'll certainly make a commitment to get those answers.
R. Coleman: With all due respect to the minister, I sent her ministry a letter with a series of questions about a month ago and got quite a bland letter back. For all intents and purposes, I will now have to canvass something like 30 different societies as we move into estimates, just for information because the answers weren't provided.
As we go through this, I would also like the minister to
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, I will take these questions on notice. If he wishes to just read them into the record, I'll be more than happy to provide the answers.
R. Coleman: Having dealt with the mortgaging issue, that also means that we have some sort of a transfer-in-title issue. I know there's a movement of assets, but normally when you transfer an asset, when you transfer the mortgage
[ Page 3395 ]
especially, and you do it with CMHC -- which is a movement, and you're re-issuing the title
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I missed the last part of the question.
R. Coleman: The question was basically
Hon. J. MacPhail: This will be part of the information that will be provided to the hon. member. We are aware of the letter that was sent. We did provide you with some information and referred the member to the public record where this information is available. These are very detailed questions. We committed to provide the member with the answers. It will take up a great deal of administrative time, but I'm sure the member sees that as a good investment of health care dollars.
R. Coleman: I think that any time somebody does a finite examination of the use of taxpayers' dollars and how they're benefiting the community -- whether there are business plans in place or whether there is a method of measuring performance when we spend dollars -- I don't find that to be a waste of taxpayers' money. I will certainly be pleased to canvass the questions, outside of the ones that are being dealt with with the corporate searches right now, during estimates as they come up.
Obviously when we deal with transferences of mortgages and transfers of titles and what have you, there has to be some agreement on the other side with regard to these. As we do these, if there is an organization like a hospital foundation or hospital society involved, are these voluntary decisions made by these organizations to transfer title, or is there a provision that is being used in legislation to basically force the transfer of title?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They are statutorily mandated.
R. Coleman: My next question is with regards to
The Peace Arch Hospital Foundation put in over $3.2 million in capital expenditures in 1996-97, and only $310,000 came from government. I know that in the communities that I've dealt with regarding regionalization, people are basically walking away from involvement with hospitals and looking for another place to put their charity dollar. They're concerned that the assets will not stay in the community. They're concerned that their money isn't going to be wisely spent. They're concerned that they don't have control anymore because there's no longer a board of directors at the hospital they're donating these funds to -- either through the foundation or individually -- that has some sort of local control or input.
I'm wondering if the ministry has done a cost-benefit analysis on the other side of regionalization as to the downside loss from community involvement in the funding of hospitals and capital expenditures.
[4:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly appreciate the member's expression of fears. Those are fears that we're trying to deal with community by community.Really, there is no evidence of a decrease in fundraising amongst foundations, but I do appreciate the member's concern that somehow certain groups feel that there's a loss of autonomy or that there will be a loss of value attached to their fundraising efforts. Foundations are staying in place; fundraising arms are staying in place. Even as we speak, the fundraising is going on at a wonderful level. I hope that people who are responsible opinion leaders will allay those fears and understand that indeed nothing whatsoever changes in that area.
R. Coleman: The only thing that changes in that area whatsoever is the belief of the community in the fact that they can now be involved in making their hospital better without the last of those assets leaving the community. What happens there is that you begin to have a loss of faith. As we're going through this process, it's fine to say that foundations are not seeing their fundraising drop off. But revisit this in two years and find out where they actually sit, and I think you may be very surprised.
I sincerely hope that is not going to be the case. I do know that one service organization, which I am involved with, recently held back on a donation, waiting for a decision on whether their local care facility was going to be dealt a blow by regionalization as far as the involvement of the board, which had been there for a long period of time, was concerned. That concern was actually expressed by one of their own board members coming to the club and saying: "Maybe you should hold off until we know something about this." So that is out there. That concern is out there, that impact is out there, and we should be very aware of it.
I'd like to go back to something that I dealt with here a minute ago, and that's the asset situation. I'm just wondering whether all the assets that are now being dealt with are strictly being dealt with as assets -- their land base -- that are held by acute care facilities and not by any other organization or independent body.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, we're not clear on the question. The assets that are transferred are assets that are acute care and continuing care. As I said earlier, assets held by denominational groups or service organizations are unaffected; there will be no change for them. There will be no transfers unless they voluntarily request to do so, which has occurred in some parts of the province.
R. Coleman: Is there any intention to expand the mandate of the regional health boards? Once we've dealt with the acute care and continuing care facilities, do we then go to the ones that are funded through the ministry that have been run
[ Page 3396 ]
by volunteer boards -- either mixed or service clubs and community groups and what have you -- to begin to claw back those assets and control under the regional health boards?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No.
R. Coleman: I'd like to deal with a specific facility just for a minute, because I think it's probably the closest-to-home example of a facility that I have. Maybe the minister can tell me where this facility fits within the regional health board, the asset base and its community usage. The facility is located in Aldergrove. It's referred to as the Jackman Manor facility. It's basically an intermediate care facility that also has an Alzheimer's wing. I'm wondering where that fits in within the regional health board jurisdiction and how its asset base is affected at this point in time.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We can certainly get that information for you, but perhaps the member could provide me
R. Coleman: The board of directors of this society is largely made up of members of the Lions Club in Aldergrove. It is a facility funded by the Ministry of Health. Both the Alzheimers wing and the care facility are funded through the ministry, as I understand it. It is not a private facility. I don't know what else you'd need to know in order to give me your generic answer.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume it's a Lions Club service organization running the facility with ministry funding. On the basis of that, I will offer you this. It will continue as is; it will receive its funding from the regional health board. The relationship will probably be established by a service contract. I have also encouraged the service organizations to establish a working relationship with the regional health boards.
R. Coleman: With regard to these type of facilities, is the regional health board going to have representation on the boards of these particular facilities or have some influence on their board for decision-making, other than the operating agreement?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a contractual relation, not a board representation. But I don't want to preclude that if there's some government employee volunteering on the board, would change in any way. There would be no change in the relationship other than a service contract being signed with the regional health board now.
R. Coleman: So I'd be correct in the supposition, then, that this would be covered under a funding or transfer agreement with the ministry and that that funding or transfer agreement would be for a set period of time. Most of the ones that I've looked at to this point are on an annualized basis for annual renewal. Is that basically the standard format of operation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Coleman: Knowing the regionalization situation, when you have an annual contract -- I know the minister has said there's no intention to do anything -- is there any way of establishing or dealing with some of the concerns of these non-profit groups with regard to what their real security of tenure is in the operation of the board of their particular facilities?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's interesting. I raised that same question just right now with the previous Minister of Health, the member for Prince George North, and I said: "Why is it that I had to give all these reassurances? Why didn't you do it?" And he said: "Well, actually I did."
But I understand that people need reassurance by action. The previous minister met to give this reassurance and to outline the relationship. I have met with service organizations. I've met with private care organizations as well and given these reassurances. These reassurances have also come from the ministry.
That's not to say that we have to continue reassuring. Let me just put very clearly that the relationship with organizations such as the ones that you give as example is unchanged by regionalization. I would offer this to the member, because I know his background in the organization. I will continue to meet with service organizations to make sure they're well served by regionalization, because the fact of the matter is that we rely greatly on service organizations to provide care facilities, and they do a wonderful job of that.
R. Coleman: I should make it clear to the minister that I've never been a Lion. So even though the Lions are in
Interjection.
R. Coleman: I think, from my standpoint and from the hon. minister, just my taking a copy of Hansard and sending a letter to the organizations involved in health care and giving that reassurance to them, so that they can have it in their files and on record, will probably be as big a step as one can take with regard to reassuring them as to their tenure and their involvement. I think it's really important that we do that, because I do know that the particular facility in Aldergrove I referred to would not be in existence if it wasn't for the involvement of the Lions, to begin with -- and the board of directors is composed of Lions -- and also the Kinsmen, the Rotary, the Legion and the fraternal organizations of that community that continue to funnel money into this facility to provide additional benefits to the residents of the facility. I think it's absolutely key that we secure the tenure of these particular groups, because having that base lost in a community is something we should never want to have happen.
I want to canvass the leasing situation with BCBC once I receive some of the information. I will be reviewing the base lease this evening. I may have some more questions tomorrow, so I will pass to another member now.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I would just like to offer to the members generally that it makes sense for me to ask the regional health boards themselves to meet with service organizations to offer reassurances. That has occurred in some areas of the province and not in others. So I will undertake to ask the regional health boards to do that, as well.
M. Coell: I have a number of questions regarding regionalization and the capital regional district here in greater Victoria. I intend to keep to this area with my comments. I hope that staff are also here with the minister to respond to that.
My riding has a number of Gulf Islands in it, Saltspring being the largest. Saltspring has 15,000 people living on it in
[ Page 3397 ]
the winter and 45,000 living on it in the summer. It has a hospital, the Lady Minto Hospital. That hospital has been there for many decades and was served by a board of directors and a local society. There is an intermediate-care and extended-care seniors housing facility on the island, as well, served by a board of directors and a group of volunteers and auxiliary.
With regionalization, that facility -- the Lady Minto -- has been taken over by the capital health board. From the perspective of having representation from the community on that board, I wonder if the minister could tell me if there is anyone from Saltspring Island -- anyone who has been involved with the Lady Minto Hospital, a previous board member, or anything like that -- on the new capital health board.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is one representative from the Gulf Islands, and I will undertake to see whether that member is from Saltspring. Sorry, we don't have the hometown. Just for the record, Lady Minto Hospital did voluntarily amalgamate with the capital health board.
M. Coell: The representative from Mayne Island is on the capital health board, but not Saltspring.
I want to make the point that over a period of decades the community of Saltspring Island has represented itself on that hospital board and made significant financial contributions to the facility, to updating the facility and to the operational equipment, as well. I think the lack of representation on a board from the Islands now is going to hamper the ability of areas like Lady Minto and the people of Saltspring in getting the enthusiasm to have an auxiliary and a group of people to raise funds. I just wonder whether the minister has given any thought to a way of involving the people of Saltspring in the new regional board other than by one appointment from Mayne Island. I appreciate that the representative from Mayne Island is a good representative, doing a good job.
[4:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have given direction to the regional health boards and community health councils that they are to involve communities beyond just representation on the regional health board. And it is up to them to show the flexibility, based on their own regional needs, of how to do that -- whether it be through advisory committees, travelling regional health board meetingsM. Coell: Saltspring Island and the outer Gulf Islands had an advisory council that was very well represented. They were moving and were positive about the transition. They weren't given the ability to have an advisory or community council. I think that would be a good idea, and some way for the people of Saltspring to continue having input into their only major hospital facility. I would appreciate it if the minister would consider that in the year ahead.
The other major hospital in my riding is the Saanich Peninsula Hospital. It serves close to 55,000 people. People from the islands also use this facility. It also had a board of directors that raised significant amounts of money for operational equipment and renovations to the facility. That board has now been dissolved. I think that although the person who was the executive director of the hospital is now working for the capital health board, he has expanded duties, so his focus isn't a hundred percent on that facility anymore.
I just wonder whether the minister has thought about staff levels, community health board-wise. Maybe I could explain myself better. There doesn't seem to be any decrease -- or increase -- in staff. It's the same staff with new titles, changed roles. And I wonder whether the minister is going to review both the role of the former CEO of Lady Minto on Saltspring and the role of the new CEO of Saanich Peninsula Hospital, and their expanded roles and workload -- whether that's been considered by the ministry in the new change.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As explained earlier, each regional health board is to have a management plan that involves cost savings in the administrative area. The ministry signs off on those management plans. The capital health region has assured us, in the management plan, of significant administrative savings. So yes, all of this has been taken into account and will be delivered by the capital health region.
M. Coell: I don't know whether the minister can answer this question or not, but one of the fears of the people on the Saanich Peninsula is that they would lose the emergency component to that hospital under regionalization. I wonder if you can comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the concerns, because of the close proximity of hospitals in the community. But the allocation of resources for services is the responsibility of the regional health board. The goal of regionalization of health care is to enhance services, and I've been assured by all of our regional health boards that that's what they'll do.
M. Coell: There are a number of facilities in the region I'd like to touch on. I can give you some background on the Queen Alexandra Hospital. I was on their board of directors many years ago and was their treasurer. They have received significant donations and have set up a foundation for the care of children. With assets of facilities like that, what happens to those assets in the amalgamation or regionalization? Are they just taken by the government? Is there any recognition of past donations by individuals?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll give you a general answer, but I do recognize the very special issues of Queen Alexandra Hospital, the great community involvement and parental involvement as well, and the good work that has been done in that area. It was a little bit of a rocky ride towards regionalization, and I think things are working very well now with a board member specifically from Queen Alexandra.
