(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 5, Number 4
[ Page 3501 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
L. Reid: I had the very great pleasure last week, when the royal commission hearings on the workers compensation system came to Victoria, to meet Mr. Ken Worrall and his wife Sue Worrall. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. I would also ask the House to recognize Pat Kean, Nancy Der Hogg and Annalise Roosten, who are joining them today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I take great pleasure in introducing to the House 25 students from Tecumseh Elementary School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kensington, with their teacher Ms. Duncan. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are 35 grade 11 students from Riverside Secondary School in my riding, who are here as a reward for writing the Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie exam. There's $4,000 worth of scholarships given to students throughout the province, and these were top students, so I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: We have a special guest in not the members' gallery but the general gallery. Jay Bruns is the consul general of the United States of America at Vancouver. Mr. Bruns is obviously very busy working, amongst other things, on the upcoming APEC round, which culminates in the leaders' meeting in November. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.
G. Campbell: I'd like to introduce to the House Rita Morin, a longtime friend of mine and someone who has been very active in the community in Vancouver and in British Columbia. She is a volunteer par excellence, and I'd like the House to make her welcome.
B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature Mr. Shane Willoughby. Mr. Willoughby is a law student from the University of Victoria, and he recently returned from Bangkok, Thailand, after completing a co-op work term at the same Bangkok law firm that I worked at in 1991. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Willoughby this past January when I travelled to Thailand for the Team Canada trade mission. Mr. Willoughby was generous enough to help me reduce my travel costs by allowing me to share his room at the Bangkok YMCA for a couple of nights. I can highly recommend that accommodation to anyone here. Would the House please make Mr. Willoughby welcome.
The Speaker: I'd just remind members that these are introductions rather than autobiographies, but thank you. [Laughter.]
Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today is a former constituent of mine, Mr. Roger Powell, who unfortunately has left there -- I don't know why he's left Prince George but he has -- and moved to Victoria. But I do hope he has a good life down here. We will miss you. Please make him welcome.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the Health Authorities Amendment Act be introduced and read a first time.
This bill represents a further step in our government's Better Teamwork, Better Care approach to health care regionalization. In November of 1996, our government moved forward with a simpler, more streamlined approach to health care governance and management, designed to reduce bureaucracy and waste, and to ensure that more of our tax dollars are invested in direct patient services that B.C. families depend on.
These amendments represent the input and counsel of hundreds of health care stakeholders who contributed to an assessment of the regionalization process last summer. The legislation brings clarity to the appointments, direction and accountability of our new governing bodies and will allow necessary change in the structure of our health care system to proceed in an expedited fashion, with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that the interests of patients and taxpayers are both protected.
A new part 3 has been added to the act to deal with labour relations in the health sector. The new statutory provisions build on the former health sector labour relations regulation, including the simplicity of the five bargaining tables recommended by the Dorsey commission. The statute will uphold the certification rights of unions that have represented health workers.
These amendments are important and will significantly contribute to achieving our government's goal of delivering better care and better services to all British Columbians. I move that the Health Authorities Amendment Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House following today.
Bill 28 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.
PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD
(MURPHY CASE)
G. Campbell: Last week the Minister for Children and Families informed the House that her ministry "have placed all the information we have before the Child and Family Review Board" with regard to the Murphy case. My question to the Minister for Children and Families is simply this: will the minister confirm with the House today her statement that all the information with regard to the Murphy case was placed before the Child and Family Review Board as of last Thursday?
Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding is that all of the information that we had from our home studies, the confirmation of a clear criminal records check, etc., was placed before the Child and Family Review Board.
G. Campbell: I have in my hand a letter sent to the ministry last Thursday from Bruce Hardy, who is from the Child and Family Review Board, to Ross Dawson, who's the director of child protection for the Ministry for Children and Families. The letter says:
[ Page 3502 ]
"A letter dated July 12, 1996, from Nelson Horney of Touchwood Child and Family Services to Diana Flaherty of the Ministry for Children and Families states that criminal record checks had been completedCan the minister explain why these documents were not forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board up to and including the very day that a decision was to be made?. . . . These were to be forwarded to the ministry in British Columbia. The board is not in receipt of this documentation."
Hon. P. Priddy: As I understand this, the actual documentation of the criminal records check was not attached, but the letter that said the criminal records check had been done and was clear was part of what was submitted. The attachment was not; it clearly should have been. That was an oversight that should not have happened. But there was indication to the Child and Family Review Board that the criminal records check had been done and was clear. Nor did we hear back from the Child and Family Review Board of any question about it.
[2:15]
G. Campbell: Well, we do have a letter from last Thursday, which asks the ministry specifically to make sure that all information is available. Clearly Mr. Hardy, who is the Child and Family Review Board member who we're asking to determine the fate of this young child, was of the impression that he was not in receipt of all the information that was available -- the information with regard to charges that had been laid, the information which there may have been with regard to children who had previously been in the same family and who had been injured. The question that Mr. Hardy is concerned aboutHon. P. Priddy: As I said previously, my understanding is that the actual record check was not attached. Was this an oversight? That is correct, it was, although clearly the Child and Family Review Board did not either note it or question it. My understanding was, though, that they had been told that it was a clear criminal records check.
In terms of the additional information around charges being laid, that is not information that the ministry had. The first time I heard that was when it was raised in the House. Our ministry obviously, then, having heard that, went back and did some further checks as well. I think it may be problematic. But there is no way that a criminal records check shows anything about charges being laid. We did not have that information and did not present it to the board. We didn't have it available to us.
M. Coell: A criminal records check is the single most important piece of information the ministry needs in placing a child in a foster home -- or any home, for that matter. Apparently the Child and Family Review Board was considering the Murphy case without all the relevant information. Can the minister tell us why, when the future of a six-year-old girl was in question, the minister did not provide the Child and Family Review Board with all the facts necessary to make a decision?
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that I have not answered this question, but let me try again. The criminal records check, I agree, is an important -- although certainly not a totally defining -- piece, because, as I've indicated, it indicates convictions -- but not anything beyond that. That information should have been at the Child and Family Review Board; there's no question about that. On the other hand, the Child and Family Review Board -- which, as the member noted, was making their decision last Thursday -- also did not call and ask. Therefore I think they must have had the information that said it was clear; but they did not have the attachment, which I've acknowledged they should have had.
M. Coell: Being that the Child and Family Review Board is not totally independent, I fail to see why it would need to phone and ask for more information. It is relying on the government to give all of the information that it has to the review board for its decision. Can the minister tell us whether they followed up the review of the Saskatchewan services company and the criminal records check to see if there was any further information that the review board would have needed?
Hon. P. Priddy: We followed up immediately on Thursday when the ministry staff realized that the attachment around the criminal records check had not been attached to the covering letter -- followed up immediately with that and spoke with the staff at the Child and Family Review Board. In terms of the information that was raised in the House -- I assume that's what the member is referring to -- we followed up on that information as well and provided it to the Child and Family Review Board.
G. Farrell-Collins: A further question to the same minister. Can the minister tell us whether or not either of the two home studies, the one done in Saskatchewan or the one done here in British Columbia, included information with regard to charges of child abuse that had been laid against one of the individuals with which this child was to be put into custody, and whether or not that information was forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board for its decision?
Hon. P. Priddy: I want to make sure I understand the question correctly. The member is asking if the home study included information about charges being laid. Is that
G. Farrell-Collins: A question again to the same minister. I have a copy of a letter that was sent to Janet Donald of the Child and Family Review Board on May 2 from Jane Tyson, who works in the minister's ministry. It says:
"Please find enclosed the ministry's submission to the Child and Family Review Board. The attachments to the submission include the following documents:1. Consent to the release of the home studies. . . . 2. Copy of the home study prepared by Dr. McCreight
. . . . "
That's the one done from British Columbia. There is no record here of the Saskatchewan home study being forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board.
Can the minister confirm whether it was the ministry that sent the Saskatchewan home study or whether it was the Murphys' lawyer who sent it?
[ Page 3503 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm going to say this and then would want to be able to confirm that I am correct, and I would need to check. My understanding is that both home studies were submitted to the review board. The second home study was done at our request and, as a point of fact, was done because we hired someone to do an additional, secondary home study.
G. Farrell-Collins: My concern is that there was a home study done in Saskatchewan. For some reason there was an additional home study done by the province of British Columbia. For some reason the ministry, in advising the Child and Family Review Board, failed to include the initial home study. That raises serious questions in my mind. Subsequently they did in fact get that home study.
What I'd like to know from the minister is why all the relevant information was not given to the Child and Family Review Board and why a second home study was required.
Hon. P. Priddy: I cannot comment at this stage on why a second home study was done. I think the Child and Family Review Board has not reported out, and I feel somewhat uncomfortable commenting. But obviously, if we were going to do a second home study, then we would have had some reasons or issues that had been raised with us and that we wanted to be comfortable enough with to be able to proceed with the placement of the child. Beyond that, I'm not prepared to comment on the specific reasons for the secondary home study, but it's obviously because there were issues raised and we wanted to be sure.
In terms of why
M. de Jong: As we understand it, the Saskatchewan home study was done in July 1996. Last Thursday we were told that a decision that would profoundly impact the life of this little girl was hours away from being made.
The question, quite simply, is this: why wasn't all of the information -- some of it upwards of a year old -- provided by the ministry to the people who would be reviewing what would happen to that girl for the rest of her life?
Hon. P. Priddy: Since we're now talking about when particular reports were done and when they were submitted, I clearly have to check with staff to know the dates for that. But my understanding was that all of the information other than the piece I referred to, which was the criminal records check, which was not attached
M. de Jong: The issue, again, is this: the body that is charged with the responsibility for deciding this little girl's future simply isn't receiving all of the information it requires to make that decision. The minister is suggesting that it would be expected to go looking to different agencies -- to make inquiries. Surely the fundamental issue is this. Will the minister address it head-on, upfront and explain why the review agency, in this case, has to go the added step -- to ask, to inquire -- and why it wouldn't have been provided this information in a timely way at the first instance?
Hon. P. Priddy: The only information that I am aware at this time did not go to the review board was the attachment of the criminal records check, which I have already said should indeed have been attached to the covering letter. I acknowledge that. Nobody for one minute would suggest that the Child and Family Review Board should have to go looking for information. We have a responsibility to provide all the information we have to them. I don't think anyone expects them to go looking for it. I have acknowledged that it should have been attached and was not. We remedied that as soon as it became apparent to us.
G. Plant: Well, the issue of what was and was not sent to the review board is an issue of considerable importance. Last Thursday we had the minister's statement that in the home studies were included the criminal records checks. I understand that we now have the statement of the minister that it was, in effect, in error; the checks themselves were not attached to the documents. But the real issue is whether there was disclosure about criminal records at all. I want to return again to the letter of May 15 which Mr. Hardy wrote to Ross Dawson. After saying that the board had not received the criminal records check documentation, Mr. Hardy goes on to say this:
"If this information" -- not documentation -- "does exist about a party seeking custody, that is in your possession, I expect to be advised of it by tomorrow afternoon. Pending receipt of notice as to whether such information does exist and my consideration of the same, my decision will be delayed."So my question for the minister is: is she able to confirm that in fact there was any disclosure of criminal records information in the material provided to the review board by her ministry?
Hon. P. Priddy: When I made the statement in the House last week that the criminal records checks had been included, that was the understanding I had been given by staff. When the issue arose in question period, people from the review board -- I think someone was watching -- double-checked the file, alerted us to the fact that it had not been attached, and we provided it to them immediately. The criminal records checks had been done. As I say, they were not attached. It was an oversight that was our fault, but they had been done. We provided them as soon as we realized that they had not been included.
G. Plant: I understand the minister's answer in that respect.
Now it's important that we turn to the other issue, which is the issue of criminal charges. I understand that the minister has made some statements about the existence and delivery of home studies, but the fact that's missing here is that the home study done in July 1996 was made available to the ministry at that time.
The question that I think arises there is: did the home studies include work done to determine the appropriateness and the background of these two individuals, including the question of whether or not there were or had been in the past outstanding criminal charges against these individuals that might make them unsuitable as parents for this child? If that information was not there, why not?
[ Page 3504 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: If the member is referring to the Saskatchewan home study, I cannot comment on what was in it, because I have not read it. I will now try and find out what was in that.
But let me tell you, hon. Speaker, that I don't think any elected person -- unless there are circumstances that say differently -- should be reviewing the personal, confidential information of every child and decision in this ministry. The director of child protection has that responsibility. He has reviewed the home studies. He has made sure they were provided to the Child and Family Review Board. He made sure that the records check was provided as soon as we knew that it was absent. We will continue to provide all of the information we have.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
[2:30]
R. Coleman: I'd like to ask the minister, if I could, a few questions about the Riverview lands, the 244 acres of land in Coquitlam. Is my understanding correct that the minister put the planning process on the Riverview lands on hold about ten days ago in a meeting with BCBC or other authorities?Hon. J. MacPhail: A meeting took place amongst BCBC, the local MLA in whose riding Riverview resides, some of my staff and me. The local MLA was asking what the future of Riverview Hospital is, and he was searching that out in order to determine what his recommendation to the community should be on how to proceed in the consultation.
At that time, I informed him that the future of Riverview is not resolved yet, that it will be part of the mental health plan currently under review and that the issue will be decided in the fall. It would be my advice that consultation should take place with renewed vigour after the future of Riverview Hospital as a health care institution is finally determined.