To the question about the assets, we've discussed this previously, but assets are transferred from the societies to the regional health board. However, if there is a specific covenant attached to the assets -- for instance, this land is donated to be used for health care delivery services for children -- that covenant remains on the asset and cannot be changed by the regional health board.
Also, foundations are unaffected by regionalization.
M. Coell: Just for the minister's information, some years ago the Queen Alexandra Hospital amalgamated with the G.R. Pearkes clinic, which is right next to the hospital. I was part of that amalgamation. Two boards combined. There wasn't a new group of people, but the two boards combined,
[ Page 3398 ]
and over a period of years shrunk back down to size. That amalgamation went very well and did indeed save money.
There are two other facilities that I would appreciate an update on to see what funding is going into the facilities this year and what we can expect to see at the end of this year. That would be the cancer clinic at the Royal Jubilee site and the Royal Jubilee Hospital that the minister made an announcement on approximately a month and a half ago. Could you comment and give an update on those two facilities and on moneys expected to be expended this year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The B.C. Cancer Agency received a 4.9 percent lift. That's a provincial agency, but that's on the global funding. The Greater Victoria Hospital Society, of which Royal Jubilee is part, has a 1.4 percent increase in operating funding this year. But again, in terms of capital funding, we announced two aspects to capital funding earlier this year to build the new Victoria Cancer Clinic extension, and that will be approximately $40 million of capital investment. The Royal Jubilee extension is about $75 million and will be completed over the course of the next three years.
M. Coell: The minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that those two capital projects are moving in tandem, and that
As well, Victoria has a hospice that works in conjunction with Jubilee and the General and the cancer clinic, and at this point I wonder if the government has any investment or any moneys going into hospice this year.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we do fund the Greater Victoria Hospice Society, and that money will flow through the regional health board. Just for the record, I am a big supporter of hospices, and hope to see them take their proper place in our health care system.
M. Coell: As am I.
What I was inquiring about was: is there any government increase in funds directed to hospice, or is it going to be up to the capital health board whether they get more or less money?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The capital health board will determine that.
M. Coell: Services for people with mental handicaps. The Glendale facility is to be permanently closed this year, I believe. It's a facility that I worked in when I was at university, and it was a very, very good institution. But as institutions go, it's good that it is closing, and it's good that those people have now moved into community living. There were children in that facility as well as adults, and I wonder whether you could outline for me what the relationship is between your ministry and the Ministry for Children and Families. Could you help me understand what role the two will play?
Hon. J. MacPhail: For the information of the member, there have not been children in those facilities for a number of years. The services provided to children with mental handicaps, of course, have been transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families. The Ministry of Health, of course, provides the medical support for the children.
M. Coell: I'm aware that it has been phased out slowly. I guess what I was looking for was the relationship between children with mental handicaps and adults with mental handicaps, that I believe are still in your ministry. If they're not, I would like to know what the relationship is between the ministry and services for adults with mental handicaps.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry for misunderstanding the question. The whole support division for people with mental handicaps has moved to the Ministry for Children and Families -- for children, and for adults as well.
M. Coell: So if I was to look at your estimates and at the Ministry for Children and Families, there is a direct movement of that amount of dollars from your ministry to the Ministry for Children and Families?
[5:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.M. Coell: Being that this is the first year of the Ministry for Children and Families, there are a number of things that have moved from various ministries. I wonder whether you would be willing to outline what has moved from your ministry to the Ministry for Children and Families and the dollar figures for those moves.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a reconciliation in the estimates blue book. Why don't we find that for you for tomorrow, okay? We'll just point out the pages in the blue book.
M. Coell: I would appreciate that. I've asked the same question of the Ministry for Children and Families. I just want to make sure that you're both reading from the same pages in the blue book.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's page 269 in the estimates book.
M. Coell: I wonder if you could tell me whether you're going to do any evaluation of the number of staff employed by the capital health board, as compared to those who were employed in all the agencies that have now been amalgamated, and when we can expect that evaluation of numbers of staff employed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, as discussed, that evaluation will be done. Management plans will be put in place, and that will be part of the annual report.
M. Coell: In this area, in my initial read of who was hired in different positions to make up the new management structure of the capital health board, I didn't see a decrease in management. Most of the people who were at the capital regional district -- at the different hospitals as managers -- have had their position titles changed, but I haven't seen a decrease at this point. Could you tell me what the numbers would have been prior to the amalgamation and what they are now?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we are six weeks into the regionalization, the transfer of authority to the capital health region. I would expect that the member's concerns will be addressed in the very near future.
M. Coell: I'm hoping so. I think that what we're looking for in this area, if regionalization is going to work, is more
[ Page 3399 ]
community input. Quite frankly, I haven't seen more community input right now. To me, the basis of the Canada Health Act -- and I'm a strong believer in the Canada Health Act -- is community input into health care. We have lost a number of hospital boards, auxiliaries of community boards, to this new regional board. What I don't want to see and what I suspect the minister doesn't want to see in this region is more of a corporate health board than a community health board. That's why I ask how many staff, how many management. If you're not able to give me that, if you're only six weeks into the process, I understand. But I would hope that
I would ask the minister to comment on this: how are you going to get community input into the community health board in this area? I could go on, showing where you've lost community input, and I would be interested in seeing how the minister sees community input going into the board in this area.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, very briefly, because this issue has been addressed before, I would refer the member to previous discussions that we had. Then, perhaps, if questions are still lingering
I have asked the regional health boards to ensure that there is community input. Whether they do that by advisory councils or travelling meetings is up to them. Many regional health boards have already put structures in place to get that community input -- my own region being one good example.
M. Coell: The other area that I wish to canvass is alcohol and drug programs. There are programs that were previously under your ministry. Are there any alcohol and drug programs still left within the Ministry of Health, or have they moved to other ministries?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Virtually all of the programs have been transferred, with the exception of tobacco reduction programs, which remain within the Ministry of Health. There is some residual funding of programs that supported intravenous drug users, in terms of a harm-reduction strategy. That's residual funding, though.
M. Coell: The changes to the new Ministry for Children and Families affect your ministry significantly. One area in the capital region that has been of concern for many years is mental health. I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on how services for people with mental illnesses are affected. We have a number of halfway homes in the area. We have the Eric Martin Pavilion servicing people with schizophrenia and dementia. Do you have any new programs identified this year to serve people with mental illnesses?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and there has been an increase in funding.
I had asked the members opposite whether we could carve out a time to discuss mental health programs specifically. I think there is agreement on that, so I'll just be very brief on it, because it's a very important area and requires thorough discussion.
The last review of the mental health plan for the province was done in 1987, and changes took place at that time in the delivery of mental health. The plan has not been updated since then. I've been working very closely with the mental health community on how the plan needs to be updated. We are doing a review right now, and the review will be complete by September.
I believe the review of the plan that was put in place in 1987 will lead to change. In the meantime, though, we know that there's a great need for housing for people with mental illnesses, and we've moved forward on a provision for 200 supported-housing units this year for people with mental illness. We've also reached an agreement, for the first time ever, with the B.C. Housing Commission that people with mental illnesses will be given priority in accommodation. That's a breakthrough, as well.
Those are just some examples, but I hope we'll be able to spend some time exploring the issues.
M. Coell: The minister mentioned September, when the study would be complete. If we're having a fall session, we would be able to review that at that point. That would be wonderful.
I would just like to add to your comments that I welcome those comments on housing, because finding and keeping housing is one of the main difficulties that people with mental illness have. In this area there are waiting lists and there are people on the street who could do with that supportive housing. So I would encourage the minister to press her colleagues for that. It would be a great asset to this area.
There are a number of other facilities in this area that have been waiting a time for renovations, and the Priory site in the Western Communities is one. I think the previous minister may have had an announcement on that. I wonder if you could update me on the progress on that site for development.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. That was part of the capital review, and there will be news forthcoming.
M. Coell: The other site that I'd like to canvass is the Oak Bay Lodge site. I think there have been requests for renovations to that facility for a number of years now, and I just wondered if there was anything in your capital plan this year for renovations to that facility, or whether that was, again, part of the reassessment.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, there will be news forthcoming on capital projects, generally.
M. Coell: Thank you. I look forward to those announcements.
The capital regional district ran the health care component of your ministry in this region for many years. That has now been taken over by the capital health board, and the entire staff have been transferred from the capital regional district to the capital health board. Are all their assets to be transferred to the health board, as well? There are a number of assets -- cars, health operating equipment and that sort of thing. Are all of those assets being transferred to the capital health board?
Hon. J. MacPhail: For clarification, there's the capital regional health district, then there's the capital regional that does planning for capital spending, and then there were programs that were delivered by the capital regional district that are now part of the capital health region. I'll answer both parts. The capital regional hospital district remains unchanged. The capital regional district programs are transferred, and the way the facilities are used remains unchanged.
[ Page 3400 ]
M. Coell: I appreciate that comment. I'd like to make a point and maybe the minister can comment on it. I guess there's only one taxpayer. We all pay federal, provincial, municipal, regional taxes. A lot of the assets that the capital regional district had were paid 40 percent by local taxpayers and 60 percent by provincial taxpayers. There is some concern at the local level that those assets have now been taken out of the control of local hands. Granted, they're in provincially appointed hands, but there isn't any local control over how those assets are controlled. I'd just like to pursue the logic of that for a moment with the minister.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not exactly familiar with the historical relationship in the capital regional district. But let me just say that, generally, we are in discussions with the UBCM about the relationship between regional hospital districts, community health councils, regional health boards -- how the relationship continues and in what form in terms of funding. It is very complex; there's no question about it being very complex. We're committed, as I think the UBCM is, to make sure that the right people are talking on both sides -- or in tripartite fashion, actually. We're facilitating those communications. I would be more than happy to address a specific issue that's particular to the capital regional district.
[5:15]
M. Coell: Maybe I could give an example of what I think the local politicians are saying to the government. Last week the Minister of Finance announced a change to the water district, where the water board that was owned by four municipalities is now given to the capital regional district. Those assets are still decided by the local taxpayers' representative. There's no change -- and I very much supported that. But what's happened here is that what was funded by the local taxpayer and their representative has now just been taken and given to another body for decision-making, so that the local taxpayers no longer have someone making decisions on their behalf on the capital health board. They're appointed; they're not elected. So that's the problem that they see, and that I think a lot of taxpayers do as well. Before, their representative at the CRD voted on expenditures for cost-sharing with the provincial government -- at least they had taxation and they were represented -- but now they don't. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.Hon. J. MacPhail: The relationship remains the same -- the funding of the taxpayer, the 40 percent. The relationship with the regional hospital district will remain the same.
M. Coell: I realize that, and that's correct. But the decision about that facility or how it's maintained, built or staffed does not rest with the capital regional district any more -- only the funding.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Before, hospital societies didn't decide allocation of capital and the sharing of expenditure costs. That was done between the Ministry of Health and regional hospital districts. Now that relationship remains the same, but we're meeting with the UBCM to make sure that the proper community health councils and/or the proper regional health boards are involved in those discussions as well.
M. Coell: Maybe I wasn't clear enough for the minister. The capital regional district had a hospital board, which, I agree, is no change. They fund 40 percent, the ministry funds 60 percent; they build a hospital, the ministry runs it -- the local taxpayer pays 40 percent. The CRD also ran the health programs, and that's the difference. The health programs have now been removed from the CRD, but the local taxpayer is still paying for them without a representative on the board making decisions about the staff and/or the direction.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. The funding for the programs has changed. The local taxpayer no longer pays for the programs; they're 100 percent funded by the Ministry of Health.
M. Coell: Thank you for that assurance. I think the local residential taxpayers will be pleased to hear that, because I don't think they understand that at this point or have been assured of that.
I just want to thank the minister for her candid answers to my questions. I appreciate it, and I will have some other questions further in estimates.
R. Thorpe: First of all, if I repeat some questions that may have been asked, I trust that the Chair and the minister will be understanding, because the Chair, as you know
My first question would be on our regional health board, the South Okanagan-Similkameen board. I understand there are 14 members on that board. Could we just have a community breakdown of where those board members are from?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are four representatives from the Oliver-Osoyoos area, two representatives from Penticton and area; one, South Similkameen; one, Princeton; five, central Okanagan; one, Summerland -- for a total of 14. As I've said earlier, there's a process in place for nomination of the aboriginal representative.
R. Thorpe: Out of that board of 14, I was just wondering if you could indicate how many front-line health care groups are represented on this board.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Six.
R. Thorpe: Could you tell me what categories they represent, please?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Nurse, nurse, nurse, health care worker in extended care, nurse and a doctor.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps our area and Peace River North should get together, because we seem to have our share of nurses, which I
Hon. J. MacPhail: You can never have too many nurses.
R. Thorpe: I want to respond to that. From time to time, I do agree with this minister. You're right, you can't have too many nurses, and that's why we had committed to bringing so many more nurses into the system to serve the patients. I thank the minister very much for that recognition.
[ Page 3401 ]
One of the things that I hear in our communities, because as we all know -- very seriously -- people are very concerned about their health care
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is one area that we have explored, but I'd be happy to do so again. Each time we discuss it my answer becomes a little less verbose. So if you're actually going to communicate with your community, you could use the Hansard, where we've discussed this area previously as well, because it would probably give them greater assurance than my comments right now.
There is a balance to be achieved in the appointments between community representation and the understanding that health care planning goes beyond one particular community. That's the balance we have tried to achieve, and I think we've done it fairly successfully in our appointments. I have directed the regional health boards and community health councils to actually have community involvement either through advisory councils or actual attendance in the community for regional health board meetings, maybe even in a public forum. Over the course of the next two years I will be asking regional health boards and community health councils to advise me on the method that would best suit their community for input on nominations for appointments.
R. Thorpe: For lack of a better word, in our area we sometimes call them town hall meetings or open-house meetings. Do you envisage that type as an example of a vehicle where people in the different communities could come together on a timely basis, perhaps a couple of times a year, and be informed by the board what would be taking place in the greater scheme of things?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that is exactly what I envisage, and it's an excellent idea. In fact, some regional health boards are already doing that; surprisingly, they are quick off the mark. I expect that regional health boards will determine those kinds of issues particular to their communities, but those proposals are certainly worthy of great consideration.
R. Thorpe: What I hear the minister saying in this particular area -- I just want to make sure, and then I'll move on to another area -- is that we're not dictating a one-size-fits-all to the different regions. We're saying to the boards: "You know your regions; you know your communities; do what works there, but we want you to work with the communities and listen to the residents of your area, so it's not one-size-fits-all."
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, exactly. That was in our announcement with Better Teamwork, Better Care. We said a cookie-cutter approach simply wasn't appropriate for the province, and the member's words reflect the same sentiment, with which we agree.
R. Thorpe: As was pointed out earlier, we've heard many announcements. I don't like to make light of it, but in this particular area I think it's very, very important, and I personally will be watching this to make sure that in fact it does happen.
As this new plan unfolds, one of the things I hear is that there has not been a lot of direction or that there doesn't appear to be a detailed game plan as this new board unfolds and starts to serve our communities. Can the minister confirm that yes, there is a very detailed game plan, or no, there's not a very detailed game plan and regions are going to just kind of move through this at their own peril?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, I can add several points of information. Even though this question has been asked before, I need to give the House more information. We've already discussed the fact that each regional health board is going to have to establish a management plan, and that management plan will have to be approved by the ministry. That management plan will have to incorporate substantial administrative cost savings, which will then be reinvested in patient care.
[5:30]
We've alsoWe as a government are moving forward on a provincial health plan, as are the regional health boards moving forward on regional health plans. It's the early days, though. We're six weeks into it. Certainly there may be a need down the road for the ministry or the minister to be more directive and make more specific demands. But at this stage I am very pleased with the innovation being shown, the creativity. Within the bounds of strict accountability and reporting measures that are being put in place, regional health boards are dealing with their specific regional health care concerns. In the end I predict that there will not be a cookie-cutter regional health board across this province. Each health board will design and allocate resources specific to their own community. However, that's not to preclude that down the road we as a ministry may not have to become more directive to regional health boards. But at this time there's no indication of that necessity.
R. Thorpe: Thank you, minister. You've made reference a couple of times -- while I've been here, at least -- that we're only six weeks into it. But I'm sure you've made reference to that several times over the past couple of days, and perhaps over the next few days you'll make more reference to it.
One of things I'd like to ask is: as it unfolds and as it's being developed on a regional basis with regional directors, what type of progress-measurement tools and time-line monitoring do we have in place to make sure that when we get to the finish line, we have what we think we wanted when we started out? What kinds of measurement tools and monitoring will be there to safeguard that we're going to improve health care for British Columbians?
The Chair: Hon. minister.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Chair is absorbed in reading previous Hansard records. He needs to get a life.
[ Page 3402 ]
Actually, I would refer the member
The Chair: Hon. member.
R. Thorpe: Thank you, Chair. Nice to see that you're back with us.
Before I read that -- and I do look forward to reading it -- I wonder if the minister and her staff could advise us: in monitoring this, are some of the frameworks and implementations going to be guided by the accountability information matrix that the auditor general has recommended across government?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Thorpe: One of the things that I think is troubling to all British Columbians is the fiscal responsibility and the fiscal needs of running a health care system that keeps the patient focused as the number one priority. I wonder, will the regional boards have to operate on a balanced-budget approach?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We give them the budgets, and they're to live within them. But I know that not only I but previous ministers have been approached by hospitals asking us to waive that rule.
R. Thorpe: So is that going to be a requirement, an operating guideline? How are we going to judge this? Or are we going to be facing, a year from now, quite a few regions saying: "Well, I can't operate with this budget you've given me"? Is it going to be a guideline; is it going to be a requirement? What is the mechanism?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It actually has been a requirement for hospitals for the last three years at least, and that same requirement will apply to regional health boards now.
R. Thorpe: As this unfolds, will the provincial government be able to pass down any unfunded mandates to these regional boards?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that this is important, so could we deal with a specific example? I don't want to mislead in any way or give an answer that's not full.
R. Thorpe: As I understand it, labour agreements are negotiated on a provincial basis, and whatever the settlements are -- it doesn't matter what they are
Hon. J. MacPhail: Funding of wages is part of the funding methodology for establishing hospital budgets, and certainly a provincially negotiated agreement will be accounted for in providing for hospital budgets. So the answer is: that is taken into account in the funding provided to hospitals. It wouldn't be an unfunded liability.
R. Thorpe: I'm sorry -- will not?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It wouldn't be an unfunded liability; it would be taken into account in the hospital budgeting.
R. Thorpe: I guess at first I was happy that it wouldn't be, but then when you once again mentioned it would be taken into account in the formula, I just got a little concerned that government is going to negotiate whatever the settlement is and say: "By the way, we think there's something in administration, so you're not going to get it all. So go find it in administration." I think we've seen some of those examples recently. I would just like some assurances -- because I understand we're going through this now and we're getting the efficiencies in administration; I think the number I've heard is $24 million, or whatever it is -- that people, when agreements are settled, going forward
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I appreciate that the hon. member is putting forward a hypothetical situation. The way funding occurs in the hospital sector is a complex matter. But there is input from the industry; they're part of the funding methodology. The industry actually sits at the bargaining table, and the industry ratifies any collective agreement, as well. All of those are checks. There's a system of checks and balances to ensure that what's agreed upon in future funding can be met in the context of balanced budgets. So I give that assurance to the member.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: Earlier you mentioned strict accountability and reporting measures. As we move forward
Could you highlight how the regional directors from your ministry are going to be involved with the regions? Are they going to be hands-on? Are they going to know all the time, or are we going to have surprises at the end, somewhere down the fiscal year? Are they going to have sort of a hands-on, and they're going to know what's going on with respect to the fiscal situation within those regions on a month-to-month, quarter-to-quarter basis, and we won't get a surprise at the end of the year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, does the member mean we the province getting a surprise or we the regional health board getting a surprise?
R. Thorpe: When we miss it at one level, it sort of works its way all the way up, and then the persons who eventually get surprised are the taxpayers of British Columbia.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Good. I do understand where you're coming from.
The regional health boards will meet monthly and will report monthly to the regional director, which is the connection to the province. And then, also, the regional health board will be very well informed of the fiscal situation, because there will be a finance committee as well.
[ Page 3403 ]
R. Thorpe: We've talked about the board and the community representation, and we've talked about hearing the communities. We've talked a little bit about the finance, and we'll talk about that further, I'm sure.
Of course, the most important thing is the delivery of quality health care services to the patients of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia. How are we going to ensure that in each region, the quality of health care
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I'll just refer the member to the discussion of this in Hansard, that there will be measures taken to determine the best quality of care: input measures, such as budget and expenditure plans; output measures; volumes of services, such as caseloads and contacts and visits; appropriateness measures; quality measures; and outcome measures. I've gone into greater detail prior to this, but those are the measurements that will be obtained and reported on in the annual report.
[5:45]
R. Thorpe: That will conclude my questioning of the minister. I'd like to thank the minister for the answers. As this unfolds and as we're out of here for the summer and before we come back in the fallHon. J. MacPhail: I know that the member means for me to visit the facility as the minister and not as a patient, and I look forward to that as well.
R. Thorpe: I couldn't miss that opportunity. Yes, I do want the minister to visit as the minister. But I know she should never have any fear of visiting any of the facilities in British Columbia as a patient, because I know that she, working together with the B.C. Liberals, is going to make them first-rate.
S. Hawkins: I'd like to make a motion that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
The committee met at 2:37 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
J. Weisgerber: On closing last night, the minister indicated that he would bring back a number of different figures and reports, so I had anticipated that we would start with that. It's not particularly important at what point in the debates those come, and I expect we will get those reports at some point down the road.
What I'd like to do is examine the government's mandate or approach to treaty settlements as described on its web site and look at those in light of the Nisga'a agreement, because the reality is that as you go through the Nisga'a agreement and compare that with the government's published mandate, you find significant differences -- differences that I find difficult to rationalize. So I'd like to spend the next little while looking at some of the most obvious of those issues.
The mandate paper, as published on the web site, says, among other things: "
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member refers to "a myriad of new government structures," and I think that if, for instance, the member were to compare it with northern agreements, the Nisga'a agreement does not have the myriad of boards and tribunals you would find with the typical northern agreement. Indeed there are two, and I think the hon. member would agree that they are both necessary: one with regard to wildlife and one with regard to fish.
The hon. member refers to negotiations government by government and tribal council by tribal council, and the negotiations taking place are that. I believe that that really is a process of negotiations with various first nations entities, whether it is representative of a full tribal council or one first nations group. That is, I think, the process that was foreseen through the establishment of the task force report. However that may be, the fact is -- as I acknowledged yesterday -- that the provincial government recognizes that we must find ways to achieve economies of scale when it comes to those various negotiations, whether they're community by community or whether they're with an entire tribal council unit. We still need to achieve economies of scale so that we aren't, in a sense, reinventing the wheel in each and every set of negotiations,
[ Page 3404 ]
and there is some recognition on the part of first nations, through the First Nations Summit, that we need to start making steps in that direction. So we are seeking to do that.
We think, for instance, that in a given region of the province a lot of issues that can be negotiated have an all-encompassing application for the people in that region. Ideally it would be good if some of these things could be negotiated on a provincewide basis, but that would be more difficult to achieve. I do agree with the goal of trying to minimize duplication.
J. Weisgerber: The government's published material -- its mandate or approach to treaty settlement -- says, in addition to the quotes I read earlier, that self-government should be structured in a way that will not result in uncertainty in jurisdiction, will not adversely affect non-aboriginal residents on treaty settlement lands and will not impose a financial burden on taxpayers. Now in order to achieve that, it would seem to me, first of all, that aboriginal self-government -- the Nisga'a model and subsequent agreements -- would indeed have to be entirely self-financed by band members.
If there is going to be
Beyond the issue of a burden to taxpayers, which clearly exists in the agreement-in-principle, I think that unless negotiations are provincewide at a minimum for self-government, there will result uncertainty in jurisdiction. I've been long troubled with the notion that one
I'm wondering, again, how the minister, perhaps without making this too burdensome, can address those questions of tax burden and uncertainty in jurisdiction. How can he reconcile the statements in his own material with the reality of the agreement-in-principle?
Hon. J. Cashore: There's no difficulty whatsoever in finding consistency within the statements that have been made in the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and the statements that you may find, hon. member, on the web site.