R. Coleman: My understanding was that there was a plan being worked on with BCBC for the Riverview lands and that it was put on hold until 1998. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just tell you what my understanding is of the consultations. There's a consultation process in place that had been
R. Coleman: My understanding of the process -- and this is through a review of the lands last year during estimates and also a review during the past year -- was that the plan was to be prepared through consultation with various agencies, including Health, to be taken for consultation and input from the community. The consultation and input from the community, as I understood it, was to be on the concept of a 350-bed hospital and the balance of the property going to 500 units of housing. The housing was supposed to offset the cost of the hospital by paying for it, and the concept was that it would then go to a plan. The plan would be written in draft form and presented to the community for consultation and input. At that point in time, with the community consultation and input, a decision would be made and finances considered, or whatever the case may be, and it would go forward to the ministry. My understanding is that that process has been put on hold until 1998. That's what I'm wondering.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly, if that was the plan, that would meet with a lot of difficulty in the community. That's my understanding. The concept outlined by the hon. member may be one of several views being put forward. It's interesting, because I happen to know, just from personal consultation with other interested groups, that that plan would not be acceptable.
Again, I can't comment on the specifics of that. I can only say that the local MLA and I agree that until we know the future of Riverview Hospital and what, if any, portion of the site will be dedicated to a renewed Riverview Hospital or, indeed, parts of the old Riverview Hospital -- until that decision is made -- further community consultation should wait. But that will be by the fall.
R. Coleman: I guess the information that I'm receiving from various Crown corporations is incorrect. I will confirm that this afternoon to see if it is incorrect -- get copies of planning reports to see if I am incorrect. I believe that I am correct in the process that I outlined, from my discussions with the various agencies I've been dealing with for some time over this particular piece of property.
I think we should understand, though, that it is a valuable asset. The asset is a great opportunity to prove that real private-public partnerships do work, that they can be done and that this land could actually pay for a facility if it was handled properly, with long-term payback to the community through some form of share equity for seniors or other forms of housing that can be created by utilizing land to a purpose, similar to an annuity, for the future of the community.
That has been done in other communities, and the opportunity here is extreme. Considering the great objection that was made by this government, when they were in opposition, over the Expo lands and other lands that have been sold rather than used for future development and payback to the community, I think it's very important that the ministry take
[ Page 3505 ]
into account that 244 acres of land could have a tremendous community payback. I'm wondering if the philosophy of the ministry is at least to take a look at it from that standpoint to ensure that maximum payback comes back to the community and that we can hold the land base on a residual value either through some sort of share equity and long-term lease arrangement into housing for seniors, or whatever other uses are possible.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the member for putting that on record. I expect that that aspect of a proposal will be considered amongst the community. As you know, our government generally has announced that we're very interested in private-public partnerships. But I do say that the future of the lands is going to be considered in a community consultation, and I expect that the future use as described by this particular member will be part of the number of options being considered by the community.
Hon. Chair, I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the parents of my deputy minister, David Kelly. Lil and Stan Kelly are here visiting their son. It's unfortunate that they have to be locked up here, watching us in this chamber, but I'm sure it's an opportunity for them to see the great performance of their son, and I welcome them to visit with us.
B. Penner: I rise -- I suppose this is my second time during Health estimates -- on a slightly different topic this time. I'm rising to address an issue which I know was spoken about here yesterday, and it has to do with the number of drugs used in the treatment of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. I wish to take this opportunity just to put my concerns on the record for the benefit of my constituents.
I too have been contacted by a number of people in the riding of Chilliwack who are concerned about the ministry's policy towards -- I'm going to try to pronounce these terms appropriately -- risperidone and olanzapine. Those are two drugs that I know the Minister of Health is now aware of after the estimates debate here in the last little while. But I do feel that those types of drugs need to be examined by the ministry.
Certainly the letters I've received at my office indicate, on the part of the writers, that those drugs were beneficial to them. They feel that the ministry's policy at present is detrimental to the mental well-being of people throughout British Columbia, and they're asking for support wherever they can get it. I suppose that a number of MLAs have been getting similar letters, but the ones that I've received are specific to Chilliwack and are very thoughtfully written.
I'll turn now to the matter of mental health generally. I would like to share with the hon. minister the text of part of a letter that I received in early January, because I think it is very moving. Essentially, the author of the letter is calling for greater awareness, generally, in terms of the problems of mental illness and for changing society's outlook or perspective in terms of how we deal with mental illness and those people who are afflicted by it. I'll read extracts of this letter with your permission, hon. Chair.
[2:45]
"In about 1989, our beautiful 29-year-old daughter became acutely ill. She had two small and wonderful children, whom she loved dearly. Her voices told her that she must take her life. She tried several times. She finally succeeded by hanging herself in our small barn, on our anniversary, on August 25, 1993.The letter goes on to talk about some of the encounters that they've had with various people in different government ministries."Our lives have not been easy since that time, since mental illness invaded -- completely and unexpectedly -- our lives. My husband and I have tried to do all we can possibly do to work with the system, and to forgive inadequacies and to bravely face life's challenges."
I won't mention here the names that are contained in the letter, for the sake of confidentiality -- not only of the people in the system but also of the people who have written to me. But suffice to say that the letter goes on to express concerns about some of the treatment they have received, both before and after their daughter's death, from people in the mental health care system in British Columbia.
Obviously, I suppose, in any organization or any system, you have some good apples and you have some bad apples. I'm wondering if the minister could, for the sake of the people who have written to me expressing their concern about mental health, outline some of the steps that her ministry is taking with respect to mental health issues and how she sees her approach differing from ministers in the past.
I do believe that in society, generally, there is a greater acceptance that mental health is a serious issue and not one to be laughed at or taken lightly. I'd invite the minister just to give us a few of her comments.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the member for bringing to light in such a moving way such an important issue. It has been very interesting and sometimes very troubling as I moved from being the Minister of Social Services, and being in many ways responsible on another front for the well-being of people with mental illnesses, to being the Minister of Health and understanding how, in some ways, there is a ranking of health priorities -- unadmitted, of course -- in the health care system, and that mental health really has to fight for its proper ranking in the care and attention of our health care system.
We have many dedicated health care professionals, but certainly -- and I say this with the greatest of respect -- heart surgery and cancer treatment take a great priority across the whole population, and then we look at mental health. It's our goal to ensure that mental health has its rightful place in the planning as we regionalize health care. We have done that by properly enveloping the funds for mental health and by ensuring that they cannot be used for anything other than mental health and that there are expected improvements to be made in the mental health system.
I also discussed very briefly yesterday that we are reviewing our whole mental health plan. The last plan was done in 1987, and much in society has changed since then, including a different approach, sometimes, to the health and well-being of people suffering from mental illness. That review will be completed by September and will be unveiled publicly, and then we will be doing a report on the implementation of the mental health plan as well.
I have often had it described to me by the advocates and the families from the community of mental health that the biggest solution in dealing with patients with mental illness is housing, and that proper housing -- supported housing -- allows people to ensure that their medication is taken and that they can live in a world where they can be employed and succeed on a family basis. So we are concentrating much of our energy in the area of providing more supported housing, and will continue to do so.
[ Page 3506 ]
I also thank the member for bringing his own concerns around the issue of atypical anti-psychotic drugs. I'm sure he heard the debate yesterday -- where that matter is under review.
B. Penner: I did hear about that. I didn't hear it directly, but I heard it through our mental health critic, the member for Okanagan-Vernon. It will be an issue that I'll try to keep on top of as well. I hope the issue is addressed in such a way as to give people who do need those drugs the kind of help that they're desperately looking for. I should mention that their families are also looking for that kind of help.
Just to go back for a moment to the letter which I was referring to a few minutes ago, the mother of this young woman who took her life says that in the year since that tragic incident, she has got involved and tried to volunteer her services in many ways. She says that she has spent hours in local, regional, lower Fraser Valley, provincial and Riverview meetings and at conferences. She has tried to bring a lot of enthusiasm to this process, it appears, but she has come up against what she cites are a number of shortcomings. I'll just review what I'm told are the shortcomings in the system, because I have not had that much personal involvement.
She cites a lack of outreach for the mentally ill, presumably by government agencies; a lack of adequate housing for those that are mentally ill; a lack of sufficient beds and hospital stays long enough to stabilize a patient; and a lack of follow-up by local psychiatrists. According to her, rivalry and turfism is apparent amongst the different agencies responsible for dealing with those who do have some mental illness.
I bring those shortcomings to the attention of the minister in this form, because I think it is a good opportunity to get the message delivered directly.
I note that throughout, she tries to keep getting back to a positive tone, but she does make a criticism. She cites -- again, I won't use the person's name -- a particular individual, an employee of the mental health system, who has been removed from the local area. I presume it was perhaps due to some kind of reorganization within the health care system. She's concerned about the removal of a particular individual from the Chilliwack area, as she felt that this person was particularly helpful to her family and to others. This brings her to conclude by asking: "Closer to home? No way. Closer to Victoria and with less funding and support."
Although she doesn't come right out and say it, I suppose the real purpose of her letter is to try and find out why this health care professional was being removed from Chilliwack and why that support was taken away from the people that really need that kind of help. I'm not sure if the minister is able, through my cryptic remarks, to determine which person I'm talking about. Their position is not identified in the letter, so I don't know what that individual's actual job was.
Interjection.
B. Penner: Yes, it was a male individual. Apparently he was involved in the mental health care system.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member has given enough information for me to reassure him that the vacancy either has been filled or is about to be filled. There was a vacancy and the position is fully funded -- it wasn't a matter of cutbacks at all -- and if it's not filled now, it will be filled.
I couldn't agree with the member more about the priority we need to give in terms of integrating our services for people with mental illnesses. My vision for mental health is that people with mental illness should be able to access the services they need in the same way as people with physical health care needs. That can only be realized through the integration of community or hospital services. Patients and families of patients with mental illness should be able to access those services in just the same way as if they were accessing treatment for heart ailments.
We have some way to go, but I truly do believe that the regionalization of health care will go a long way towards addressing these concerns. Communities develop different ways of delivering services, depending on their needs. For instance, in the member's community, which is a combination of both urban and rural services, there are different demands than in my community, where it's strictly inner-city urban services that are needed.
So I look forward to us working very closely with the regional health boards to ensure an increase in health care delivery to people with mental illness.
B. Penner: I'm coming close to concluding my participation on this aspect of the debate, but I would like to just share these thoughts. It's been my observation, and I'm sure that of many others, that increasingly we see people on our streets today -- often they're homeless people or they're marginally housed, if I could use that expression -- who perhaps in years gone by would have been in full-time care in our mental health care system. But due to restructuring and cutbacks and a change in approach -- I think that was in the mid-1980s -- these people were essentially turned out of the institutions and set amongst the rest of society. Just through casual conversation with people I meet, the view is expressed that these changes were made without adequate support for the individuals once they reached the community, or perhaps even that some of these people simply are not fit to be out looking after themselves in the community.
As the minister knows, I practised law for a number of years prior to being elected. In the last year before the election, I was doing primarily legal aid work. Many of my clients, I felt, would have been better served by not being brought through the criminal justice system, because that was merely addressing the symptom rather than the cause of whatever conduct had got them into trouble with the law. I don't stand here today and pretend to have an easy answer to that problem.
Obviously, as much as possible we would like to integrate people in our society, providing that we can give them the necessary support. But it appears to me, and I want to make it clear that this is just my own personal view, that perhaps we've gone too far in the other direction. There are clearly some individuals who are not able to look after themselves on a day-to-day basis, and they put not only themselves in jeopardy in terms of their physical and ongoing mental health, but they also put society's safety in jeopardy. It's not simply the annoyance of having a person stealing another loaf of bread because the person's head is filled with strange voices. Oftentimes these people will commit other offences, or when caught or being apprehended, they will lash out and cause bigger problems for themselves and for others around them.
So my concern is that shift we've seen in British Columbia from having too many people institutionalized to perhaps not having enough long-term facilities for people who really do need that help. I'll sit down now and turn the debate over to other people, but I look forward to hearing the minister's comments.
[ Page 3507 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is exactly why we need to review the mental health plan: to keep up with the changes in society since 1987. Also, what we've learned in the course of those last ten years from that was, as I remember it, broad community-based support for deinstitutionalization. But the member's quite right: how successful has that proved to be, and where have the failings been in terms of community readiness for people being deinstitutionalized? Our mental health plan has to address all of these concerns, as the member raised. And I know from personal conversations with the Attorney General that he is well aware of the incidence of incarceration of people who have mental illness and the inappropriateness of that, and he is taking action on that front, as well.
D. Symons: I do have some questions for the minister. Actually, one is a question I ask yearly, and I guess I'm hoping that there will be some movement on it. It's a problem that occurred to me in my very first year of being elected. I asked the question then and I will ask it again. It deals basically with the involuntary admission and treatment of people. The issue that came to me back then was from a parent whose son was schizophrenic. Because of his condition, her son was not capable of making decisions on his own appropriate care. He was off his medication -- in fact, he was on illicit drugs -- living on the streets, and his parents were basically watching him go down the tube. They came to me out of frustration, because they had nowhere to turn to get help for their son when they saw him basically killing himself.