First of all, I want to say that I agree with the hon. member: it would be ideal if we could negotiate self-government on a provincewide basis. I want to assure the hon. member that I will continue to seek to do that. In the practicality of the treaty-making relationship that we have -- which I think all of us, including the hon. member, have had a role in creating -- that is not going to happen by decree on the part of one of the three parties.
However, we as a province, in negotiating self-government, base those negotiations on certain bottom lines, certain standard positions that we have. We do recognize that in each region of the province there will be differences depending on the self-government needs that need to be addressed in that particular region, or in a particular community in some cases. The underlying cost-saving point that the hon. member makes about the broader base on which most of these negotiations can be done is a good point. I've been working toward that through the meetings with the principals and have been doing so for years now and will continue to do so. I think we're making some headway in that regard.
With regard to the point that was made about cost, if I understand the hon. member, he was saying that any cost-sharing or financial arrangements would have to be completely borne by first nations, because otherwise it would be impossible to fulfil our commitment to make these negotiations cost-effective. The fact is that the people of the communities with which we're negotiating would continue to be citizens of British Columbia and would continue to receive British Columbia services as British Columbia citizens. But what has been built into the negotiations is the phasing-out of the tax exemption -- in the case of the Nisga'a, the recognition that the Nisga'a would have the room to occupy tax room, to tax their own citizens and to participate in the providing of services in a way that would be parallel in many ways to what we find in our relationships with municipalities. The point is that we all recognize that there is an economic benefit in settling treaties, achieving certainty, improving the investment climate and improving the job creation climate. All of those factors need to add up at the end of the day to a circumstance in which all of us in British Columbia are better off.
Will there be costs? Yes. That's why there's a federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement. Those costs are certainly more in the earlier stages rather than in the latter stages and, as I said before, there are costs which are costs in relation to any citizen in the province.
J. Weisgerber: The material -- the mandate -- is the minister's own. He refers to it as "the material I get from the web site." The fact of the matter is that the minister, through the ministry, publishes on the web site the material that I refer to.
The reference with respect to taxation and the financial burden for taxes says in fact that self-government will not impose a financial burden on taxpayers. It doesn't refer in the broader sense to treaties, treaty settlements, etc. It says self-government will not impose a financial burden on taxpayers. Given the fact that under the Indian Act, the federal government currently has a responsibility on Nisga'a lands for the delivery of services and the costs of government, how in the world can the minister rationalize this change and suggest that as a result of the changes in government structure there won't be a burden to British Columbia taxpayers? It seems to me entirely inconsistent.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member is taking the term "burden" to mean that there would be no cost whatsoever, such as in the context of the cost-sharing agreement. That's not how I would describe burden. I think burden would be a cost that causes a burden on the backs of tax-
[ Page 3405 ]
payers. In actual fact, the result of treaty-making is to remove burdens from taxpayers, and to remove burdens in a number of ways so that we result in a more economically productive scenario for all parties.
J. Weisgerber: I would suggest, in all candour, that anyone reading this material would interpret a financial burden as a cost. To take the far more generous interpretation that the minister takes is, I think, one of the reasons that people become cynical about these processes. We look on the web site; we look at the government's material -- it says there'll be no financial burden. Now we hear the minister say: "By a financial burden, I mean there'll be no costs that are absolutely unreasonable." I just don't that's a fair interpretation by the minister of his own material. Clearly, the words were designed to give British Columbians a sense that there would be no cost to them for self-government. If we can agree that that is in fact not the case, then I'll be happy to move forward.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member is painting an absolute worst-case scenario. I'm not agreeing with that, and I don't think that he fundamentally agrees with that either, given the role that he's had historically in setting up this process and his realization in setting up the process that it was leading to these kinds of arrangements.
J. Weisgerber: The decision to negotiate with Nisga'a and to come to an agreement where the minister signs off on a form of government that is constitutionally enshrined is an enormous leap, and one which I had no part of. I tell you now, without fear of contradiction: the model of self-government seen in the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle was not the model of self-government that was anticipated when the framework agreement was signed. I would only, as further evidence, put out the fact that the only self-government agreements entered into previous to Nisga'a were with Sechelt, and they are quite dramatically different.
I would also suggest to the minister that treaty negotiations in other parts of the country left self-government entirely out of the treaty process and dealt with self-government as a entirely separate item. To suggest that somehow I led the minister into this self-government arrangement is an enormous leap of faith.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think that there are a number of factors here. For instance, at the present time there's a lot of money spent by the department of Indian and Northern Affairs that, as a result of the treaty process, will be dollars that are redirected in a much more productive way. That's one example of the way in which it would certainly mitigate costs, and in my view, that would not be defined as a burden.
I think it needs to be recognized that the fact of recognizing self-government authority in a treaty, or agreeing to self-government authority in a treaty in a certain area, does not necessarily add up to cost. But it has to be brought down to actual examples in order to be able to discuss this in a meaningful way. One example would be education. If, for instance, the Nisga'a were involved in providing education as a result of the relationship that was negotiated in a treaty, funds would be provided to the Nisga'a for providing that service, just as funds would be provided to a school district from the provincial government for providing that service. So as we look at the various specific examples when it comes to costing, I think we find that it certainly mitigates cost.
I think it makes my point that this would not be described as a burden when you look at all those factors in addition to the factor that I have mentioned -- that the reason the hon. member got us into treaty-making in the first place was because he wanted to achieve economic certainty in the province. That's why he reversed the position his government had formerly been taking, because his Premier at that time recognized that were we not to do this, we were taking risks that could potentially be far greater and far more of a burden for the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's why we have followed along on the course that this hon. member started.
J. Weisgerber: Yeah, and there's certainly no argument with the underlying rationale for land claims settlements and treaty-making. No one is disputing that. But I would again remind the minister: at the time the framework was signed, nowhere in Canada had a treaty been signed that included self-government as a treaty right, as a so-called third order of government. Everywhere else in Canada, including the Yukon agreements and those in other parts of the country, self-government was negotiated outside of the treaty. To suggest that somehow this is simply a continuation of what was started in 1990 is simply not accurate.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd just point out that Canada's inherent-right policy came out about a year ago, and they're applying that across Canada. It is true that some of these issues are dealt with as the federal government is in a position to deal with them, just as we're expecting the federal government to be doing some work in the area of certainty language.
[3:00]
J. Weisgerber: The mandate document published by the minister goes on to say that the mandate for self-government will include three categories: unconditional aboriginal government authority, limited aboriginal government authority and delegated authority. Could the minister describe each of those for me and perhaps be kind enough to provide me with one example of the way that this mandate is applied?Hon. J. Cashore: There's no example of the first in the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. An example of the second would be the wildlife activity, where we have an authority that will involve the Nisga'a and officials from the provincial government in dealing with allocations. An example of delegated authority would be in taxation arrangements.
J. Weisgerber: Would the minister, then, be good enough to describe to me what is anticipated by unconditional aboriginal government authority, recognizing that it's identified in the mandate paper published by the ministry? One assumes that the government must have some plans to use this one of three categories either in the current negotiations or in future negotiations.
Hon. J. Cashore: I suppose an example of unconditional authority would be the right that a first nation would have to decide on the use of their cultural artifacts where they have received those cultural artifacts.
J. Weisgerber: Recognizing again that these are categories described by the provincial government's Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, I wonder
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair. We'll get some more examples.
[ Page 3406 ]
J. Weisgerber: The mandate goes on to state: "The province intends that the extent of aboriginal government authority will be limited to its land base and circumscribed by provincial standards." I'm particularly interested in the notion that aboriginal government powers will be limited to its lands. As I look at the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and issues such as policing, adoption, post-secondary education and the solemnization of marriages, those would seem to be three or four powers that very obviously can and will be exercised beyond the Nisga'a's lands.
Hon. J. Cashore: Could I ask the member to repeat that list?
J. Weisgerber: The list of authorities that come to mind that I expect would be exercised off Nisga'a lands are policing, adoption, post-secondary education and the solemnization of marriages.
Hon. J. Cashore: These will be police under the Police Act, as in the sense of municipal police. Under the Police Act they would therefore have those same powers that municipal police would have. This, in my view, would be a reasonable authority off Nisga'a land.
J. Weisgerber: Accepting that argument, that leaves the question of adoption, post-secondary education and marriages.
Hon. J. Cashore: Under adoption, the Crown retains the ability to act in the best interests of the child. There are powers that the Nisga'a now have -- that aboriginals currently have with regard to adoption -- and those powers would remain basically the same as they are now. In some instances there are some connections off Nisga'a land because of the obvious factors regarding people travelling, but they are not powers that they do not currently have.
I'm just dealing with these one at a time, so if the member will bear with me
Post-secondary education. Expending their own money, they could arrange for the education of Nisga'a post-secondary students. Again, I don't think that would be an unusual power. They have no authority outside of the provincial authority over education.
The last one is the solemnization of marriage. I'll try this one: I believe that solemnization of marriage could be conducted by Nisga'a off Nisga'a land, given that it involves enrolled Nisga'a.
J. Weisgerber: Certainly, all of the explanations are reasonable -- and perhaps predictable. What troubles me, I suppose, is the fact that government sets out to reassure people, makes broad and rather sweeping statements and then always has to explain why what is being said isn't exactly what is being done. I would only reinforce my argument by saying that when I look at the mandate, I see a commitment to government only on Nisga'a lands. Yet the minister wrote me on May 8, further to a question raised in the Legislature, and part of the answer with respect to the administration of justice is that this is not "native people only in the Nass."
So it's pretty clear, then, that if it isn't only for native people in the Nass, the administration of justice is either for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the Nass or for native people outside of the settlement lands, which, again, is a contradiction of the positions taken in the various documents that are done. I think it underlines the difficulty that most British Columbians are having in wrapping their minds around the various statements and position papers taken by the government and the actions that are then evident in the settlement agreements.
If the minister wants to respond, that's fine. It's my intention to move forward on the mandate papers into areas such as certainty language. I had indicated to the official opposition critic that I would give him a sense of those times when I was going to change pace. Having done that, I'll move forward.
The mandate paper on B.C.'s approach to treaty settlements states in part: "The objective of treaty negotiations is to replace the broad-based sustenance rights recognized by the courts
Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member, when he's referring to this document -- just to help us make sure that we are referencing the same part of the document that he is -- to identify it by page and other identifying material. It would assist us in responding.
J. Weisgerber: I have some speaking notes that I have taken from these agreements. I will make every effort to reference these more precisely, either now or in the future. I'm not sure if the minister questions whether those are indeed the words that are contained in his mandate paper. If he wants to wait for a minute, I'll sit down and try to identify the precise page and paragraph number.
Hon. J. Cashore: No, I understand if the hon. member is working from speaking notes. It's just that he frequently quotes from a paper, so I would assume he might have footnotes there that would just identify where he's quoting from when he comes to those.
[3:15]
J. Weisgerber: It's going to take me a few minutes to identify this precise material, and I will certainly make every effort to do that. Perhaps before we hold up the debate too much longerHon. J. Cashore: I think that it's clear. The hon. member is trying to make the point that there are some broad statements made by government that are informational statements outlining our general positions. He is seeking to point out that in his view there is a discrepancy between those statements and what is actually happening. We, of course, categorically disagree with that, and I think that that in a way shapes the debate that we are having right now.
With regard to the issue of certainty, the certainty issue has not been concluded with the Nisga'a negotiations -- as was referenced at the time that the AIP was initialled. The step
[ Page 3407 ]
that has to take place in order for that to happen is that the federal government will be coming forward with a statement that will form the basis for the discussions that will then take place around finding language that amounts to the same thing as cede, release and surrender. But there are some problems that some people have with that language, and we respect that. As long as we can, through a negotiated process, come up with language which is satisfactory -- recognizing that it's a tripartite process -- we will seek to do our best to do so. The next step is clearly with the federal government, and we eagerly await what they produce.
J. Weisgerber: I guess the question that one would then have to ask is whether or not the minister anticipates significant new language to be inserted into the Nisga'a final agreement that is not currently in the agreement-in-principle. The arguments we've heard from negotiators and others is that the agreement-in-principle represents the exchange of broader rights for a whole series of specific rights that are described in the agreement-in-principle. In fact, the agreement-in-principle makes up the definition of "rights." I don't know, taking that statement, what to read into the commitment to develop certainty language as part of the final treaty.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, maybe I need to clarify. I'm not sure that the hon. member was saying this -- this is a very genuine, perhaps bad, hearing of what he was saying. I thought I heard the hon. member say that perhaps there isn't a need for certainty language, given that there is the clarity of definition and agreement in the language of the agreement-in-principle. It indicates that any additional language would not be necessary. It sounded to me that that was what he was saying, but I don't think that was what he was saying. I just want to clarify that.
J. Weisgerber: What I was attempting to say, in my clumsy way, is that the negotiators would have us believe, from the comments they've made, that the certainty had already been achieved within the agreement in-principle and that in fact this whole series of agreements represents the certainty that British Columbians should be looking for. I find, then, difficulty knowing what to anticipate in the certainty language that is referred to as coming in the next round of agreements.
Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you for that; that helps me. Certainly the negotiators say -- I say -- that the concept of certainty is implicit in the various clauses in the agreement-in-principle, and the integrity of that concept will survive and actually improve the language as we get towards the final document. That should even be more secure. Yes, it is implicit, in my view, within each and every clause of the agreement that we are seeking to conclude. I think it is recognized, though, that there is a need to have a statement of certainty that describes the meaning of the document in a context that leaves no doubt in anybody's mind with regard to what is the sum total of that agreement. I think that for obvious reasons that needs to be stated, perhaps codified, in agreed-upon language that achieves the goal of certainty.
M. de Jong: On this issue, I want to try and ascertain what progress has been made and, first of all, whether the process is still the one I was led to believe existed last year when we had this debate. At that time, as I understood it, the provisions of the AIP indicated there would be ongoing negotiations to settle upon language that would achieve the objective of certainty and finality. Those discussions were taking place. But the province was somewhat hampered by the understanding that the federal government would settle upon language that was satisfactory to it for all of its national purposes and then provide that information to the province of British Columbia. But that hadn't happened. The province was, in effect, waiting to receive that language. Can the minister advise the committee what further negotiations have taken place, and whether or not the province has received the language that the federal government is content to move forward with?
Hon. J. Cashore: We don't know if the federal cabinet has received and decided on the options paper or whatever it was that was presented to them on this issue, presumably by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. We don't have the information as to where that precisely is in the federal process.
M. de Jong: When we had this discussion last summer, I think the minister's hope, and the information he conveyed to the committee, was that it was anticipated that the federal government's position would be available imminently. As I look back upon the transcripts of when the various negotiating teams appeared before the standing committee, there was also some assurance given -- though I wouldn't presume to quote it word for word -- that this information was, again, going to be available imminently. Over a year has passed, and I don't know how much closer we are. What's the minister's understanding of when we might expect to get this very key information?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a source of frustration for me. I have frequently requested that the deputy minister discuss this with the regional director general and his counterpart in Ottawa. This has been done. I have no doubt that I said what the hon. member said I said during those estimates. That was clearly my expectation based upon the conversations that we had had.
M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate whether there is a specific subcommittee of his ministry or an individual within his ministry who is charged with the task of obtaining this information or this negotiating position from the federal government, and whether meetings are planned? The whole point is, I'm operating on the assumption that it is impossible to conclude, to move towards a final treaty, until this very key element, this very key piece of the puzzle, has been settled.
Hon. J. Cashore: There are discussions that have been taking place on this issue with the First Nations Summit and with the federal government, but it has not been a main-table discussion. The hon. member asked if there was a committee or anything that was dealing this. We have the negotiation support division of the ministry which monitors that and would doing the policy work on it.
M. de Jong: Two issues that I'd just like to probe the minister's mind on. One was alluded to earlier, either by him or the member for Peace River South or both of them. The minister said, I think, that there were cases, instances and issues that he thought and hoped could be dealt with on a provincial basis. This, presumably, is one of them.
Does the minister contemplate
[ Page 3408 ]
longed negotiations at 47 or 50 tables? I guess the question is ultimately whether the province will be taking the position that the certainty language it seizes upon for the Nisga'a AIP becomes the language that is applicable in every single treaty negotiation in the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to that is yes. I really believe that to make this discussion meaningful, the best way it can possibly happen is in provincewide discussions. We don't have the agreement from the parties that have to agree to do it that way, but I entirely agree with the logic of what the hon. member has just said. I will continue to seek to achieve the ability to do it that way.
We as a province have been making our position known at the principals' meetings, going on four years now, about the need not only for the practicalities of negotiating on a broader basis wherever possible but also of the economies of doing so. We constantly say we think that this is one of the routes toward addressing what is seen as a dilemma, which is that the B.C. Treaty Commission from time to time has stated in its annual reports that the federal and provincial governments aren't putting enough money into this process. We're saying that before that recommendation is addressed, we need to do a better job of addressing the internal economies that can be achieved. We think that not only are there internal economies through such things as provincewide negotiation on the issue of certainty language but on other issues as well, wherever that can be done.
M. de Jong: How long is the minister prepared to wait for the federal government to table its language with respect to the issue of certainty before it simply proceeds and says we can wait no longer, we want to get on with this, and this is the language that is acceptable to us?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're doing our own work on this. This is an active file, and it's an issue that we continue to work on. In the final analysis, it takes three parties. The federal government has a lead responsibility in this area, and it is absolutely key. The question of how long I'm prepared to wait is a difficult question to answer, because in a tripartite process, I'm obviously not going to be able to take over that process. It has to be tripartite.
[3:30]
M. de Jong: At the risk of being unnecessarily provocative toward the federal government -- and I think this is something we'll explore later -- there was language that was deemed appropriate and satisfactory, both in the old numbered treaties and in the treaties that were negotiated not so long ago in the north. The federal government has indicated that it wishes to adopt a different position. I would suggest that there is some obligation upon them to present their position in a timely and expeditious manner insofar as the implications it will have right across the province.The last thing I want to say on this point -- I'll just make this submission and perhaps elicit a reaction from the minister -- is that the two terms that are most often used when we deal with this are certainty and finality. I'm going to suggest to the minister that they can mean different things to different people. We talk about certainty, and I think that is this notion that you exchange the unknown for what is known, for a defined set of rights. I think that's what people refer to when they talk about certainty.
Insofar as finality is concerned, their primary objective is to be assured that one year, five years or ten years after a treaty is entered into and all these issues have been put to bed, so to speak, an aboriginal group or individual isn't going to come along later and say: "Well, we could have done better than that. We should have done better than that, and now we're going to reopen negotiations."
The certainty aspect of it is one thing. On finality, the notion that having spent tremendous resources both in terms of personnel and dollars to secure these settlements
Hon. J. Cashore: First, with regard to the points that the hon. member was making about certainty language, the number of treaties and that sort of thing, I would just point out that the federal government commissioned the Hamilton report. When Judge Hamilton reported, one of the things he said in his report is that there should be new language found. I think he couched that in the context of the respect relationship, so that it had to be a very clear language and had to be language that would produce certainty and finality. He did recommend that new language be found and that in this modern treaty-making context
With regard to the question about finality, I certainly do agree with that. We have done these estimates four times now, and we've had this same discussion every time. I think that the words in Hansard are probably almost identical. The hon. member cited the example of having the kind of finality that would ensure that if a first nations person wanted to change it, the finality would ensure that they wouldn't be able to do it if they found it in their interests to do so.
We have to ask ourselves, all of us: what about the circumstance where the shoe might be on the other foot? First of all, it shouldn't be on the other foot, because we should do a good job. But hypothetically, we should think
I think a lot of people would say, gosh, something was done badly there in those negotiations, and there should be recourse on behalf of the Musqueam band to get a fair lease price -- but a deal was a deal, and that's the way it was. It was interesting that about three or four years ago, a clause in the agreement clicked in. All of a sudden, the Musqueam were in a position to start charging amounts of between $15,000 and $30,000 a year for those very same leases. Just like that, it changed from $300 or $400 to $15,000 to $30,000 a year. There is a question in contract law of whose interest is being served. What is it if the shoe is on the other foot?
So yes, we need certainty and finality. But we have to recognize in this that where there is mutual interest on the part of the parties to look at something that may indeed need to be changed in the interests of all, I don't see how we could ever preclude that or how that would even be wise. I don't think the hon. members are suggesting that, but I think it has
[ Page 3409 ]
to be acknowledged that we need to find the certainty and the finality that enables us to manage this wisely. For my part, I know that if I found myself in a situation where I suddenly had to go from paying $300 a year to paying $20,000 a year, I would be looking at every way I possibly could to get it changed, because I wouldn't think that was fair.
M. de Jong: I promised the member for Peace River South that we would proceed through his mandate discussion, and I want to do that. My last point would be this: over time, I think my
Here's where I think the important distinction lies. I think the greatest
I recognize that there will have to be some flexibility built into accommodating how that is going to operate if we choose to proceed on the kind of model of self-government contemplated by the Nisga'a AIP. But it is in those other areas where, for example, we have made decisions about phasing out tax-exempt status -- those issues that do not relate specifically to shared jurisdiction or self-government, where we have made decisions about cash pay-outs, where we have made decisions about transfers of land and resources -- that there must surely be finality, in the truest sense of the word, applied and understood to apply to those particular areas of any sort of treaty. So that is the distinction that I make when we talk about certainty and finality balanced against the need for administrative flexibility.
J. Weisgerber: To carry on as I await the broader background material
With this in mind, I wonder if the minister, on behalf of British Columbia, has made specific recommendations to Canada on the development of new language -- as the minister correctly notes -- the federal government appears to be pondering? In light of the experience with Nisga'a, has the province suggested to Ottawa, given that this issue will apply almost exclusively now in British Columbia
Hon. J. Cashore: There has been a lot of discussion over the last several years. We have not put out that discussion in the context of a particular paper, for obvious reasons, but there has been a lot of discussion between our officials and federal officials.
J. Weisgerber: If the federal government decides to continue its historic policy on extinguishment -- i.e., cede, release and surrender -- will the province then agree that that's an acceptable mechanism for achieving certainty? The question, obviously, is: does the province believe that the historic language employed -- as recently as in the Yukon Territory -- is an appropriate mechanism for achieving certainty?
Hon. J. Cashore: If the federal government were to do that, and I'm sure they won't, because I think that is one of the recommendations in the Hamilton report they would be certain to follow
J. Weisgerber: This isn't the first time we've heard the argument that aboriginal people simply will not accept the historic certainty language: cede, surrender and release. It has always come to me from provincial officials or ministers. I'm wondering how the minister can be so certain of that, given that less than ten years ago the Council for Yukon Indians accepted that particular language. This isn't language that's 100 years old; it's not language that's 50 years old; it's language that, in some cases, is very much concurrent with what's happening around treaty negotiations. What makes the minister so certain that British Columbia alone would reject this language?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member means that the first nations of British Columbia would reject it through the First Nations Summit. His question is: how certain can the minister be? The answer is: you can see I've been spending so much time on this certainty issue that that proves that I can be certain. Just kidding!
[3:45]
The fact of the matter is that we are in a relationship with the First Nations Summit and with the federal government, which is a relationship of respect. They are saying to us that they will not accept that language. We respect that that is an absolute fundamental with them. If that were to turn out to be different, then that would be a factor. But I have no doubt whatsoever that they are absolutely committed to finding different language. In my view, if and when language that achieves the purpose is found, then that language will be satisfactory, as long as it achieves the purpose.J. Weisgerber: I suppose the other issue that I was going to consider at some point a little bit later on in this process
[ Page 3410 ]
people today are prepared to sign a treaty that was developed, albeit nearly a hundred years ago. But it seems to me that the language issue
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think there's a discussion about the validity of the language; I think it's a discussion about an attempt to find new language.
J. Weisgerber: Without wanting to become chippy about this thing, it seems to me that the rationale that's been put forward by the minister and his officials is that the need to find new language is because of the unacceptability of the old language, and that's the point I'm trying to examine. The minister says repeatedly that the old language is not acceptable, that it wouldn't be accepted by aboriginal groups in British Columbia. I say to you that less than a decade ago the aboriginal people of the Yukon Territory accepted the language; less than a year ago the people at McLeod Lake indicated that they were prepared to accept the language.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think I've answered all of these questions, and I think that we're going around in circles and repeating ourselves. So I'll just say once and for all, as I said before, that we are involved in a tripartite process to try to find suitable language certainty. That is not saying anything about the unacceptability of the old language; it is saying that we are working together to find new language that achieves certainty and finality.