[3:00]
Just recently I read a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun that talks about mental illness limiting a son's choices. The writer said:"My son became obviously mentally ill when he was 19, technically an adult. He 'chose' to live in forests and streets rather than get treated. I was advised he had the right to that 'choice.' In the past four years, I have gone the missing persons route, spent my savings on a detective to find him and tailed psychotic tramps through Stanley Park trying to talk to them.That's the concern that I raise again this year and that I've raised in past years. It was brought up in 1992, I believe, when there was a review done of the Health Act. I gather from the discussions in the public forums they had on that and the recommendations that came forward that they basically hit a roadblock on that particular issue. There's the civil rights issue on the one hand, and the issue of what's best for the person on the other hand."Then I started to educate myself about the terrible disease, schizophrenia, from which a high percentage of the homeless suffer. Schizophrenia is a brain disease; it affects a person's ability to think. Delusions can be just as real as the cars on the street. How can a person in this condition be said to 'choose'?
"Schizophrenia is a treatable disease. Should we, as the article suggests, just write off those who are too sick to know that they need help?"
Can the minister tell me if there has been any movement on solving that dilemma between civil rights and what's in the best interests of the person involved?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope I can give you some hope this year, actually. The debate continues. I have met from people who advocate on both sides of the issue, but I do believe that we are coming much closer to resolving the issue with the proper balance between the two, so that both communities are pleased with the balance achieved. I know that at least one part of the group advocating on this issue would suggest that we change the Mental Health Act, but in recent months they have withdrawn that request as long as we make the rights that exist on both sides of this issue very clear.
We listened to them very carefully, and therefore we have just published -- in fact, it's at the printer right now -- a guide to the Mental Health Act, which is really a users' guide. It's not a physicians' guide. It's a parents', advocates' and patients' guide to the Mental Health Act. It doesn't have someone else with a particular point of view determine the issues for the parents or the children, but they can use this guide themselves.
It includes, for instance, all aspects of what the provisions are for compulsory treatment in the community. Some people could withhold that information about compulsory treatment, so that's now included in the guide. It also clearly outlines patients' rights, so there's the other side of the fulcrum. It's in plain language, and it also includes all the recently revised statutes. We have received excellent feedback on this guide from community groups and advocacy groups -- including groups such as the Schizophrenia Society -- so I'm hopeful that this will go a long way to resolving the issues.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. That's the most encouraging answer I've got over the years, so that's great. I do note that the Canadian Mental Health Association, at least the B.C. branch -- this was back a few years -- had indicated that there may be times when there will be a need to be involuntarily hospitalized. So that seems to be one group, but I also have received letters from both sides on this issue, as the minister and the ministry no doubt have received submissions from both sides on it, as well. It's good to hear that there may be some movement in that direction so that people who are incapable of making informed decisions on their health can do it.
In looking into this problem, I found it interesting that when people get older or because of illness or something else, the family can get power of attorney over the affairs of that particular person, but it seems we don't have that power of attorney to the same extent in dealing with the mentally ill. It's good to see that we're moving in that direction.
There's just one other thing I might ask relating to this. It primarily relates to schizophrenia as well, and that is the problem of accommodation in Richmond. When Riverview closes a bed, we find that that bed might service six people in a year. Therefore when you're closing that bed, you're making one place available in community care.
If you take one out of Riverview and put one in the community, it's not really a one-for-one. It really means the Riverview one can handle maybe six people over a year, but the person in the community might occupy that bed all year long. We're not really getting that one-for-one; it's really a six-for-one, in a sense. If we take schizophrenia as a problem, there are approximately 30,000 people with schizophrenia in British Columbia, and 25,000 of those people receive some handicap assistance, mentally or physically. I'm wondering what we can do about accommodation for the number of people who need it.
Also, at our particular location in Richmond, we have a house that accommodates people, but the house basically takes most of their disability cheques. They get a small comfort allowance, which has been increased by 7 percent in five years. It's now $82 per month. Social Credit apparently raised it by 50 percent quite a while ago, but it hasn't been raised recently at all. I'm wondering if there is any move to increase the disability allowance that people have so that when they are in homes of this sort, they can have something to this effect, or what is referred to as a comfort allowance.
[ Page 3508 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me answer a couple of these issues. I appreciate your point that the one-for-one bed into the community is not the same as what a Riverview bed would be used for in terms of treatment of patients. I can only reassure the member that that has been taken into account as we move beds from Riverview into the community, in terms of the stabilizing factors that exist when people are returned to the community with proper support, and our ability, then, to use funds to reinvest elsewhere in the mental health system.
As we talked about earlier today, the issue of housing is key to proper treatment of people with mental illness. This year, for instance, during 1997-98, we are spending $2.2 million in new funding for housing of people with mental illness. Just let me tell you how that will be spent: $1.5 million will be used to fund 200 supported-housing units, and basically, that will be in the lower mainland; another $0.3 million will be provided for additional support for people, because there is an increased level of disability in the community; and $0.4 million will be used for housing support, which is us working with the B.C. Housing Management Commission and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We are reaching agreement with them on priority being given to people with mental illness in terms of access to B.C. Housing. We anticipate that this year, with the spending of the $2.2 million, and with our planned capital expenditure over the course of the next few years, there will be another 1,000 units of housing available before the turn of the century.
Sorry. And the third question was
D. Symons: I have some concerns about the arrangements, you might say, that are going to B.C. Housing for priority. I know that within Richmond there are long waiting lists for people for B.C. Housing accommodation. If you give priority to one group, it means that waiting lists for the others are going to get considerably longer, unless, as the minister said, more housing is made available for the mentally ill through things that are specifically for them.
There is some housing in Richmond for the mentally ill, both the apartment type of arrangement and also housing for people who are going to be in those facilities long-term, and they're good. They're very good. They have very good staff there, and I commend the ministry for those. The problem is that the need is much greater than the facilities that are available. I guess that's the concern you are addressing and that we all struggle with.
On a slightly different topic
Hon. J. MacPhail: None of us are aware of the incident, so thank you for bringing it to our attention. But if your constituent seeks advice
D. Symons: The hospital is looking into it and investigating it. It came to me from a parent who was irate, to put it mildly, and had, I guess, been mollified somewhat by the fact that the hospital was investigating.
There is the problem of dealing with a situation like that -- when the person that's perpetrating the incident is also mentally ill. It creates a problem: are they capable of making an informed decision to commit this act? Anyway, it is being looked into, but I think it's something that any of the hospitals that might have a ward where this could be repeated should maybe be given a heads-up on.
One last little thing: a suggestion that maybe what the province needs is something like we have now where we have a child advocate. We may possibly need a provincial mental health advocate. I wonder if the minister might comment on the possibility of that happening.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We had a good discussion about this yesterday, but just quickly, I said that when we conclude our review of the mental health plan and update it, I fully anticipate appointing a mental health advocate at that time. The only reason we wait for that period is that it will be important that we select the right person to advocate on behalf of the new plan for the mental health system.
L. Reid: Many times in this Legislature I've talked about the necessity for appropriate services for elementary-age children under the delivery system we call mental health. I would submit today -- I trust that the minister will probably agree -- that the services are insufficient, certainly if we take it all the way down the line to counselling services that are available to children in elementary schools. I can certainly commit to the record today that when I worked as a school administrator, we often had access to one half-a-day counsellor a week. I had a school of 500 students; that amounted to two hours of counselling intervention.
It seems to me that if we are indeed moving to an evolution of service delivery, we simply decide whether or not the service is necessary, and that if we agree it is, we don't continue to have the Minister of Health say, "It's an Education response," and the Minister of Education say: "No, no, it's a Health response." If we agree that it's a vital service to be delivered
So I commend the government on the Ministry for Children and Families, because I think that is about an integrated service delivery model. I want to know today whether or not that extends to providing counselling services to children who are of an elementary school age, because every year I've asked this question, and every year I've been told that the other minister has the responsibility. I want to know if we're indeed going to go down the road of integrating that service, so that if a child is six years old in British Columbia, there will be services available.
[3:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the member will take comfort in this or not, but that was exactly why we created the new Ministry for Children and Families -- to integrate all of these services and make sure that there's not[ Page 3509 ]
wasted duplication in administration, but that services are going right into the front line to ensure the well-being of our children and youth. Child and youth mental health has been transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families, and I will certainly make the minister aware to expect your question.
But I also know that the protocols of transfer were set up in such a way that there will no longer be any excuse about who's responsible for what. There's a very clear delineation of responsibility for the delivery of services, and the Ministry for Children and Families insisted on that. I'm hopeful that the change will maybe address the concern that the member raises.
L. Reid: The minister's comment warms my heart. I would be delighted if in the next school year we could actually have that service delivered on a regular basis, because if service is not offered when they're of an elementary age, when the need is demonstrated, we don't fix the problem; we simply postpone it. Then we all have to deal with it as they reach high school, on into post-secondary and then on into the community.
In terms of community questions I wish to raise
My concern and my dilemma with this report is that it speaks, I think, with more regard for the people who are categorized as being formally part of the downsizing procedure. For those who, for whatever reason, are not part of that formal group, the level of funding is dramatically different. To quote it, it's $191 a day for people who are officially part of the program and somewhere between $20 and $30 a day for clients who are not.
I've certainly read many of these reports, and I'm not clear how the categorization works -- whether it's based on a particular set of demonstrable skill sets or behaviours or whether it's a random sample. I have families who phone me regularly to find out why their family member did not end up in the well-funded pilot phase, if you will. That's a question I've put before this Legislature numerous times in the past, and it's a question that I don't believe has been answered to date. The level of care you can provide for $191 per day per client is dramatically different from the level of care you can provide for $20 or $30 per day per client. One is tokenism, and one is heading down the right road.
Thirty dollars a day won't buy you a great deal of service in Richmond; it won't buy you a great deal of service in the lower mainland. Whether or not you can purchase reasonable service outside the lower mainland, I still don't think that's the case. I would ask the minister to indicate how these individuals were assigned to particular groups, because that's the question that my constituents are posing to me: "Why is it that my family member is not part of the well-funded downsizing mechanism?"
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll try to give a general answer on this, not one specific just to Richmond. The member is quite right; when a person left Riverview, $191 a day accompanied her to the community. But I think it's safe to say that generally -- although I can't talk specifically about Richmond -- that $191 a day went to the community and not necessarily just to serve the patient who has moved into the community. So it may meet the needs of one, two or three people in the community.
But let me just say that the funding and support in the community for people with mental illness is under review. That is part of the mental health plan review that we're doing right now. This issue will be considered -- how funding flows, what happens to the issue of aging parents who may have been responsible for their child with a mental illness and are no longer capable of meeting those needs
L. Reid: The question specifically, minister, was: how do those individuals arrive in the well-funded group? What's the criteria for selection? If you're the parent of a child who needs that service, and your child is receiving $191 a day to go into the community -- and as an example, my child is receiving $30 a day -- what mechanism was in place to allow your child to be placed in the well-funded category and others not? That's the question.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The patient doesn't arrive in the community with $191 per day. What is transferred is that when the patient leaves Riverview, $191 a day is contributed to community services as a slot, for lack of a better term -- that's not a very nice
L. Reid: I would disagree with this minister, because when we talk about $191, it's purchasing power. Can the community provide X service for $191 that they cannot provide for $30? Yes. So I don't think we're differing on that. Do I believe that the patient carries the $191 in their pocket? No. But does the patient have purchasing power? Does the community have the ability to provide a different level of service based on the funding? Yes. I mean, I think that's fairly clear.
So the question specifically
So we have 90 percent of that population -- and that's the crux of the issue for me -- who arrive in communities where the communities simply cannot absorb that level of client base at $30 a day. The pilot study at $191 a day is a very different purchasing-power discussion.
What I'm asking of the minister is, first off, to acknowledge that there's a difference, because it's a fact, then to indicate whether or not this issue has been looked at in any kind of reasonable way. I mean, this is not a new problem; this
[ Page 3510 ]
has been going on since 1992. It's now 1997, so for five years the response has been: "Well, we're going to review it." I appreciate that and if indeed the answer is going to be with us in the next six months, I will accept that. But I can tell you that the families who have been living with this scenario for the past five years find it completely unacceptable.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, let me try to advise you of how it's done now. But also, I too understand that this has to be reviewed as part of the mental health plan review. As an example, the $191 a day is for a long-term patient at Riverview who's moving into the community, and the funding for that bed is being transferred to the community. Currently, on average, that $191 a day buys housing for about $70 a day, rehabilitation programming for about $30 a day and clinical support for $45 a day. That totals $145 on average for a patient -- and this is a patient who has been chronically ill and institutionalized. So there is another $46 left over that's available for support for other clients in the community.
On top of that, we've increased community mental health funding by 100 percent; it's a $100 million increase. All mental health-related services -- whether they be in the hospital, forensic, Pharmacare or continuing care -- have increased by half a billion dollars over the course of the last ten years.
So there are substantial increases in funding, but how the funding gets allocated is decided at a community level, based on the needs of the patient. If what we're discussing here is that more needs to be funded then that's a fiscal issue, and I'm more than willing to discuss that. But in the community, the allocation on a per-patient basis is to be done on the need of that patient, and there are some that are chronically ill and there are some that have episodic illnesses and need different supports in the community.
L. Reid: In terms of perhaps clarifying this discussion, I will cite directly from the report, page 1. It talks about:
"Informed stakeholders agree that the planned transfer of suitable patients from Riverview Hospital to community care arrangements as part of the downsizing process has in fact succeeded very well in placing and maintaining individuals in the new surroundings" -- this is where the report breaks down for me -- "with funding of $191 per day per patient transferred from Riverview for this purpose. Between 1992-93 and 1994-95, 162 patients were placed in this way. However, downsizing patients account for less that 10 percent of the people being discharged from Riverview Hospital."So where it breaks down for the average constituent is: why the difference? I appreciate the minister's comment that it's done on the basis of need. The families who try and discover what criteria are in place to establish that level of need are having extreme difficulty.