J. Weisgerber: To move forward then, the government's mandate paper -- and again I'm going to refer back to the mandate paper -- says: "Once treaties have been concluded, they should not be reopened; however, if it becomes clear that components of treaties require modification to adapt to new circumstances, amendments will be possible on the agreement of all three parties." Having accepted that as a position of the government, can the minister then explain why the clauses in sections 8 and 40 of the Nisga'a deal, which have been described as ratchet clauses, are necessary if in fact this mechanism is already available under the broader umbrella of treaties themselves?
Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the hon. member would help us to find the sections that he referred to; would he just repeat exactly what the sections are and on what page, if he has the page? If not, we'll find it.
J. Weisgerber: I'm referring to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, sections 8 and 40.
Hon. J. Cashore: There are several chapters in the Nisga'a treaty, and I think that the hon. member may be referring to one of those. I'm sure we can find it; we'll just look for it.
J. Weisgerber: I refer the minister to the person on his right, who spent most of four or five years working on the document and would no doubt be able to find it even more quickly than I.
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps we could ask the member to state the clauses that he's referring to, and we'll find them.
J. Weisgerber: Again, I say sections 8 and 40, which deal in the areas of taxation.
Hon. J. Cashore: This was negotiated with the Nisga'a because they were the first in Canada to
J. Weisgerber: To refer to the Yukon agreement is particularly appropriate, because it seems to me that
Hon. J. Cashore: I think that gets back to the point that I was making in my discussion earlier with the official opposition critic. There is the possibility that on the basis of mutual interest, with the agreement of all three parties, there could be some general amending provisions. I don't think that is inconsistent with contract law; I don't think it's inconsistent with a wise approach, And the assumption is not there that this might benefit first nations and not anybody else. It's to deal with what may be a benefit to any one of the three parties. The fact is that it can't happen unilaterally; it has to have the agreement of all three parties to be opened up.
J. Weisgerber: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether, on his examination of the Yukon agreement, he is satisfied that the mechanisms for reopening those agreements are consistent with provincial government policy and whether or not he believes that those elements of the Yukon agreement generally satisfy the needs of British Columbians and Canadians.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not going to answer questions about the Yukon agreement. I'm satisfied with the policy that the provincial government is taking, and that incorporates research that's gone into treaty-making all over the world. We are working on our portion of a made-in-B.C. process, so I'm satisfied with the approaches that we are taking and the principles under which we take those approaches.
J. Weisgerber: Surely, though, we don't operate in a vacuum in British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: That's what I just said; I just said that. We're looking at things all over the world.
J. Weisgerber: Well, but the minister is unwilling
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm surprised that the hon. member would expect me to comment on something when I don't
[ Page 3411 ]
have a copy of it in front of me. If he wants to send me a copy of the particular document he's referring to and give me an opportunity to go over it, I may decide to respond to it.
J. Weisgerber: Fair enough. I think the minister will appreciate that I bring to these debates a level of understanding and a number of issues. I can and will bring back copies of the Yukon agreements for the minister. I left here yesterday and indicated clearly to the minister those major areas that I intended to cover today. I'm not here in any attempt to blindside the minister. I am here simply to try to examine the debate, and if the minister wants to defer discussion around the Yukon agreements until tomorrow, I assume the minister will surely be able to access between now and tomorrow a copy of the Yukon agreement and look at the mechanism for amending the treaty. It's quite straightforward. It's a section of the agreement, and it's there to be examined if the minister is unfamiliar with it.
Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate that. If the hon. member would send me a copy of the line in those documents that he's referring to, I'd be glad to comment. I want to make it clear that I'm here to discuss what's going on in British Columbia, to defend the estimates here in British Columbia, and I'm not going to go off on some kind of a tangent where I'm discussing the estimates in the Yukon.
[4:00]
J. Weisgerber: Let's move, then, to another element of the minister's own mandate paper, "B.C.'s Approach to Treaty Settlements," which I advised the minister last night we would be debating today. The section on management and land use planning in that same mandate paper makes the statement: "Rather than adding new structures to current planning and management regimes, treaties will clarify the participation and roles of first nations in existing or modified provincial processes." That quote is not from any document other than the minister's own published documents. I am wondering if the minister would be good enough to clarify how he believes that statement can be aligned with or rationalized with the wildlife agreements with the Nisga'a, because I don't believe that the establishment of a wildlife area is consistent with existing or even modified provincial processes.[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: There's no inconsistency whatsoever. The B.C. approach, which is to negotiate new treaties without unnecessarily adding structures, is completely appropriate and legitimate. Of course, there will be times when there need to be instruments set up that enable us to get on with our job, and that is not new. Structures and instruments are being set up on a regular basis with all the entities in British Columbia, whether they're within a treaty or outside a treaty. That we would find ways to work together shouldn't be precluded simply because a treaty is taking place. There has to be a certain amount of logic to the way in which this process operates.
J. Weisgerber: Let's move on, then, to something that is a bit more finite. That is the issue of compensation to third parties. The minister's mandate paper suggests -- and again I'll quote: "Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, consistent provincial guidelines will be applied to ensure fair and timely compensation." Having read that published position, I have attempted, through a number of mechanisms, to determine what those consistent provincial guidelines are that the minister refers to. As part of the activities of the select standing committee, we asked the Clerk of Committees to identify for us the current provincial policy as it applies to parks and/or land claim settlements. We were advised by the Clerks that they had contacted the land use coordination office. They were advised by the land use coordination office that there is no blanket provincial policy, nor is there likely to be one in the future. Just to further reinforce that point, the letter that the minister provided me with a copy of, attaching his speaking notes for the UVic conference
From the minister's letter and from investigations by the Clerk of Committees, we now have pretty clear evidence that there are no provincial guidelines. Yet the minister's mandate paper says: "Where third-party impacts are unavoidable, consistent provincial guidelines will be applied to ensure fair and timely compensation." Perhaps this way the minister will respond.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm glad to respond, as I've been responding to all of the points that the hon. member has been making regarding what's going on in British Columbia.
With regard to this one, what's going on in British Columbia is entirely consistent with what is stated in the statement to which the hon. member referred. We do not yet have any treaties in the modern context. Compensation guidelines and policies will have to be applied in that context when they are applied. We are currently in discussions with Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. Yes, we continue to be carrying out the kind of activities involving LUCO that were referenced in the letter that the hon. member referred to. I don't have any apology whatsoever for the fact that we are involved very diligently in the process of developing those guidelines. They will be ready when they need to be ready.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister wasn't listening as carefully as I might wish on this issue. The guideline states that compensation will be made using consistent provincial guidelines. The letter to the member for Matsqui says that the staff are working with LUCO and resource ministries to consider ways of approaching third-party compensation. The memo that the select standing committee received from the Clerk of Committees suggested that there is no blanket provincial policy, nor is there likely to be one in the future. To me, those two positions are inconsistent with each other, and I want to again reinforce my concern that the material being published is not consistent with what's happening with Nisga'a, nor is it consistent with statements being made by the minister and others in government.
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, there is absolute consistency, and I would just point out that I'm not here to defend the estimates of the Clerks' office. It seems to me a future policy to be making a statement that there will be no policy in the future, but I certainly didn't write that.
There are two elements to the question the hon. member is asking. One element has to do with the global governmental policy with regard to compensation, which is not an item that I am dealing with here in this context. But with regard to compensation as it applies to first nations, it is absolutely
[ Page 3412 ]
consistent with the process I have referred to, which we are consulting with TNAC on. And we are indeed developing those very guidelines that we've committed to.
J. Weisgerber: I'm going to try and avoid getting into extended debates. But if the minister wishes to carry any of them on, please don't let my attempts to move on to another issue deter him from expanding more completely if that's what he wishes to do.
On the province's published mandate, I must confess that I took pretty seriously the fact that government would publish and distribute a mandate. One could take some comfort from the mandate's positions being described. The mandate paper goes on to say that the province will not agree to a treaty settlement land package that includes land subject to an overlap dispute, unless there has been an accord reached among the first nations concerned.
The task force back in 1990 recommended that land claims settlements not be concluded until issues of overlap have been resolved, except in very rare circumstances. So when we hear from the Gitxsan and Gitanyow with respect to the overlaps that exist in the Nisga'a agreement, and when I look at it, again it seems to me that the decisions being taken, the actions described in the Nisga'a agreement, are inconsistent with the province's mandate position published by the ministry itself.
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, I've stated before that our current policy on overlaps is that the overlap should be settled among the first nations. The Treaty Commission has asked us to look at this, so I'm quite happy to advise the committee that the Treaty Commission has asked us to do that. We take that seriously.
Again, I think part of this issue is unnecessarily redundant, because when it comes down to the actual amount of land that is defined as a settlement area, as compared to the land that is claimed, I think that mitigates very considerably any actual or potential overlap of settlement lands. But it is true, you know, just to get it on the record, that this doesn't take the issue away, primarily because of the wildlife aspect. As the hon. member knows, we've taken the policy position, which we carry into every table, that when it comes to mineral rights, for instance, we believe it's wise to have a complete line of demarcation insofar as mineral rights are concerned so that the first nations have the mineral rights on settlement land and they don't immediately off it -- those continue to be provincial rights. So I think, with regard to overlaps, much of the discussion probably has more to do with that issue of wildlife relationships among the first nations than with the actual land. But it's a little bit difficult to deal with it outside of the context of having clearly defined that what has been negotiated in a treaty will be the actual settlement land.
In the case of the Nisga'a, for instance
J. Weisgerber: In an ideal world that would happen. Maybe the only way overlaps can be resolved is among bands or tribal councils themselves; maybe there is absolutely no role for anyone else in this process. I could be persuaded that's the case. But it seems to me that the control the province and the federal government have is to follow through on the recommendation of the task force with respect to overlaps and simply say: "Folks we're not going to finalize treaties where overlaps exist." Because as I see the situation -- and I'll use the Nisga'a situation as perhaps the best, because it's the most clearly understood -- the Nisga'a will argue that getting a resolution with the Gitxsan, and particularly with the Gitanyow, is extremely difficult. They've had significant success with the Simpcw, but not the same degree of success with their neighbours to the west.
If the province goes ahead and resolves the treaty with the Nisga'a, what possible impetus, then, can there be for the Nisga'a the next time round to have any interest in resolving with the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow? It seems to me that if the argument is accepted that there is less pressure on them because we're not actively engaged with the Gitanyow in discussions, the final settlement of a treaty would remove any motive for the Nisga'a at some point in the future even to attempt to find a settlement. It seems to me that here's an area where we're taking the recommendations of the task force and flowing those into the Treaty Commission recommendations -- an approach that appears to be broadly accepted even by aboriginal people -- yet I have the uncomfortable feeling that we're going to see the Nisga'a agreement finalized with overlaps continuing, at least with the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow.
[4:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: Contrary to part of the hon. member's characterization of the task force report, there is provision for that in there. The hon. member is right in stating that the task force report says that overlaps should be settled among first nations. What it actually says is that to the extent that these overlaps may affect negotiations, it is the responsibility of first nations to resolve them. But then the next paragraph goes on, and I would say that this next paragraph of the task force report mitigates, at least to some extent, what is said in that first paragraph. I don't think that the task force would've wanted us to look at these separate from each other.It says that preparations for negotiations must include discussions with neighbouring first nations on the issue of overlapping territories, and that does happen. Getting back to quoting from this, it says: "Because treaties will identify specific territories, it is not necessary
Then it says: "In exceptional cases, the parties may agree to implement the provisions of a treaty in all but the disputed territory." I think the advice that comes from the task force here is advice that tries to recognize that there may be a need to find some way to resolve those unresolved issues without holding up the entire process.
I think that there's an attempt here -- perhaps not an adequate attempt -- to recognize the points that the hon. member is making, certainly with regard to his very valid question: where is the incentive on the part of the Nisga'a when it comes to the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow? The same question could be asked: where's the incentive
[ Page 3413 ]
of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who don't even believe that B.C. should be at the table at all? They don't want to recognize the existence of B.C. in that context. Where is the incentive for them?
So, hon. member, it is not an exact science. We're treading in a kind of brave new world here, and it's difficult. I do respect the words that are in the task force report, in trying to address this issue. We as a province have tried to take a somewhat firmer view in saying that those issues should be resolved, because we believe that the people involved are capable of resolving them and should be able to do that.
It also provides, in the last phrase here, for the Treaty Commission to, upon invitation, come in and assist. Or they could invite some other entity altogether to come in and do some kind of mediation or dispute resolution.
The fact is, as I've said, insofar as the Nisga'a are concerned, in the final analysis we may need to try to find some way that is prospective, that addresses some of those issues in a manner that is perhaps consistent with that second paragraph of the task force report. I think we're going to have to look at that. I'm not saying we're going to do it. I value the advice that I'm receiving on this from the other two parties in the House.
J. Weisgerber: To finish up on the matter of overlaps, it seems to me that once the precedent is set and treaties are finalized while overlaps exist, we may well find ourselves in what I consider to be the unhappy situation of the Yukon, where an umbrella agreement has been signed, where four agreements have been signed and, to the best of my knowledge, no overlaps have been resolved. Whether the province and the minister are prepared to go ahead and resolve, or attempt to resolve, treaties in British Columbia without resolving overlaps
The minister's points with respect to those who are in the treaty-making process and those who are out are valid. There are those who appear to be approaching land claim settlement in the manner that we have seen in the Yukon and the Nisga'a, but there are others who quite clearly envision shared jurisdiction over all of their so-called traditional territories. With those groups the question of overlaps -- if the province ever entertains that as a process for resolution -- will be particularly urgent.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I would like to suggest now that we return just before 4:40 p.m., and I will have at that time the material that we promised.
The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to send some information across to members of the opposition. The first is to the official opposition critic; it's a copy of the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act. In sending that across, I want to point out that I haven't reviewed this act personally since yesterday, but there's a note here that there is no reference in that act to a sunset clause. So I want to put that on the record.
The list of contracts that was requested by the official opposition critic is on STOB 20. Maybe I'll just hold up these next two, so I can put them both over at the same time. It's information about the first nations environment fund eligibility criteria and the listing of the recipients of that fund during the fiscal year of '96-97, I believe; and finally the aboriginal initiatives fund information for the two years, '95-96 and '96-97.
For the leader of the Reform Party, the information about provincial treaty mandates, the approach to settlements
[4:45]
This is just a response to a question that was asked by the official opposition critic on assessing the effectiveness of the first peoples heritage, language and culture fund. The ministry assessed the effectiveness of the fund a few years ago. These records are off-site, and we will try to get them and make them available to the hon. member. We're not certain that we can have them before the end of estimates, but we will endeavour to do so.I have some documents here to send over to the Reform leader. The first is a comment with regard to third-party compensation to first nations. Staff have checked, and they can find no example of a first nation being compensated by government for an unavoidable infringement of an aboriginal right. However, there may be examples in industry -- that is, a company compensating or reaching agreement with a first nation on an infringement of an aboriginal right. Staff will continue checking this issue with line ministries.
And another for the record, a request yesterday -- I believe it was by the official opposition critic -- for the BCTF teachers' handbook on the B.C. treaty process. The handbook is not yet available. The material is still being developed with the First Nations Summit, and they anticipate having it ready for distribution in a few months.
J. Weisgerber: What I'd like to do is consider with the minister the issue of financial controls as described in the mandate book under item 1, and I think I've provided a copy highlighted for the minister. Before I get into that, I do want to commend the minister for his cooperation in bringing this material back to us. For the purposes of Hansard, I will read into the record the particular quote I want to discuss. Under "Financial Controls," it says:
"Treaties must be affordable to British Columbians. The province will develop guidelines to ensure it stays within its overall financial planning envelope for treaties as outlined in the KPMG report. These guidelines will set out the method of allocating benefits across treaties and will also address the manner in which the components of treaty settlement -- land, cash and resources -- can be interchanged within the envelope for each treaty."I'd like to start by asking the minister
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, a fiscal mandates paper has been approved at the cabinet level. It requires that fiscal mandates be consistent with that paper and that they be further described in relation to each treaty, given the uniqueness of each separate circumstance. So that has taken place. I just want to add an editorial note that given the ongoing work with cost-sharing, this is another factor in addressing the issue of fiscal mandates which has to inform further development of that policy.
J. Weisgerber: I'm unsure from the minister's response whether that document is a public document available for British Columbians to examine.
[ Page 3414 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: It is not a public document at this time. The nature of that document would be such that it could compromise or jeopardize the provincial negotiating position were it to be made public at this time.
J. Weisgerber: Can the minister explain
Hon. J. Cashore: That refers to the KPMG report. The guidelines, as we see them, are within the context of the projections that KPMG came up with.
J. Weisgerber: The second or the last part of that quote then goes on to refer to a total envelope for each treaty, and again I'm trying to get a sense of how this is unfolding. Reading that particular statement, one would gather the impression that the province has at least in the broad sense determined the overall magnitude of the cost of settlements in terms of land, cash and resources, and that some formula would translate a share of that for each treaty claimant group.
I was reminded when we examined the Yukon agreements that the umbrella agreement in the Yukon -- the first agreement reached with the Council for Yukon Indians -- in fact established a total amount of cash and a total amount of land. It was then only a question of allocating that overall envelope of benefits between the various claimant groups. Is that the essence of what's being suggested in this mandate paper?
Hon. J. Cashore: Globally, it is within the parameters that were cited in the KPMG report. There needs to be some micromanagement with regard to each treaty that looks at those circumstances and comes up with a very good analysis of what the fiscal arrangements should be in each of those particular cases, but obviously that has to be informed by the total amount available.
The other thing that needs to be said here is that each one of these particular cases would have to go to Treasury Board for a mandate. As I think the hon. member knows, when you have a mandate and then you go to the table, you don't reveal what your mandate is. You go to negotiate and you realize you're doing that within the context of a mandate that you have, but as in any good negotiations you negotiate on the basis of what you seek to achieve. Therefore you're not going to try to negotiate to a ceiling; you're going to negotiate within that mandate. The role of Treasury Board in limiting what would be available for each negotiation is a means of cost control that the government exercises centrally.
J. Weisgerber: The select standing committee heard from KPMG representatives. As reported in Hansard -- and I just took a line out of the report made by KPMG to the select standing committee, which is public knowledge -- they said that it was estimated that the average beneficiary would receive $39,000 in 1995 dollars and 18.5 representative hectares.
The representative went on to offer at some later point to describe representative hectares. I'm wondering if the minister could give us a brief description of the concept of representative hectares and how that would be applied.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a very complex formula, and I don't pretend to be able to recite it. But the basic concept is this: there is a baseline assessment of the value of an average hectare of land, and when it comes to dealing with the actual land involved, that land has to be evaluated in comparison to that -- my term -- average hectare of land. The value of that then has to be based on such factors as
Now I'll listen to the deputy and see if I got it right.
J. Weisgerber: My sense would be, as the minister described, that there would be an overall value based on some average for a hectare of land -- perhaps a provincial average. You would then translate that into a dollar value based on 18.5 representative hectares, recognizing that a hectare in the Nass Valley may be worth less than the representative amount. One in the greater Vancouver area is worth probably many, many times that amount. If that's correct
What I've long been troubled by is the question in my mind as to how you value a representative hectare, let's say, when you're giving up in perpetuity the rights to taxes and royalties. It's pretty easy to affix a value to land based on current market activity, but no one trades land on which the province or the owner is giving up taxing authority, royalties, etc.
I've thought of it this way: if there were two pieces of property for sale in Victoria at an intersection, and they were identical except that on one property the new owner would never have to pay taxes of any kind and the property across the street would continue to be taxed the way it currently is, it would be fascinating to see what the difference in the value of those properties would be, based on their different tax status. I'm wondering whether the minister has anything he can share with us on the kind of thought and the kind of work that's been done on that part of the equation.
[5:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: At the end of the day it can be argued, once all the chickens come home to roost, whether the projections were in fact accurate. But for this type of work, which has to be prospective for obvious reasons, formulas are developed to seek to address, for instance, the issue of forgone revenue. That's why I pulled our negotiators away from the table with the Nisga'a several months ago. I think that's sort of a forgotten event now, but it was quite significant at the time. The reason we did that was because, in our view, the federal government was not honouring the terms of the cost-sharing agreement, as far as it had gone in addressing this issue globally within the province, and they were attempting to come up with a one-off resolution on the Nisga'a, which, in my view, would have precluded getting a formula that would apply appropriately to the remainder of the province. It would have been a major problem for future treaty settlements.So it is recognized that it has to be based on the kinds of projections that experts in the field are able to develop, based on their best calculations of future value. It's not an exact science, and, you know, one day we might look back and say that was bang-on or we might say that it could have been better or that we did better than we thought we did. But in the interests of getting on with treaty negotiations, these formulas have to be able to serve.
[ Page 3415 ]
J. Weisgerber: I'm pleased to hear the answer from the minister, because I was a little bit afraid that the argument would be that it didn't matter as long as it was all relative. I think the minister, no doubt, has clearly identified that the real issue in the cost-sharing debates with Ottawa is: what is British Columbia's land really worth? If we look at historical experiences where New York island was bought and sold, Alaska was bought and sold, I think one always tends to undervalue property that one is transferring, for all time, the ability to collect resources from. I have no doubt that New York island sold for what would have been the market price at the time; I have no doubt that probably no one was going to pay any more for Alaska than what the Americans did. But what no one seemed to recognize was what was being lost in forgone revenues.
Perhaps just to conclude on this issue, to go back to the KPMG statement around the $39,000 and the 18.5 representative hectares, I want to reflect again on a question I put to the minister recently in the House around population figures of Nisga'a. The minister has written back to say to me that there are no additional benefits in either land or cash settlement if the population numbers change. I think, having read the agreement, I'm prepared to accept that.
What I would argue, though, is if a methodology like the KPMG process is being used, there is significant benefit in boosting the numbers up at the beginning of negotiations. If in fact the formula is going to apply, then the natural way that I would see to determine the total envelope for each treaty, which is referred to in the last part of that first quotation, is by population. I think it becomes incredibly important, using this model put forward by the KPMG representative, that there be some discipline exercised by all parties in the determination of population numbers. It's too simple, if that's the formula, to simply say that it's up to each first nation to decide what its population figures are.
Hon. J. Cashore: After all that discussion with our deputy minister, I think the point is that the hon. member is right about it. There needs to be discipline in the process of negotiating around how that enrolment is established, because once it's established, I believe that there are factors whereby it could be added to. But if it's added to, it does not change the basic outcome of the elements of the treaty.
J. Weisgerber: Does the minister have any concern about the activities? I'm sure that various claimant groups are far more familiar than I am with these mechanisms. There has been a lot of debate among various tribal organizations around people who have C-31 cards but have never in fact been adopted into a band. It would seem to me that some may now strategically decide to accept people that they might not have otherwise accepted as band members.
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that we have a very key and fundamental role in establishing that initial figure, which is the operative figure. We base that on a number of factors. We do take cognizance of the numbers that are on the DIAND lists, but there are other factors that we consider, as well. We do not enable or allow any artificial inflation of the enrolment to ultimately impact on the kind of settlement that is achieved.
F. Gingell: If I may, I'd like to ask the minister some questions in relation to employment and training projects. My understanding is that Human Resources Development Canada -- the federal government, through the Human Resources department -- have between $35 and $40 million a year that is spent in British Columbia on these employment and training programs. They made a decision to transfer the administration and the allocation of these funds to the Assembly of First Nations and, through the Assembly of First Nations, to ten regional organizations that would look after them.
Hon. J. Cashore: Throughout Canada?
F. Gingell: No, throughout British Columbia.
The intention was to have all of the agreements in place by April 1. There was to have been a signing agreement, a signing day, and all the assigned money would go to the Assembly of First Nations and from them on through to these ten regional native organizations.
Two areas, the Fraser Valley -- which I don't think includes Delta South but does include Delta North, then goes up the Fraser Valley to Yale and strangely includes Bella Coola and Bella Bella -- and Vancouver, didn't sign the agreements. There was no local organization able to take on this project, because there were some disputes. The disputes, as I understand it, involved the issues of funds and programs for aboriginal people off-reserve. You can appreciate that in this Fraser Valley area in particular, which I'm interested in, they form a substantial part of the aboriginal population.
There is an organization, as I understand it, called Ta:alt, which is a group that administers funds for the area north of Delta to Mission, having 72 percent of aboriginal people in the Fraser Valley, and their role in this exercise has been ignored. So, number one, I presume that the minister is aware of this?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, I'm not.