I can't imagine that all of those questions are going to be answered by the review, because they're questions that have been on the books for five years. So it seems to me that there's still some difficulty around clarifying how those budgets are arrived at.
I will await the minister's report. Perhaps it may shed some light on this. I'm finding some difficulty with it. I know my constituents are, and I know I've certainly had calls from different parts of the province where when individuals phone Riverview directly they are told: "That person has X level of funding; do your best." It's, frankly, not good enough.
The minister makes reference to the fact that the budget has increased. Anecdotally, I will share with the minister that I taught special ed in this province for many years. The budget was always increased, but it was always tossed out if somebody decided to buy basketballs. So I'm not convinced we're at any kind of adequate level of funding for mental health in this province, or that we are at a place where we recognize how important it is to adequately deal with mental health issues.
There are always the issues that fall off the table when it comes to setting priorities in health care. That's certainly been my experience in this Legislature over the last five years. I will do all I can to work with this minister to ensure that it works its way to the top of the list, because it has been underfunded, undervalued and under-recognized as being a significant community issue forever. I'm not clear that this province has ever handled mental health issues with any amount of determination to better the situation.
I appreciate what the minister said in terms of $2.2 million going into housing. I would simply ask for some clarification in terms of
Hon. J. MacPhail: Single-person subsidy in a supported-living arrangement.
[3:30]
L. Reid: That brings me to my next concern. It's around family members who have spouses and who have children, but do have significant mental illnesses. Is there any way for the ministry to, first, recognize that oftentimes keeping the family intact is perhaps a useful direction? There may be cases where that's not reasonable. A lot of individuals come to acquire some type of mental illness in their thirties and forties. Oftentimes their lifestyle is fairly established. They have dependents, and there is very little if any opportunity for them to receive assisted living, if you will. Basically, there's no chance for their family to maintain any kind of contact if indeed they're not allowed to be together. Does the minister have any comment?Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting question, because, of course, the member may remember that we face this in social services as well: parents who are aging and who have kept at home their children with a mental handicap or physical handicap -- the same issue. What we have tried to do as a government is to support the individual. I assume that the member is talking about adult children here, because children of learning age are supported in the community.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Adult children and adult parents, yes. What we've tried to do -- in fact, I think it's worked fairly successfully, but we can certainly anticipate this question when the estimates come up for the Minister of Human Resources -- is that we have funded the adult child for the very first time under the handicapped benefit.
People with mental illness now are eligible for the handicapped benefit. They never were previously, because their illness was defined as an episodic illness, and therefore they were not permanently disabled. The definition of handicap has changed; we did that last year. Now people with episodic illnesses, mainly mental illness, are eligible. I understand that they're applying and being determined eligible in tens of hundreds, actually, which is good news. That's an extra $271 per month -- I know it sounds minimal -- to support the family.
[ Page 3511 ]
L. Reid: I thank the minister for that response. My colleague earlier talked about the necessity for protective settings. Certainly I support that; there will be people who will always require some type of protective setting.
Where the system breaks down is when individuals are hospitalized and the doctor's order says round-the-clock care. What that looks like is different from hospital to hospital, for sometimes that's one person checking them every four hours. There's been a number of cases in the press lately where people have actually committed suicide while they were under round-the-clock care. But when you go back and read the chart, that meant that somebody checked on them once every four hours.
We as a Legislature have to come to grips with what the definition of round-the-clock care is. Indeed, if we agree that a protective setting is necessary and someone is put into care, and the family breathes a huge sigh of relief and goes home for the night, and then someone else doesn't check that person for four or five hours
Hon. J. MacPhail: We work continuously on standards with acute care hospitals that provide services to mentally ill patients. We articulate those standards regularly, and we expect the hospitals to meet those standards. But it requires constant vigilance. I don't want to in any way besmirch the reputation of hospitals. But there is no question that clear standards have to be set and met.
L. Reid: I certainly agree with the minister. If I today were looking for a definition of round-the-clock care, would I find it in that set of standards the minister has just referenced?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The standard, I am advised, is called constant attention. It's the standard of care, depending on the acuity of the patient. But the standards are articulated in correspondence between hospitals and the ministry.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for the answer, because I'm certainly in need of that definition. I will be passing it on to the folks who have raised the issue with me.
Perhaps my last question on this topic is in terms of the working group -- the report of June 1996. It basically makes the case that it's a two-part system, that it is about replacing Riverview Hospital and reforming the mental health care system. Most of our discussion has been on the Riverview Hospital component. The reforming of the mental health care system, I think, is equally valid, equally important.
My particular issue is around alcohol and drug programs. For lots of individuals with mental illness, that's an overlay they simply can't afford. What we have today in Richmond is a superior service. Their concern is that this service is going to be fragmented, disjointed beyond all recognition, and that it doesn't make good sense to ramp that service together. In terms of the Vancouver-Richmond health board, in terms of a much larger system, the people who do best in drug and alcohol programming are those who have some kind of relationship and rapport with the staff, with the people who actually make the program work.
It's a concern for Richmond because the program is first-class. It's a superior program; it's certainly been modelled in many different jurisdictions. So it seems to me that perhaps the minister can scrutinize in more detail the effectiveness and the validity of current alcohol and drug programs. The ones that are really doing an exceptional job, frankly, should be allowed to continue. Could the minister comment?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We're aware of the excellent quality of services provided. What we're attempting to do now -- and I think we will meet with success -- is maintain those services intact from a patient point of view. We may have to change the administrative or payment relationship between the Ministry for Children and Families that's taking it over and the Vancouver-Richmond health board. But our goal is to not change in any way the relationship between the patient and the service delivered. How we administer that under the new context is to be determined, but we're working on it right now.
B. Barisoff: I beg the minister's indulgence to repeat some of the questions that have already been asked, but it's just some issues that have been brought up in my riding, too. I think, coming from a rural riding, it's only right that the minister hears from all parts of the province.
The first one, of course, is the restrictions on risperidone and olanzapine. Those are in letters that I've received; I didn't bring copies of the letters to read into the record. But I think those are areas of concern that I've got letters on from the rural part of B.C. Just another quick comment by the minister
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we're well aware of the concerns. We're also pleased that risperidone and olanzapine are covered under our Pharmacare program as a special authority. We want to provide the best possible care through our Pharmacare program. That's why we are covering olanzapine and risperidone. But also, whether this be a first-line or second-line prescription drug is currently under review with the appropriate experts in the field. I expect to have a report back on that -- which is the issue of concern to your constituents -- in a few weeks.
B. Barisoff: Another concern, of course, that came and that I know the minister has addressed earlier was the downsizing of the Riverview facility. Would the minister indicate maybe to the people of the rural areas, if the downsizing takes place in Riverview
Hon. J. MacPhail: As we downsize Riverview, we do so only in the context of providing the community with the corollary support services. In fact, the downsizing of Riverview for patients in the lower mainland has been put on hold. The only patients that will be moved from Riverview into the community are those from outside the lower mainland.
We will be providing the corollary community supports as well; they'll take place. There are crisis stabilization beds and housing that will be put into the community, and of course, the Riverview replacement facilities as well, one of which is slated for Kamloops, I think, which would be most appropriate for this member's consideration -- oh, and extra emergency room support as well.
B. Barisoff: You mentioned Kamloops, which is quite a distance away. With regionalization, I was wondering whether there would be anything closer in the Okanagan that would service some of the patients who might be coming from there, from the lower mainland. Kamloops is probably
[ Page 3512 ]
about three and a half hours away from Okanagan-Boundary constituents, so I was wondering if there was anything in the Okanagan that would be closer.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. There will be 16 replacement beds in the Kelowna-Penticton area, and 85 replacement beds in the Kamloops area.
B. Barisoff: It's great to see that there are some in the Okanagan.
Another question is: with the aging population that is retiring in the Okanagan, the concern that I have, particularly in small hospitals, would be psychogeriatrics -- whether there's any thought of what they're going to do in that area.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and we have had a good discussion on this over the course of the last day or so. You can certainly refer to that discussion, but in addition to that, just let me say again, very briefly, that provision of services for geriatric patients suffering from mental illness is part of the review of the mental health plan that is currently underway.
B. Barisoff: Continuing along those same lines, I think probably my biggest concern -- I am in a riding with two relatively small hospitals -- is whether some of these facilities would be put in the smaller hospitals. The two are South Okanagan General and Boundary Hospital in Grand Forks. The closest, biggest hospital, I guess, would be in Penticton or Kelowna. Whether some of these facilities would be put into some of the smaller areas, and in the case of Grand Forks, where they're quite a way from any major hospital
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that advice. We certainly will take it into consideration as we move forward.
B. Barisoff: Again, I'm just wondering whether there would be another riding such as mine, where we have a lot of different ethnic backgrounds, and whether any ethnic group counselling would be offered as a service to areas such as the South Okanagan.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I heard the member say ethnic group counselling?
B. Barisoff: Yes.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. Services such as that will be decided upon by your regional health board -- which is good news, because if that's what your community needs and asks for, then the regional health boards should respond on that basis.
B. Barisoff: I have a list of them: respite care, short stay and anger management. I would venture to say, then, that what the minister is indicating is that most of these things would be covered by the new regional board that would dictate the area that they might go in. Would the minister be giving any kind of indication, or a kind of a push, that in some cases they wouldn't always be forced to the bigger centres, that some would be forced to the smaller areas such as South Okanagan and Grand Forks?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The regional health board will decide the allocation of the resources within the region's geographic boundaries, and they will be required to deliver services within their boundaries. The allocation of those resources within the region will be a matter for the regional health board. I hope the hon. member will work with them to make the best case for the best services within the region.
[3:45]
B. Barisoff: Probably my biggest concern, now that we've regionalized the boards, is to make sure that somehow through your ministry, with the weighting of votes in the way they might be, a lot of the acute care and the things that had been taking place in the smaller regional hospitals aren't lost in the shuffle of dollars and cents -- and things that are actually needed in smaller communities not only throughout my riding but throughout the entire provinceHon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the concerns, and we discussed those at length when we discussed the regionalization of health care.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister on the provincial eating disorders program. I'd like to start out by thanking the minister and her staff for the assistance given to the Werry family from Sardis. Brandon Werry is a 13-year-old boy, one of the more serious anorexia cases in British Columbia. So I just thank the minister for that.
In working with that case for over a year now, I certainly have an interest in the provincial program, generally. I wonder if the minister could give us an overview of the program and what's involved in terms of staffing, budget and that kind of thing.
Hon. J. MacPhail: For clarification from the hon. member -- the provincial program for eating disorders, generally? Okay.
Just for information, I would ask the member if he could read Hansard of yesterday, and if he has any questions following that, we could talk about them. I went through the provincial eating disorders program yesterday. Maybe after you read Hansard, if there are any more questions arising out of that
J. van Dongen: I wouldn't mind doing that. I don't know what was addressed in that discussion, but I would like to have the minister's understanding that if I go back to Hansard, I can bring it up later in estimates. I certainly don't want to duplicate all the discussion.
I will simply say at this point that I certainly have concerns about the program, particularly about the interaction between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Children and Families. I will just put one or two questions to the minister now, and then go back and look.
I'm particularly interested in the issue of care teams involving both ministries -- how they're organized and who the minister feels should be in charge of those care teams. I don't know if that was addressed yesterday. Maybe the minister could just comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be easier to deal with concerns as they arise. I know the member may be expressing fears that
[ Page 3513 ]
are not yet realized, because certainly in terms of the delivery of the service from a patient point of view or a family point of view, nothing has changed. The mental health workers are in the community doing as they did before, and the care team is assembled in the same fashion.
If the caution to us is not to disturb that effective care team because one portion of mental health services is transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families, I absolutely agree with the member; that is exactly what should happen. There should be nothing but improvement in the delivery of service from a patient-parent-family point of view.
That's exactly how we're working on the transfer of authority. It should be seamless from a care point of view, but there will be benefits from a planning point of view and from a policy-setting point of view in that the care team now has to make sure they're integrated with all of the other services provided to children by the Ministry for Children and Families. So the difference will take place literally behind the scenes, away from the patient, in terms of policy and planning, but patient care should be unaffected.
J. van Dongen: I guess I raised some issues that I wasn't even looking to raise with the issue of the transfer of some responsibilities to Children and Families. Maybe I could ask the minister: will the delivery of the anorexia-bulimia program, then, be wholly through the Ministry for Children and Families, or will it be partially through Children and Families and partially through the Ministry of Health?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The eating disorders program is a provincial program delivered through St. Paul's and Children's Hospital, but access to the service is through the provincial program, and support for the person in the community is delivered in coordination with mental health services in that community.
J. van Dongen: I simply say to the minister that my concern, from my observations, is that there have been lots of problems with the way the system has been working. I'm not saying that to be critical; I'm saying I think there's lots of room for improvement, and that's what I'm hoping to address.
What I propose is that I dig through Hansard and look for the discussion of the other day, and then maybe I'll come back and ask some questions. One of the other members will have some questions in between.
R. Coleman: I want to go back briefly to the Riverview issue that I canvassed earlier. I was basically going a bit more from memory when I was filling in. I want to clarify some points with the minister. I have gone back and pulled my Hansards and my information from last year.