F. Gingell: The issues that have been brought to me are very real concerns that aboriginal people off-reserve are going to be left out of this exercise. We all appreciate that the provincial government plays an important role and has concerns for the welfare and well-being of these people. It's important for all of us to see that their opportunities are not denigrated and that they do have opportunities, along with others. But seeing as you're not aware of the issue, perhaps the appropriate thing for me to do is meet with you afterward and give you the information I have. This came to me only yesterday.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm really interested in this. I very much appreciate the hon. member bringing this into this forum. We had some questions yesterday from the member for Vancouver-Langara, where he was expressing a genuine concern over the loss of some moneys from this ministry to be able to support some of the kinds of programs that are referenced there. The point I was constantly making was that the federal government has been abandoning the field through off-loading.
One of the examples I cited was the Secretary of State department, which traditionally had a major role in funding Indian friendship centres. These are primarily urban-based aboriginal organizations that are founded on the principle of self-determination, and these people have, I think, provided tremendous value for the money in terms of being able to address the service issue involving aboriginal people who are in the cities. The hon. member has made the point about the number of aboriginal people in the cities being greater than those who are out on the land, so I very much want to follow up on this.
[ Page 3416 ]
[5:15]
Viola Thomas, who's the president of the United Native Nations, did mention this to Mr. Ebbels in passing within the last two or three days, but we have really not been involved in it. One of the reasons I would like to look into it a bit is that I talked to the federal minister about three weeks agoIn addition to responding to this, I think one of the contexts in which we can respond is that in trying to build a new relationship, we try not to do things for
That's a long way of saying that it might be through this process that we might be able to engage in trying to have B.C. input into how those federal dollars are made available. So I think there may be an opportunity through that joint policy table to do that, and the federal government, although B.C. initiated this process, has become a participant in those two urban tables.
F. Gingell: I'd just like to add one more thing to the record before we deal with this outside the Legislature, and that is that the understanding of the people I have spoken to is that there has been a breach of the agreement by the federal government, Human Resources Development Canada, signing the agreement before the ten regional organizations in British Columbia were in place.
As I understand it, there was a clear understanding that those organizations had to be in place but that they still had this deadline. I believe that at least one of the areas has now been signed up but in a manner that is unsatisfactory -- or in a manner that does give some concern to the people I've spoken to -- relative to the issues of off-reserve aboriginals, because that's not a high priority for them.
C. Hansen: I just want to follow up on this line of points that have been made by my colleague. I think one of the other things that's very important in looking at this is a concern that exists in terms of how those training funds within the ten councils will be distributed equitably among the various bands in those regions. So certainly, I guess, at this stage there's a lot more questions than answers -- if that could be added to the list.
I did want to ask the minister along this line that my colleague from Delta South has been asking, and that's with regard to the new federal-provincial agreement on labour market development. I'm not sure if this is what the minister was referring to when he was talking about agreements with the federal government. But is there a specific aboriginal skills training component in the labour market agreement that's recently been negotiated?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is a question that is more in the Labour estimates and, actually, the Education estimates. I'm not trying to duck it, but I believe
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I am the Labour minister.
I believe that in the process that has developed that agreement, there is a gentleman by the name of Allan Okabe who has been representing the aboriginal interest, but I could stand corrected on that. Even though I am the Labour minister, I cannot give the hon. member a definitive answer, but we'll get it. So we will get that to you either during estimates or
I just want to say that with regard to the other issue, I am hesitant about getting involved in an issue that
C. Hansen: Actually, just to follow up on that, I think we are in a state of change, obviously, when it comes to skills training programs nationally. I think we're going to hit a point when the federal government no longer takes responsibility for the programs, and the provincial government will have to obviously step in and pick up the slack on those programs. The point I'm making is that we're not sure where programs that are specifically targeted at aboriginal peoples will fall. My fear is that as the federal government backs out, there may not be the linkage, so that the provincial government can pick up in driving and administering those programs.
Hon. J. Cashore: Speaking generally, no one of any political persuasion can stand up and say they feel good about how they've addressed issues of aboriginal employment -- the fact that there is such appalling unemployment. We simply have to do better in that area. It's a bit of a philosophical question over whether a labour market development agreement would be specifically focused on first nations. I do tend to argue the other way, that it would be better if it was inclusive, reflecting a mixed workplace. But too often governments will also hide behind that kind of an argument. So obviously that's what has happened, because the unemployment is so bad.
We do have to find the right philosophy. And again, the key to that is the input of aboriginal people, some of whom have had remarkable success in the area of developing small businesses, working with corporations and developing jobs. I just witnessed the business at the summit conference that the B.C. First Nations Summit and Brian Smith organized just a couple of weeks ago.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we can examine the role of self-government costs as they make up part of the cost-sharing agreement. It seems to me we've canvassed at least to some degree the effect of land, cash and resources, but the questions that provide a rather grey area for me are how the cost-sharing agreement will anticipate the cost transfer from Canada to British Columbia, particularly in the area of social programs through self-government, recognizing that cur-
[ Page 3417 ]
rently under the Indian Act, Ottawa has responsibility for the delivery of programs: education, health care, welfare, etc. I see us moving away from that model expressly through the new self-government arrangements. As there are costs in perpetuity for lost opportunities, there must also be significant costs when the transfer of that kind of responsibility in perpetuity is made. I wonder if the minister could advise how that formula plays into or fits into the cost-sharing formula.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the context of the Nisga'a, on page 95 there's a listing of the principles that have to be taken into account. I won't read those into the record; I'll just reference them.
The negotiations that we are undertaking at the present time with the federal government on cost-sharing are dealing, almost as we speak, with that very issue. That's also what we have to negotiate with the federal government with regard to the global issue of how those fiscal arrangements are handled. So we do not have those negotiations concluded; we have a ways to go on that. I do admit that I thought at one time that there may have been a bit of leverage to get some concerted effort out of the federal government on these issues, because we'd heard that the federal government wanted to possibly finalize the document with the Nisga'a. We thought that perhaps there was a window of opportunity there, given that there was some pressure prior to the federal election; that did not materialize.
The fact is, I think, that the opposite is happening now, with an election being underway. I think that a lot of the people who work on these issues will be waiting for the directions of the new government. But this is an important issue, and it's an issue that we are in the process of negotiating with the feds.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps what I should do, then, is confirm that there is in fact a recognition in the cost-sharing agreement of this massive transfer of costs -- I don't think there's any other way to describe it -- that will occur not only with the Nisga'a but with aboriginal people across British Columbia. Did the cost-sharing agreement that was negotiated by Premier Harcourt and others take into account this rather dramatic transfer of responsibilities from Ottawa to the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: I understand why the hon. member would make the point about a concern about the possibility of the federal government off-loading onto the province, because we've seen too much of that already in other areas. But it is an assumption that that would be the case. The fact is that what has to happen at the end of the day, based on the cost-sharing agreement, is that it's an agreement that recognizes the ratio of the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments with regard to costs, whatever those costs may be. The preponderance of those costs, by a long shot, is on the federal government.
The actual details
Those are the kinds of issues that have to be negotiated. I have to admit that I sometimes have a sense of despair about that, because not being a financial wizard, it seems to me that for those who are
[5:30]
J. Weisgerber: Well, forgone revenues are no doubt an important part of the formula. What I've been trying to focus my attention on in the last few minutes, though, is assumed responsibility, because I think that is as big a part of the equation -- or should be as big a part of the equation -- as the question of forgone revenue.I picked up a press release the other day that had been issued by one of the government ministries -- I think Children and Families -- indicating that B.C. Benefits was being extended to all British Columbians. The point was made that whether or not they were aboriginal, whether or not they fell under the Indian Act, the province was now extending a level of social support that previously hadn't been done. I guess what I'm seeking is some assurance that this whole area of assumed responsibility by the province hasn't simply been ignored in the development of that policy or that agreement -- nor does it in fact make up part of the ongoing negotiations.
Hon. J. Cashore: Absolutely, hon. member, that's a fundamental issue. It's an issue that we recognize as very important. We simply will not
J. Weisgerber: I wonder if the minister could advise me: in the province's assumption of responsibilities over program deliveries through the self-government model, does the province assume any new legal burden tantamount to the federal government's current fiduciary responsibility? In other words, once the province starts to deliver particular programs, does this notion of a fiduciary obligation, which appears to go beyond the obligation of the provincial government to all citizens, legally transfer an obligation or burden to the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: There seems to be a bit of an assumption here that as a result of the cost-sharing agreement, the provincial agreement will be assuming, to a great extent -- I was going to use the term "holus-bolus," but certainly to a great extent -- federal funding obligations. That assumption is not correct; we will not be assuming federal funding obligations. Also, when a first nation assumes any authority, that does not of itself imply that the province has an obligation to fund that.
J. Weisgerber: Under the agreement-in-principle, there are a number of matters to be taken into account -- the minister just referred me to page 95 -- in negotiating fiscal financing agreements. The last item, on page 96, item (l), is the Nisga'a government's own: source revenue capacity. It seems to me that that's very much the same approach that the federal government takes with the provinces in establishing transfer payments. They attempt to establish the capacity of the province. Then, based on that capacity, or lack of it, for the most part money from British Columbia flows into other parts of the country. Is that the same model that is anticipated? Is that the model that's being used to try and establish this mechanism for funding?
Hon. J. Cashore: I wouldn't say it's the same model necessarily, but obviously there's a kind of resonance there that the hon. member has identified.
[ Page 3418 ]
J. Weisgerber: I've come pretty much to the end of the issues that I had hoped to deal with, with the exception of the one surrounding the Yukon agreements. I now have copies of the agreement. I wonder, if I was to make a copy available to the minister, whether perhaps we could finish off that issue at this time.
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps I could ask the member just to remind me of the question that he was asking.
J. Weisgerber: Certainly. Perhaps what I should do is just kind of start over again, because I think
My concern is around the development of those amendment provisions in the final agreement. My concern was piqued further when Mr. Koepke a federal negotiator in the Yukon agreements, made a presentation in this very room on April 24. Unfortunately, I didn't provide a copy, but I'd like to quote one small paragraph from Mr. Koepke's evidence to the select standing committee. He says: "So the legislation which brought the first four agreements and the umbrella final agreement into force provides that agreements subsequently concluded would be dealt with and brought into effect by order-in-council. So we don't have to go to parliament each time
I then went back and looked at the Yukon agreements. The copies that I've provided for the minister are out of the Teslin Tlingit final agreement. Those items which are boxed are unique to the Teslin Tlingit agreement; the rest are directly from the umbrella agreement.
My concern here -- trying to put it as quickly to the point as I can -- is that under sections 2.3.0 on page 13, the amendment process essentially is that if the agreement is to be amended, it can be done by order-in-council. The federal government and the territorial government, having been assured that the first nation has conducted a referendum -- which in this case requires 75 percent approval and at least 50 percent of the members eligible approving
I want to say now that I will be extremely concerned if the final agreement with the Nisga'a, which we have no way of seeing, doesn't provide for any amendments, as described on page 7, at the very least to come back to the Legislature of British Columbia and not be amended by way of a motion by an order-in-council. I wonder what comfort the minister can give me in that area.
Hon. J. Cashore: Except for inconsequential matters that
However, it would be such things as if there was an inconsequential change, such as extending a notification period from 40 days to 60 days or something like that. I mean, I think there has to be some recognition that there could be those kinds of things just in the process of getting on with good governance, which are not in any way altering the agreement but merely dealing with the way in which, in many instances, the benefit of the province would be facilitated.
But the amendment language that is referred to in this Teslin Tlingit document as their amending formula wouldn't be B.C.'s amending formula. We will define that according to the principles that we have set out for the province.
J. Weisgerber: I just want to be clear. My reading of the Yukon agreement
I know that we are not going to get a definitive answer here. But I also know that these things have an unhappy way of being transported from one agreement to the next. I also know that once an item gets into these final agreements and they've been initialled by all of the parties, and finally we get an opportunity to look at them, there is an enormous reluctance to make changes at that time.
So I want to go on record as saying that I find the Yukon model entirely unacceptable. I genuinely hope the minister won't sign or initial any final agreement that has that kind of amending formula in it.
The Chair: Minister -- noting the time.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I basically agree with the point that the hon. member is making. I would not agree to anything but an inconsequential amendment being subject to an OIC process. Anything that would be defined as a major amendment, I agree, would have to come back to the provincial Legislature.
Hon. Chair, I'd like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.