In the last session I was advised that a 340-bed hospital with more on-site residential facilities was going to be developed on the Riverview lands, and that was in June or July of last year. The background on Riverview land use planning clearly states:
"A new 340-bed tertiary psychiatric hospital designed to service the lower mainland is being planned on the current site as a replacement for the entire Riverview Hospital complex. An additional 250 beds are to be located outside the lower mainland."It also goes on to say:
"There are 61 existing buildings on the Riverview site, comprising 1,534,452 square feet of rentable space. These buildings were originally designed for the particular use of the hospital, which at one time had some 5,000 patients and may not be appropriate for any other use due to age, design and construction."When I brought this up earlier, there seemed to be some misunderstanding that there was any indication that a 340-bed hospital was to go on this site. Going back into the last three business plans and annual reports of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, I find references to the planning process on these particular lands in each one of their reports. I note that the commencement of the Riverview Hospital replacement program was announced by the Ministry of Health in May of 1995. I'm just wondering if the minister could
The next part of the information I have is the planning process itself, which was:
"Then it goes on and outlines five phases of planning for the Riverview site. The phases of process for Riverview are: phase 1, data collection and analysis; phase 2, identifying community objectives and priorities; phase 3, developing planning principles; phase 4, preparing land use concept plans; and phase 5, selection and approval of the land use plan.. . . established to take full advantage of the unique features of the lands, recognizing their heritage, esthetic, psychological and locational qualities, as well as the enduring legacy of mental health on the site, while ensuring balance, economic and social returns to the people of British Columbia."
It also states that phases 1 and 2 are already complete, which means we've already identified the community objectives and policies, and we've already collected our data and our analysis.
We also have on record here that the data collection analysis was recorded in two reports, which I would ask the minister to please make available to me. One is referred to as a project context report, and the second is a resource assessment report, issued on April 18, 1996.
My questions, therefore, would be
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is nothing inconsistent with what you're saying and what I'm saying. There will be a
What is at issue and what we're awaiting is where the actual tertiary care hospital will be on the site and what the rest of the land will be used for, if anything different. That's what the community planning process is.
In terms of the community, the local MLA and I have agreed that it makes sense for us to finish our mental health plan and determine whether there will be any change to the tertiary care hospital -- not in any way that would make it fewer beds, but maybe a few more beds that would therefore require a greater site acquisition. So that's why we're pausing. In terms of planning for the institution, that continues.
[ Page 3514 ]
R. Coleman: I guess my second question would be
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll certainly pass your request on to the minister responsible for BCBC.
[4:00]
R. Coleman: The number change, I guess, is just a change of 17 beds. This one summary I've got is from March 31, 1997, which is pretty recent.Would the minister tell me
Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly don't believe the member gets this from personal experience, because the 5,000 population of Riverview occurred in the 1920s. I'm sure he wasn't even alive during that time. In fact, I know he wasn't -- just by looking at him.
We now have, though, in the province -- and yesterday I stated that there were about 700
R. Coleman: I knew that maybe I should have just gone a step further when I was referring to the 5,000 beds, but I would be a great commercial for plastic surgery if I'd been around in the 1920s -- and that would probably be a reason you might want to include it in the health care system. If I look this good today
Just one other question with regard
My question is: how many of the -- I know you said supportive housing, and I'm assuming that supportive housing is when you subsidize somebody in place in a housing project -- units that are in social and seniors housing in the province, in standardized projects, are presently being funded to this type of client versus the type of client that would be the norm of the system?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The number of clients who have a mental illness who are funded through our ministry for supported housing is 2,157. But I would also expect that there are clients in social housing beyond that who have mental illnesses who are not funnelled through our ministry. We are actually trying to determine that with B.C. Housing. Of course, in many cases that means self-identification of your illness, and that isn't always forthcoming.
R. Coleman: Would the 2,100 you're referring to, then, be housing in a group home type of environment versus the social housing type of environment?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, they're not. Residential care is group home care, and there are 1,758 in residential care.
R. Coleman: So the 2,100 are
Hon. J. MacPhail: In subsidized housing in the market.
R. Coleman: Just a couple more questions. The 1,700, then, I would guess, would be more in the group home as far as dealing with subsidized care. Would that be correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Coleman: And is the B.C. Housing Management Commission handling your proposal calls and allocations in that regard? Are they covered under their budget, or covered under the Ministry of Health's budget -- for the physical housing portion itself, not the subsidy?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The capital allocation is included in my ministry, but the development and delivery of the housing is through B.C. Housing.
R. Coleman: Now, when we deal with this particular form of housing, and we have the capital
If that is the case, are these particular forms of housing being operated basically by both the ministry and non-profit housing societies? Or are they strictly being operated by the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no one model. The Crown owns the asset. If there needs to be staff assigned, then the region can now either decide to contract that staffing or they can directly employ the staff. And there are also housing society models.
R. Coleman: I'll move away, then, for a second from the ministry directly handled ones and go to the society handled ones. I would ask if the ministry has a long-term lease arrangement with the society -- i.e., 35 years -- with the asset being held by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation or whether the asset's actually held by the ministry of
Hon. J. MacPhail: Some non-profits that are fairly old own their own assets and provide a service, and we contract
[ Page 3515 ]
for the service. But the newer ones are developed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission, and all of the rules
R. Coleman: Then I just want a clarification on the assets. I'm sure your staff would be able to answer this.
The asset value, then
So, first of all, I'd like to request that the minister give me a copy of the standard form of lease that's being used -- back on Health-related housing -- in this particular field. I'd like to know whether the asset on land base is being held at the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation or somewhere else.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The asset is held by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I can certainly tell the Minister of Housing to be ready to report on that issue. We'll find out where it's booked, but the Crown asset is held through their books.
R. Coleman: Just for the information of the ministry, if it's with the B.C. Housing Management Commission, it will be booked with the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation and listed in their assets. I've already asked for a list of all their assets, so we'll be able to determine from that which ones are group homes and what have you in our discussions in Housing.
The second part of my question is: could I could have a copy of the standard form of lease which is being used by your ministry with the society for those group homes?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, you can.
R. Coleman: Just one other thing. There are always standards and practices that are established whenever housing is dealt with in other jurisdictions of government, and I'm just wondering if it's the same here -- that is, if there's a non-profit operating agreement put in place. That operating agreement outlines the responsibilities of the operating group, whether it be a ministry agency or a non-profit society, and it has certain criteria of audit, certain criteria of performance and certain criteria of qualifications. I'd like to know if similar types of operating agreements are in place here.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there's a standard purchase-of-service agreement with the society and all of those provisions are contained in it.
R. Coleman: I'd just ask the minister if I could also have a copy of that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
J. van Dongen: I just want to continue on with some questions to the minister about the provincial eating disorders program. I've had a quick look at Hansard for yesterday, and I understand that the program is a $6.5 million program, and I assume that it is within the Ministry of Health. I wonder if the minister could just describe in some detail what is included in that part of the program that's in the Ministry of Health. I'm interested in the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and the responsibility of Children and Families in this situation.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The provincial program is delivered through St. Paul's Hospital and Children's Hospital. That's where the $6.5 million is delivered. Of that, there's also $2.7 million being delivered through acute care and mental health services. I outlined that yesterday.
I'm curious. I'm not quite understanding your concern. I need more detail on your concern about how that relates to the Ministry for Children and Families. The $6.5 million is a Ministry of Health program, and it's when one delivers the services in the community, through the mental health services, that there is the interaction with the Ministry for Children and Families.
[4:15]
J. van Dongen: Well, maybe we could go at it this way. Is the biggest part of that $6.5 million in actual treatment which takes place at St. Paul's Hospital and Children's, or is it in structuring a program which is delivered, say, in local hospitals or other facilities? Is the biggest part of the $6.5 million in actual treatment? I guess that's my question.Hon. J. MacPhail: There are residential programs that are delivered. There's the Vista program, a ten-bed program which is at West 2nd and is operated by St. Paul's Hospital. There is an adult tertiary program for in-patient beds at St. Paul's Hospital. There is the B.C.'s Children's Hospital ambulatory eating disorders program. Then there is the acute care admissions program that exists through hospitals throughout the community. But we can get you a breakdown of the actual dollar allocation amongst the various programs.
J. van Dongen: So on the $2.7 million part of that budget, for example, those are dollars that actually go to the acute care system out of this budget for people who have eating disorders and for treatments for that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
J. van Dongen: Does the provincial program prescribe protocols and approaches for the handling of cases, say, for the people in the Ministry for Children and Families who deliver it at the front end?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The provincial steering committee, which I described at length yesterday, is responsible for setting the standards of care and the protocols for delivery of care within the community. So each patient is referred to the provincial program, and the provincial program is run on the standards set by the provincial steering committee for eating disorders. The provincial program determines the best model of care on a patient-by-patient basis and where and how that care should be delivered in the community. But all of it harkens back to the standards set by the provincial steering committee on eating disorders.
J. van Dongen: Is there then a document that sets out those protocols and, as the minister says, standards from the provincial eating disorders committee?
[ Page 3516 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is a document available that the steering committee has prepared. I know the hon. member has a great deal of interest in this area. I would be more than happy to provide him with a briefing on it and a visit or whatever he wishes. Not to preclude any questions now, but it's actually a well-recognized program, and I would be more than happy to make all of the information available, either through a personal briefing or through documents.
J. van Dongen: I hope the minister appreciates that I'm not trying to put her on the spot. I'm asking the questions for two reasons. One is my personal experience sitting in on two care team meetings, and, particularly in the Werry case, my own personal observations. The other is comments made by Dr. Lask from London, England, about our program, which were not particularly complimentary. The minister is probably aware of those comments. They were reported in the Vancouver Province, I think, last December. So that's really where I'm coming from. I will accept the minister's invitation for a briefing, but I would still just like to ask a few questions right now. One of them is the issue of who is in charge of the care teams. It seems to me that it's a fairly fundamental question as to what type of person should be responsible and ultimately in charge of the care teams. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of what the provincial program calls for on that issue.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It would be helpful if the member could be a little more specific in his concern, but let me try to see if there is a concern at all.
The way that a patient receives a service from the care team remains unchanged by regionalization of health care -- I've already answered that portion of it. If the member is now raising concern because children's mental health is with the Ministry for Children and Families and adult mental health is with the region, then
J. van Dongen: I want the minister to know that my particular concern does not come from the changeover to Children and Families. I don't think that's particularly the issue here because I think's it's probably all of the same people involved -- formerly in the Ministry of Social Services and now in the Ministry for Children and Families.
I guess I'm concerned about the apparent lack of structure and precedent in the way the care teams operate. I think that you could have a situation where you might have a general practitioner who appears to be chairing the care team; you may have a psychologist; you may have one of the people within the Ministry for Children and Families. They're issues of accountability, issues of performance. That's where I'm coming from. I think this is probably a fairly technical discussion and I will pursue it further in the briefing.
But just a few more questions. The provincial eating disorders committee -- is part of that committee's mandate to in some manner measure the performance of the provincial program? Is that part of their mandate?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: Visiting us today are Claire Ingles, a teacher from Parkway Elementary School in Penticton, 37 students and also some parent chaperons. Of course, they are from Penticton. It's a great pleasure to have them here. I'd ask all the members in the House right now to make them feel very welcome in Victoria.
J. van Dongen: Following up on the issue of the measurement of performance, is there an annual report done by the provincial eating disorders committee on the performance of the program that will be available to the minister and to ourselves?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. But it can be part of the briefing that you get the evaluation of it.
J. van Dongen: I just want to ask the minister a few questions about anger management courses and training. I was made aware that there were some anger management courses being delivered through the mental health division of the ministry. I don't know if that's happening in Abbotsford, but it's an area that I'm particularly concerned about. I think that in terms of dealing with the issues of domestic violence, we need to be more focused on preventative programs and on dealing with the root causes of the issue within the perpetrators of domestic violence. I understand that in some constituencies the anger management courses have been dropped as a cost-saving measure by some of the agencies in local communities. I'm wondering: is this a prescribed area of responsibility within mental health? That's the first question. And secondly, if those courses are being dropped, is the minister going to do something about that? It seems to me that's a fairly critical area.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There have been no cuts in the area of mental health, so any area that's decided
J. van Dongen: Just to clarify then, there will be nothing prescribed by Victoria with respect to anger management courses in the regions.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Anger management is a therapy that's offered. It's part of a range of therapies that are offered, and it's up to the health care professionals to determine the need for that therapy and then to provide it.
V. Anderson: I rise to ask follow-ups of the discussion yesterday on Riverview -- I was listening and present -- and also to follow up on my yearly discussion with the minister on Riverview. They were talking yesterday about extra beds in Riverview being open and available. Up until now, closing down and downsizing Riverview was at least the theory. In adding beds, are we indicating -- and I would agree if this is the case -- that the theory has changed and that Riverview will not necessarily be downsized but will be increased and made more permanent?
[4:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there's been no shift in philosophy, and there won't be until we've completed our review of[ Page 3517 ]
the ten-year-old mental health plan. But what we did say to Riverview is: "Open up 50 beds that you've been funded for and have not been using." It really was a matter of withdrawal of services that wasn't appropriate, and we've said: "Restore that service."
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, because as the minister knows, there's certainly a great need in the community for those services to be available. What integration process is there in place to relate the needs of the community to the needs that Riverview can respond to? At this point, for the communities across the province, what is the process for making sure those beds are used if they're now available? How are people referred, and what is happening as a result of that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a provincial mental health advisory committee council. It has a family advisory council portion to it and a consumer advisory council portion to it. I would be pleased to make available the outline of the council. That feeds into the provincial mental health advisory council, which makes recommendations and advises me on the relationship between provincial tertiary care and community care.
V. Anderson: When we were discussing the issues a year ago -- last August, in fact -- the minister indicated that she would be visiting Riverview soon to meet with them. Did she have an opportunity to meet with members of the patients' empowerment committee and discuss some of the issues that we raised at that time?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I actually haven't met with that committee since I've become Minister of Health. I think my last meeting with them was just prior to finishing my responsibilities as Minister of Social Services.
V. Anderson: I think the minister and I had the previous discussion under Social Services, and she referred me at that time to Health. Last year we discovered it was Health and therefore under her mandate. Might I ask if anything has been done about the clothing subsidy that we've discussed for the last two or three years? Have changes been made or has there been any improvement for the clothing of the people while they are at Riverview?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I reported in my last estimates on a resolution to the provision of clothing for patients of Riverview. Since then, there's been no change. I understand that the resolution is meeting the needs of the patients.
V. Anderson: If the minister reported that, it wasn't at the time that I was having discussions with her. I have the Hansard before me, and I see no resolution of that. The minister indicated at that time that she would be referring back and looking at that. So if there was a resolution, I'd appreciate it very much if she's able to let me know about that at some time.
Also, the other issue she was going to be discussing with them further was the issue of bus passes. There was a temporary resolution at that time, so that people in Riverview would be able to get out and do some visiting and one thing and another. I'm wondering what has happened in that regard.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the resolution that started out as temporary proved to be satisfactory and is now the permanent resolution for the provision of bus passes. But I can either confirm that directly or else
V. Anderson: I'd appreciate receiving information on that too, if the minister's able to do that.
Another concern we had was that when persons were leaving Riverview after they had been there for some time, there was not a good process in place for helping them to move back out into the community. They didn't necessarily have the documentation they needed -- their birth certificates and the other identification items. I know the minister was going to look into that service to see if something more effective could be done to help them with their identification papers and the other items that they would need as they move back into the community. Has that been rectified?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The issue of proper discharge planning is one that is affected by the review board process -- if there's an early and unexpected discharge of patients from Riverview because the review board has discharged them. There is certainly a proper discharge planning procedure in place for people who are scheduled to be discharged. But you're right: the issue is still of concern to people who are quickly and unexpectedly discharged as a result of the review board. Frankly, we continue to work on that problem.
V. Anderson: I will take the minister's word that it was only the unexpected ones that this wasn't arranged for. But the information we were receiving was that it went far beyond that and that it should be in place for persons on a more regular basis. When people are discharged into the community at this point, we hear a great deal of concern about people who seem to get lost in the downtown area or other places where they move to. What follow-up is done with those persons in the first month or two or whatever to make sure that they're out and established in the community?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The patients are followed through a care plan that's part of their discharge plan. Most often that care plan assigns them to a mental health team for care and follow-up.
V. Anderson: When they're assigned to a mental health team for care and follow-up, is there a report back to Riverview, to the hospital itself, as to what's happened to them? Is there a follow-through and a kind of carryover? Some of those would also come back in. What is the relationship?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The discharge plan and the care plan are part of the patient's record -- file, for lack of a better term. So there's no reporting back to Riverview Hospital, but there is reporting on the file and recordkeeping of the patient's development. If indeed the patient has to return to Riverview, that file goes with her.
V. Anderson: I'm following up in part from a letter of June 8, 1995, that I received from the minister when she was the Minister of Social Services. I had been asking about the integrated care team between the Ministries of Health and Social Services. It had to do particularly with the discharge of patients. If I can quote for a moment: "Whereas I understand that the committee has not yet dealt with the specific issue of integrating patients' services upon departure from Riverview
[ Page 3518 ]
Hospital, I have instructed the committee chair to place this item on the agenda for the next meeting." It was a follow-up of what happened as a result of that meeting between Social Services and Health on an integrated plan for discharge that I was asking about, in part, at this point. Could the minister explain what happened as a result of the joint integrated committee working on this plan?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The discharge project at Riverview Hospital, which was an integrated team, was put in place. That project focused mainly on people being discharged within the lower mainland, particularly in the downtown east side, where the most vulnerable seemed to end up. That project resulted in a great measure of success so that there is now in place a permanent bridging team -- it's called the bridging team -- which bridges the life of a person going from Riverview into the community. That's a permanent service now.
V. Anderson: In 1984 we had the review of Riverview Hospital, and I know that over a period of time these recommendations, which were part of that plan, were being fulfilled. I don't intend to go over them one by one, but at this point is there a report available as to what has been accomplished as a result of those recommendations? If so, would that be available so that we could get a copy of it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member refers to the 1994 report? Yes.
The remaining outstanding issue of recommendations that have not been met yet is the appointment of a provincial mental health advocate. I'm on record -- yesterday and today -- saying that as we review and, I expect, update our provincial mental health plan from 1987
No, there is no written response to the report on a collected basis, but there are individual responses as we move forward. As I say, the outstanding issue is the appointment of a provincial mental health advocate.
V. Anderson: There are some 100 recommendations of one kind or another in that report. Without having to go over them one by one, it would be interesting to know how many of these have been implemented and which ones were not implemented, for whatever reason. As time has gone on and as they looked at this, I would assume that there may have been reasons why certain ones should not be implemented, and perhaps they were substituted by something else. So that's why I'm trying to get a follow-up. A lot of time and effort went into the report and doing the recommendations, and it would seem logical to me that there should be a follow-up, even in point form, as to what happened -- which were implemented, which weren't, which were changed, what was substituted for them and which may still be outstanding.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I can make that information available to you.
V. Anderson: Thank you very much.
[4:45]
S. Hawkins: I recall a member -- I believe it was the member for Chilliwack -- addressing some of the needs of the homeless. Does the ministry track how many homeless people there are? Do they have any idea how many people there are? The member was saying that he noticed over the last few years, there have been more and more. I recall taking a flight last summer, and there was a visitor from Australia sitting beside me. She was quite shocked, and she was wondering if we actually had programs for these people in our province. She had visited a couple of years ago, and she found even in the scope of a couple of years that they had increased, especially in Vancouver. I wonder if the ministry tracks how many and what kinds of health programs they have in place for these people.Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the question. To track a homeless person is a very difficult thing to do. We actually attempted to do it in preparation for the last provincial election by permitting people to have a very temporary address in order to register to vote for the very first time. The ones who registered with temporary addresses are statistically available through Elections B.C. But there is no other way of tracking homeless people, by virtue of the fact that they have no permanent record.
We do offer a range of services to the homeless: social services, mental health services and health services, including mobile clinics, shelters, temporary residential care and mental health teams. In my own community there are health care workers that work on the street 24 hours, around the clock.
S. Hawkins: The number that was given to me was 20,000 homeless in B.C., and I don't know if the ministry has any indication of how many. If you have mental health teams and other programs that work with them, is there a certain amount budgeted in the ministry targeted for this group?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Not specifically at homeless, but at people who you have to access through the street, is a way of describing it. Frankly, it would be folly for me to challenge that stat of 20,000, but it does seem to be inordinately high. For instance, I know that in Vancouver there are about 500 young street adults, which compose a large portion of homeless people. We are one-half of the population, so
S. Hawkins: I've noticed that even in my own community the number of street kids and homeless has gone up. That's why I ask the question: is there a strategy or is there some way we're helping to deal with the needs of these people? I know a lot of them do have mental health problems, addiction problems and abuse problems. I did hear some questions around services to help break the cycle of abuse, and one program that comes to mind is the anger management course for offenders. I know some communities are not able to provide that course any more because of funding crunches, and I wonder what programs and resources are in place that the ministry has targeted. What programs and resources for victims of abuse and services to break the cycle of abuse are in place? Is there money in this budget for these people?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I was just remembering, on the issue of the homeless as well -- providing them with homes
[ Page 3519 ]
almost solely at providing housing for at-risk, homeless people, and it met with a great deal of success. Certainly under the estimates of the
Forensic services offers an anger management program, and through the Ministry of Women's Equality's Stopping the Violence program, our mental health workers assist and coordinate with the Ministry of Women's Equality in delivering those programs. Then my previous answer to the member for Abbotsford would say that the regional health board would determine the provision of anger management services as part of a range of therapies in other areas.
S. Hawkins: I'll just move to some constituency issues in areas around the province. I know some of this has been brought up before, but perhaps I'll get a little more specific here. When I visited the north, there seemed to be a desperate need for psychiatric services up there. Certainly there is a recognized suicide rate that's very, very high, and drug and alcohol abuse is very, very high. I'm wondering if the ministry has a northern strategy for mental health. Is there something being developed? Is it recognized? Does the ministry feel there's a need for that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, even anecdotally, the people who described that to you in the north would probably be accurate. There were a significant number of vacancies amongst mental health services. All of those vacancies have been transferred to the regions, the go-ahead has been given to fill them, and there's active recruitment going on now. So that's on the front-line mental health care worker.
Also, effective last month, we put in place the differential-fee-for-service physician supply program negotiated with the BCMA, and certainly one of the physician specialties that was given to us as needing to be more greatly recruited for the north was psychiatrists. So that has been addressed in the physician supply program and is only effective as of last month.
S. Hawkins: I'm glad the minister mentioned that. When I was in Prince George and Dawson Creek, they did mention that they'd been recruiting psychiatrists and that they didn't have any. Does the minister have an update on that situation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are four psychiatrists in Prince George, but the recruitment is now in the hands of the region. We've got the money as soon as they can recruit them.
S. Hawkins: The minister also mentioned the physician recruitment strategy, and I believe part of that was designating a community as a northern isolation area. I know for a fact that one of the regions has applied -- Williams Lake. Some of those regions have applied for that designation. What consultation was done with the physicians at a community level before those designations were actually applied, so that the physicians knew whether they came within the 100 percent or the 50 percent billing areas?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a physician supply committee that has representation on it from the B.C. Medical Association, and the local physician input came through the BCMA. But I am aware, having visited Prince George, as well, and having been lobbied by my colleagues, that there isn't necessarily universal agreement on designation.
As we put in place the physician supply measures, all of these issues have to be addressed. I'm hopeful that we can all agree on the same set of facts: how many physicians there are, what kinds of services they provide and the population base. So we continue to work on it, but the local input is not only through the regional health boards that now have their own recruiting methods but also through the physician supply committee.
S. Hawkins: I understand that these measures go into place, and then we need information from other sources. But these places are desperately short of health care providers from certain groups, and certainly psychiatry is one of them. When these areas are trying to recruit the kind of medical care providers they need, it's a disincentive to them to say: "Come here, work 24 hours a day seven days a week, because you're going to be the only one and we don't know what kind of help we can give you as far as locum replacement -- and you're going to get 50 percent billing because that's what the government has in place right now." That's the issue right now.
It's fine to say, "Yeah, we're going to wait for local input later," but some of these things have to be addressed sooner than later. When I was up there a couple of months ago, Williams Lake was looking for designation as a northern isolation area. They said no one had asked them.
Perhaps you're counting on the physicians' association to guide you, but perhaps the next question is: where are you getting your information from to help us make those kinds of decisions? Perhaps we need to go a little further and see if they've actually consulted the communities before they give you the information to help you make your decision. Hopefully, that will be rectified sooner rather than later, because these areas are in desperate need of services like psychiatry.
I'm just going to move on to the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital in Quesnel. I understand that the minister said earlier that a psych unit had been funded there. When I was there, they had set up a five-bed unit on their own, and they had used emergency funding. They said they were in crisis, and they had set up their own crisis stabilization unit.
At that time they were renovating an old part of the hospital -- a 1954 wing, which they were making into a psych wing. They were using money from what they called a startup fund for education and hiring. They had used $40,000 to do that, they were hoping for a refund from the ministry, and they were hoping for a five-bed funded unit. Did I correctly hear the minister say it had actually gone into place?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Actually, the startup funds were provided by us through the adult mental health division. That was in last year's budget: $111,950 was provided. This year we have provided, through the CHSS -- the community health services society -- $513,700 in operational funding for the five-bed crisis stabilization program at G.R. Baker.
S. Hawkins: Moving on to Prince George. When I visited the hospital there, they told me that 40 percent of their hospital admissions were drug- and/or alcohol-related. It's a huge problem in the north. I mentioned that before.
A lot of their clients or patients come from the Queen Charlotte Islands. They come from all places up north and in the region. They tell me that the regional hospital just doesn't have the kinds of resources or services to provide for these people.
[ Page 3520 ]
The travel expenses are also a problem, and that's why I ask you: is there a northern strategy over and above what the minister mentioned to help a hospital like this that is strapped for services and that goes over and above its budget when it's trying to provide services for drug and alcohol addictions?
[5:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just on the issue of travel, we have the travel assistance plan in place specifically for people in rural and remote areas. There will be an announcement forthcoming soon on that.The issue of alcohol and drug services
I do know, though, from our emergency room review -- even though it was done for the lower mainland, it can apply to other areas of the province -- that there was certainly a question about improper triage, and where people needed services out in the community other than in the emergency room, or even to be admitted into hospital, that needed to be properly identified. Therefore 24-hour triage is now in place in emergency rooms. If that's not in place in the northern or rural remote areas, we can certainly apply that to those circumstances as well.
S. Hawkins: When I hear that the resources are going to follow the need, that's very encouraging. I know there are different facilities and resource centres set up in my own community that are looking for funding, and it is a huge need. They don't get the resources, so I'll tell them where they can go looking for them now. That's good news.
When I was in Trail -- I know the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale mentioned psychogeriatric services as well -- I visited a long term care facility called the Columbia View Lodge. They started building a 25-bed unit in 1994 at a cost of $1.5 million. The unit was designed for psychogeriatric and aggressive behaviour-type patient care. That's what the construction of the unit was approved for, and that's what it was built for. When it was finished, it was downgraded to intermediate care and that's what it has been funded for. So we actually have a 25-bed unit
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't make these decisions sitting in Victoria, saying: "My God, we'll downgrade this community facility that we've assisted in funding." So I'll take that question on notice and get that information for you.
S. Hawkins: Someone in Victoria made this decision. They said the decision came down from government. Someone made that decision.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, that's what the community says.
S. Hawkins: That's what the administration told me at the lodge, so it will be interesting to get the answer to that.
When I was in Dawson Creek, I visited another facility. It's 15 years old. It's a facility called Peace River Haven. It's got 60 beds. I'll just give you these, and you can hopefully look into them. There's a 12-bed psychogeriatric unit. They're in a horrible funding crunch. When I visited through the north, certainly there was a great need for seniors facilities and long term care and psychogeriatric care. So that's another facility saying the need is there, and they just don't have the funding. I know we were told that there's more money being put into long term care and community services in this new budget, so hopefully you can look at that facility as well.
I believe there was one other in Duncan. The community is growing at a great pace, and I understand there is a huge need, again, for mental health services in that community. I was talking to the home care workers. They're finding that their workload has increased -- fiercely, is the way the field supervisor described it. He said it has just increased an incredible amount, and they can't keep up. Part of it, I understand, was from downsizing Riverview and clients not having anywhere else to turn and being picked up by home care, as well. That's just to bring the minister's attention to some of these issues. Perhaps we can get an answer on a couple of those facilities and stuff at a later date. I'll check back on those.
I wasn't here if you spoke about how the ministry is going to tie the needs of children, families and others in the mental health system to the new regional structure of the Ministry of Health and the new service delivery system in the new Ministry for Children and Families. Was that discussed at all?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it was, but just let me repeat that we're working very closely with the Ministry for Children and Families to make sure that as regionalization takes place, it's only enhanced by a greater coordination of children's services through the Ministry for Children and Families.
In my view -- and it's only a personal view -- it would be wonderful to have fully integrated services about three or four years from now, where it matters not who is in charge behind the scenes; the services are integrated at the front line. I don't necessarily mean community health centres, but even just case management integration. I know that the Minister for Children and Families agrees with me in that, as well. We're working very closely to make sure the proper protocols are in place from an administration point of view, and on the front line the patient or client notices no difference in the way the service is delivered. We're putting all of the administrative and funding protocols in place right now behind the scenes, but all of that is to take place without effect to patient or client delivery.
S. Hawkins: So have the programs been moved over as whole programs, or are they being redesigned to mesh with programs that are already in Children and Families? How is this being done?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we haven't divided up programs on a percentage basis. They either remain with the Ministry of Health, or they've moved over to the Ministry for Children and Families. And that's to make sure there's not a double level of bosses giving directions to the front line.
There are protocols that exist between the Ministry for Children and Families and my ministry around where there is a need
[ Page 3521 ]
families, but there's also a public health initiative that goes beyond children and families. There are protocols to make sure there is integration of those services at the front line.
S. Hawkins: Children's mental health needs. Some of the programs are delivered through hospitals; some are delivered through the community. How is that split up between Children and Families and the Ministry of Health?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry -- How are the programs divided up provincially and locally, did you say?
S. Hawkins: I'll try and be more clear. Some of children's mental health services are delivered through the community and some through hospitals or through facilities. How is that split up between your ministry and the Ministry for Children and Families?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Community children's mental health is the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families, but acute care admission is through the regular hospital process. However
S. Hawkins: I'm just looking at the transition, then, from moving services
Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, that's where, with the Ministry for Children and Families, there will be a care plan for a child that will be sustaining her needs throughout. The care plan will be the responsibility of a mental health worker. If there's a period of time that the child is in the hospital, the mental health worker will have the effect of that admission as part of the record and as part of the care plan.
S. Hawkins: Those are my questions for now. I'll defer to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.
K. Whittred: This is for the minister sort of, I hope, a little bit like a seventh-inning stretch or whatever it's called, as we change focus to the continuing-care system. I'm looking at a cartoon. It shows a little elderly couple at a desk manned by a nurse, and it's saying: "That's $240 for a room. Do you want a bed, too?" From that cartoon, I would like to ask: what are the ministry's vision and guiding principles for the community care system?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two principles that guide our vision. One is an integrated continuum of care -- that one should be able to age in place.
K. Whittred: Could the minister provide me with her philosophy, I guess, or her ideas about the relationship between the principles of the Canada Health Act -- that is, the principles of medicare which we all value -- and the continuing-care system?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The Canada Health Act doesn't provide, actually, for a model of continuing care in terms of payment. The Canada Health Act in which the five principles of medicare are contained provides for medical, a physician and hospital care.
It's interesting that the recent National Forum on Health, which reported recently to the Minister of Health federally, said the new health care system has to provide for services such as Pharmacare and continuing care, but they didn't actually specify how that should be funded. Right now continuing care is funded solely out of B.C. tax dollars. There is no contribution by the federal government.
[5:15]
It is certainly my view -- and I have said this to the federal Minister of Health -- that as our health care needs change with the demographics of our population, the continuum of care should not be defined just by medical and hospital services, that there is a range of health care services that should be part of our vision. It certainly is our vision in British Columbia. But our vision isn't necessarily shared by the federal government in terms of funding. So there is a distinction made by the federal act between the principles of medicare and continuing care.K. Whittred: I think I was trying to make the point and to have it on the record that there are two sets of principles that we deal with when we're talking about health care and that, as the minister said, those things that fall within the jurisdiction of continuing care are not party to medicare as we understand it. It is separate legislation with separate sets of expectations.
The second thing I'd like to do is ask the minister about a couple of definitions, just so we have our vocabulary straight. One of these is continuing care vis-�-vis community care. Does the minister equate those two terms? If not, what is the difference?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Continuing care is the support system of our health care system for people with long-term illnesses, chronic illnesses or illnesses that aren't treated in an acute care setting. There are community support services within the continuing-care program. So community care is a range of services, some of which are provided to continuing-care clients and some of which are not.
K. Whittred: I don't know whether that solves my problem. I have been rather
Hon. J. MacPhail: If there are any financial consequences that flow from this, I reserve my right to reverse my answer.
That would be continuing care in the community. Let me just help you with a couple of definitions. Within continuing care there are community support services. Continuing care is the care offered outside of an acute care setting. There are community support services, such as home support, adult day services -- Meals on Wheels is an example of that. Within those contexts there's even a further breakdown of what services are provided within those programs.
K. Whittred: I don't really want to dwell on this. I wanted to be sure that as we have this dialogue, the minister
[ Page 3522 ]
and I are talking about the same thing. My own experience, in the reading and visiting that I've done, is that the terms community care and continuing care are pretty much used interchangeably. I don't know whether that makes a difference or not.
Anyway, we will get on with the more important stuff. The first thing I want to talk about is the funding of continuing care. It is my understanding that with regionalization, the ministry is moving to a population-based type of funding instead of funding individual programs and also that the determinants of health -- things like demographics, income and so on -- are also becoming criteria. Is this the case? And if so, does the ministry have some sort of formula for this?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Well, certainly the direction in which the member suggests the funding method is moving is being considered by our ministry not just in the area of continuing care, but in the funding of health care across the system. We're actually working with the regions right now on an appropriate model that takes into account population-based funding. But, again, I haven't in any way got endorsement from my cabinet colleagues on that method of funding yet, because we haven't reached agreement on what model is the best model for moving in this direction.
K. Whittred: So would I be correct in assuming that the funding that is in place at the moment is still funding according to programs like mental health and so on? Okay.
One other question I want to ask in this line regarding funding
Hon. J. MacPhail: The regions get funding on the basis of the number of beds in their region that provide continuing care. Access to those beds is on the basis of a provincial wait-list. So the regions are funded according to the services provided in their community. Your mom's access to that institution is on the basis of a provincial wait-list.
K. Whittred: Yes, I do understand that. But now that those facilities are regionalized, and their operating dollars -- correct me if I understand this wrong -- are coming from the regional budget
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not sure whether there's been any change in this area just because of regionalization. So let me just try to help you out about how it's worked before and how it will work under regionalization. The facilities within the region are funded. Planning for future needs, capital construction, is done on the basis of where the need is in the community, based on demographics. A person who may choose to reside in Victoria in a continuing-care institution and who now lives somewhere else puts her name on the wait-list in that community. Nothing changes there.
K. Whittred: Yes, I do understand that nothing changes. I just think there are eventually going to be some changes in the planning. However, I guess you can sort of put that down as something that I feel may happen in the future.
The next point is: can the minister tell me how community care hours are budgeted? Are they budgeted by the patient, by the block or by the hours?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They are funded on the basis of hours, and it's on the basis of the utilization patterns within the community compared to the provincial utilization rates. Other factors than just utilization, such as age of population and population increase, are taken into account on a regional basis, as well.
K. Whittred: Just to be sure, hon. Chair, that I do understand this correctly: each region will budget X number of hours?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The region receives an envelope for allocation of community hours from the ministry.
K. Whittred: Can the minister tell me: has that envelope increased in the last year?
[5:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: In '96-97 it increased 5 percent, and in '97-98 there's funding for another 5 percent increase as well.K. Whittred: Now, I wonder if the minister can tell me: of those hours, was there an increase in clients that were served between last year and this year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't have the figures for '97-98 because, of course, that will depend on the allocation of hours amongst various clients. But the number of clients from '95-96 to '96-97 decreased, and the average hours of service per client per month increased. So there were fewer clients receiving more services.
K. Whittred: I love it when a plan comes together. That's what I thought the answer would be. I wonder if the minister can tell me what her conclusions are about that particular number. Why is the number of hours increasing but the number of clients decreasing?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I know this from my constituency work and not as Minister of Health. Because of the way home support services developed over the years, it was often not necessarily a health-related service but a home support service. For instance, people would get light housekeeping services that were perhaps inappropriate from a health care budget point of view. So the focus was very much more shifted toward real home support services needed for people with health care needs, and that meant a different kind of client got the service and got the service in greater intensity.
K. Whittred: I thank the minister for that explanation. I am well aware of the explanation. It is one of the most common things that I have heard as I have gone about the province speaking with front-line workers in the continuing care system and with home support people, and that is that they are dealing with sicker and sicker clients -- in many cases, clients of IC 3 and even EC classifications -- in the home. And I will direct this in terms of some more specific
[ Page 3523 ]
instances as we continue. I want to make a point of it now, when we're talking about funding, because it seems as though we are moving backwards.
One of the most common flags, if you like, that go up around this particular issue is that by neglecting those seniors who are -- if I can call it -- at the less needy end of the scale, they are in fact the very people that are ending up in our acute wards in crisis, with broken hips and so on. I was told one story about a lady who
So that is one area that certainly I think the minister should pass onto the regions. It is an area that I think has been brought to my attention by every single solitary home support and continuing care person that I have worked with.
Next I would like to refer, as we continue to look at funding, to the minister's news release of March 19, 1997. In this news release the first thing the minister announced was: "
Hon. J. MacPhail: The increase is 5 percent to community services, home support services. It's enveloped to the region; they're targeted. The regions have to spend it on these services.
K. Whittred: The second part of the announcement deals with
Hon. J. MacPhail: You're asking about these home care nurses -- are they new positions? Yes, they're additional positions.
K. Whittred: Thirdly -- and most importantly, I think -- from this news release that is most interesting to me is the part about the comprehensive strategy to address the province's growing and aging population. It goes on to say: "The strategy will examine various ways
Hon. J. MacPhail: The strategy, based on the vision that I outlined in the first place, is that there be a continuum of care and that one be able to age in place, so to speak. That's why there's the continuation of emphasis around home care services here and the speciality services that arise out of home care -- services that provide alternatives to hospital care. This is to assist in avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions and perhaps even allowing earlier discharge of our growing aging population.
The comprehensive strategy is across our whole health care system as we move from a model that is no longer based on hospital and physician services to a model that's based on a much wider range of services demanded, literally, closer to home. Many of those services apply directly to increasing health care needs as we age and are budgeted across our health care system. Part of the specifics of how we implement such a strategy are contained literally in the announcement the hon. member is examining, which is on community health care funding, home support funding, community rehabilitation funding and the funding of continuing-care beds, as well.
K. Whittred: One of the things I would comment on as I have become more familiar and more knowledgable about this area in the last year is precisely the absence of any kind of comprehensive strategy. I do see programs, but I see an incredible difference between various regions and a lot of different interpretations. This is why I asked about things like how you define continuing care, because I find that it pretty much depends on who you're talking to. That is why I'm wondering when exactly we can expect to see that strategy announced within the ministry.
Another particular thing that is said over and over again about continuing care is that it is just rife with rules and regulations. One of the most obvious, I guess, is the rather artificial definition of what an intermediate care patient is and what an extended-care patient is, and, of course, the funding depends on that. My question is: now that we have regionalization and funding is being done regionally and many of these decisions will be made regionally, will the ministry allow the regions
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually love to be able to leap up and agree with you, because in my heart of hearts I know that might work just as effectively as the current system. But let me be a little bit more responsible and say that we know there's a problem. I agree with you that it's rife with rules and regulations that have been piled upon rules and regulations, with no cleaning-out of the closets in between. We know there's a problem.
We're working with the industry right now on the issue of how we literally reform the system, and perhaps even that will lead to a conclusion that the Continuing Care Act has to be changed as well. I had it described to me very recently by a continuing-care client. She's a young woman who has a physical disability, and therefore she's a part of the continuing-care system. She said that she was sure the Continuing Care Act was developed by W.A.C. Bennett when he established the May Bennett Home in Kelowna, and all the rules and regulations have flowed from that kind of model. Now, the May Bennett Home is an excellent facility, but there are many different kinds of continuing care that have developed, and the client of continuing care is no longer what we would assume the client would be -- i.e., a very aged person who is literally in her last days in an institution. That's no longer the continuing-care client, by any means.
We have problems with the way people get to appeal the decisions made around their future and continuing care. But I can't go as far as to say that it is a hodgepodge that leads in any way to a level of care that's inappropriate. What I do believe is that as we reform the continuing-care system with the industry and the clients themselves, we'll be able to get much greater benefit out of the dollars that we spend now. So that is a task the staff are working on in the ministry, and I will be bringing that forward -- I can't promise a time frame on it -- to my cabinet colleagues in the coming year.
[5:45]
K. Whittred: Now, another thing that is mentioned quite often in the various reports[ Page 3524 ]
ter that I have never seen any system so thoroughly studied as continuing care. I think every single solitary region has a very thick report on it. But there is often mention of defining core services. I wonder if the minister could tell me exactly what is meant by that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume that the member isn't referring just to continuing-care services but to core services across the health care system. Part of the regionalization process that
K. Whittred: The next question I wish to address is about the issue of integrated services across ministries. There have been questions in this session about how those are addressed, particularly with the Ministry for Children and Families. I am particularly concerned with the seniors and more elderly people. There is quite a good deal of interministry function, if you like. I know that there exists -- or at least there was -- an interministry committee. I wonder if the minister could tell me if that committee ever meets. Or is this being handled in some other way?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that committee does exist. It involves all ministries and Crown corporations that provide services to seniors. It continues to meet four times a year.
K. Whittred: Does this committee have any minutes or reports that are public?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I assume you're interested in them. We can make them available to you, or you can have access to them.
K. Whittred: Another need that has come up or another concern that comes up quite frequently in canvassing the various residential care facilities is the need for flexibility. This, I guess, sort of refers to the former question about rules and regulations. But something that is pointed out over and over again is not only the inflexibility between levels of care -- that is between a care facility being designated, say, as intermediate and not being able to do anything about the fact that their residents perhaps have gone beyond that -- but also not being able or not having the freedom to offer respite beds, self-care units or various other sorts of things. This seems to be a problem.
Another need was for units that would support patients, following acute care admission just for short periods of time, to get back on their feet when they didn't need long-term care; what they needed was a couple of weeks of care. I'm wondering whether some of these issues will be addressed with regionalization.
Hon. J. MacPhail: These are matters that we're looking at in the context of regionalization and community needs. All of these demands are, of course, defined by the parameters of what's available fiscally.
K. Whittred: With regionalization, will those decisions now
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to
K. Whittred: I'm sorry -- for you, volunteers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, right -- very sensitive about that. Anyway, we've had discussions about that before. They voluntarily work together on a service delivery model with the regional health board. But there are provincial standards and regulations in terms of continuing care and community care that continue to apply.
But how a regional health board allocates resources in the area of continuing care is up to the regional health board. Is there an opportunity for some creation of new flexibility in the system and perhaps some new models of health care delivery? Yes.
K. Whittred: It's been suggested that I request that we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress and resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 2:40 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 9: minister's office, $332,000 (continued).
Hon. J. Cashore: I just wanted to get some matters of finishing-up on the record.
For the information of the members, with regard to the questions around the Angus Reid survey, the ministry staff spoke to Angus Reid at lunch a couple of days ago. Angus
[ Page 3525 ]
Reid advised that the survey in question is syndicated and protected by copyright and stated that the ministry would be in breach of copyright if it released the document. Through our staff member, the survey group invited the member or anyone with further questions about the issue to contact them directly.
With regard to the Osgoode Communications contract follow-up, a copy of the service contract is available for the member. Ministry staff have deleted the rates charged by the contractor; this information is protected under section 21 of FOI. I have also attached samples of the ministry's daily news bulletin for the month of May 1997.
With regard to the issues that were being raised by the member for Peace River South around the KPMG report on cost-sharing matters, I just wanted to get a few matters onto the record in response to that. We'll see to it that he gets copies of Hansard so that he'll be aware of this response.
The member raised a question regarding the cost of settling treaties and B.C.'s cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. I indicated I would clarify the numbers, and having done so, I would now like to read into the record the relevant portions of the KPMG report of January '96 on the benefits and costs of treaties in B.C.
From the summary report on page 3, I note:
"In looking at the costs of resolving land claims, KPMG included anticipated cash costs involved in settlements as well as other costs, including funding of the Treaty Commission, the costs of the government's broad based consultations with stakeholders and third parties, communicating land claims information across the province, and purchasing third party interests in tenures where necessary.From the full report on page 11, I would like to read these additional comments:"KPMG estimates total settlement cash cost to range between $5.7 billion and $6.2 billion. Canada will contribute the bulk of these costs, with B.C. providing the lesser share of those costs, estimated at between $0.8 billion and $1.4 billion. B.C.'s contribution includes credit for revenues on land which the province will contribute, reducing the province's share of the cash costs of treaties.
"When all the costs are added up, including the costs of negotiating and implementing treaties, the consultants expect the dollar cost to British Columbia to range between $1.4 billion and $2.1 billion over the next 40 years. Even at the higher of these values, this averages out to $50 million a year over the period, or less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the provincial budget, a figure which [then] Premier Harcourt said he is sure all British Columbians will agree is affordable, considering the economic stimulus it will produce.
"That averages to about $35 a year for each household in the province."
"For the provincial government only, the estimated cash, cash equivalent and settlement costs range between $0.8 billion and $1.4 billion, in 1995 constant dollars. The province's share of the cash settlement costs ranges between 12 percent and 22 percent of the total. The actual share may well be between these two scenarios."Additionally for the record, I would also like to clarify the term "1995 constant dollars." From the KPMG report at the bottom of page 5, we note the following:
"Constant dollars is a concept used to bring the number of future cash flows to today's dollars, adjusted only for inflation. The estimates cover the financial and economic impacts over the assumed 40-year settlement period."Finally, I'd like to provide to the member for Peace River South copies of the following documents: the full report of KPMG from January 1996; the summary report, also from January 1996; and the B.C.-Canada cost-sharing agreement and supporting material from June 1993. I will now ask that this be taken to the office of the member for Peace River South.
There is a question with regard to mapping costs for 1997-98. The ministry expects to purchase $175,000 of mapping material from other ministries.
I was asked for the criteria of the line ministry fund. Instead of reading that into the record, I'll just send that over to the hon. member for his information.
[2:45]
M. de Jong: Having come this far in these estimates debates, I wonder if I could turn to part 2 of the series of questions I prepared for the minister. I thought that might elicit more of a rise, and apparently it has.I think we have come very close to the close of this process. I will tell the minister that I've found the debate and exchange to be interesting. He will understand that at times we on the opposition side perhaps desire more information than he is able or willing to provide.
I think one of the things we should be mindful of as we conclude this exercise is that there are a whole series of negotiations going on. The minister knows that -- and his deputy -- better than anyone. We haven't canvassed those table by table. I think in many instances the minister, by virtue of the negotiations that are taking place, would feel precluded from commenting on the specifics of those negotiations.
There is probably one thing, one feeling, that links all of those tables, and that is a sense on the part of the parties to those negotiations that whatever can be done to speed them up, expedite them, should be done. In some cases, that extends well beyond simply providing more resources or more money -- "resources" being the term politicians like to use when they don't want to wave dollar signs. I suggest there are things that can be done insofar as creating incentives for parties to expedite negotiations, to come together to negotiate on a regional basis. I think there are differences with respect to the form some of these agreements will take or should take -- what the province should be striving for.
The minister has engaged in an exchange between members of the official opposition and the member for Peace River South around things like certainty language, cost issues and land transfers. All of these are issues that the minister is familiar with, that we have canvassed in these estimates before. But they remain very much front and centre for those people and those communities who are going to be most affected by these final settlements. Ultimately, of course, all of us are affected insofar as all of us are responsible for shouldering the cost associated with these settlements.
When we started out, we began by acknowledging that a change of attitude has taken place in British Columbia whereby the vast majority of British Columbians believe that this is an exercise we should be involved in -- that is, the negotiation of treaties. There is a belief that I don't think existed ten or 15 years ago that benefit will accrue to native and non-native British Columbians alike when we resolve these issues. There are differences, I think, in the attitudes people have about the form those agreements should take, and I think in most cases those are genuinely held differences. The minister will have the benefit -- I hope he will see it as a benefit -- and his government will have the benefit of a report that I think will be tabled shortly by the select standing committee that was commissioned to go forth and speak to British Columbians.
As I said at the outset, I am appreciative of the opportunity to have participated in that exercise, insofar as it has provided me with, I think, a better insight into some of the
[ Page 3526 ]
challenges that face government -- both locally and provincially -- and aboriginal peoples in concluding these agreements. I am obliged to members of the opposition and the member for Peace River South for their cooperation in these estimates debates and also, of course, to the minister for his participation.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his comments. It strikes me that there is vastly more that unites us than divides us within this House as we address the issue of treaty settlements in a modern context. There was some, I thought, very lively and useful discussion, even debate, during the course of these estimates, which are informative and instructive for me personally. I very genuinely take in that discussion as we seek to constantly be improving this process.
I do appreciate the call to expedite the process by making use of economies of scale, and I would say that when I first became the minister, British Columbia was like a voice crying in the wilderness on that particular issue. The fact that Canada and the First Nations Summit are now coming on board and seeking to find ways of expediting the process through regional and provincewide approaches is a very positive move.
I want to say also that I think that the work that the hon. member is involved in, along with several of his colleagues, on the select standing committee is going to make a tremendous contribution to all British Columbians. I eagerly await the findings of that report and look forward to the opportunity to incorporate those recommendations into the way in which we continue.
The last thing I'd like to say, hon. Chair, is that I very much appreciate the staff support that has been available to us through this process and indeed throughout the year. I believe that the personnel in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs are standard-setters with regard to the commitment they bring to their job and the support that they provide to persons such as myself, who are very much in need of their knowledge and their good work.
Having said that, I would like to move the appropriate
Vote 9 approved.
Vote 10: ministry operations, $23,269,000 -- approved.
The Chair: Well, that ends this session. We'll take a brief intermission until the next ministry is ready -- the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair and hon. colleague across the way, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you and to say how happy I am for this to be my first estimates. I'm looking forward to the discussion and to the debates, and I'm quite anxious that we get going. I have some notes prepared, and I'll sort of try and stick to them. I may wander off, but it'll be relevant to the debate.
The task of being the Minister of Municipal Affairs is, I believe, an extremely important one these days. The ministry plays a role in developing and maintaining a legal framework for local government, housing and safety. Those are all very important issues. They may not be front and centre for many people in the province, but they impact them in their daily lives and the activities of local government a great deal. I think the work of the ministry is extremely important.
I spent seven years on a city council, so I have a full understanding of the role of local government and the role the ministry plays interacting with local government. I think that's a relationship which over the next few months and the coming years is going to be redeveloped in a way that has not been seen in the past. I think we have to move to more of an empowerment phase -- that is, to move responsibility from the province to the municipalities through such things as a rewrite of the Municipal Act, through such things as giving more authority for municipalities to take care of the things that they do best. I want to see that happen over the next few years, and we've already started doing that through such things as the joint council and the framework protocol which was signed last September at the UBCM. For example, under Bill 2 we talked a bit about how that's working, and I expect we will be having more debate on that over the coming days.
The ministry operates right now in a very challenging fiscal framework. As most of you know, we took a substantial reduction in our budget in the past year, and that entailed some rather large reorganizations within the ministry -- looking at the functions that we do, finding better ways of doing them and also of delivering services. So there's a great deal of work going on in that area. I'm anticipating that more work will be done over the coming months and over the coming year. Whatever budgets we are given, my ministry will be able to work within that framework.
The other part of the ministry that I think needs to be touched on is Housing. That's an extremely important function of the ministry. We are one of two provinces that currently build housing stock in the province. That's something I think all of us can be very proud of. It's a challenging role, particularly in a growing province such as ours where we're seeing dramatic population increase. One only has to look at the '96 census figures to see the impact of the growth on this province and to realize that despite the fact that interest rates have come down, despite the fact that it's easier in many ways for people to afford houses than it was, say, three or four years ago, we live in one of the most expensive -- if not the most expensive -- housing markets in the country. A great number of people still cannot afford to buy their own homes, or they're spending far too much of their income and money that they have available to them to pay rent. This is why I think the government's housing program in the Housing portion of the ministry is an extremely important component and is doing a great deal of work. I feel very strongly that that's a direction we have to continue to push in. There's a great deal of work being done around that, and I look forward to discussing that.
I think one of the biggest challenges facing the ministry right now is in the area of working with local government to redefine our relationship, not just in the framework in terms of the Municipal Act but through such things as growth strategies. Because one of the biggest challenges facing local government is dealing with the rate of growth that's taking place, not just in the lower mainland but on south Vancouver Island -- on the east coast of Vancouver Island, that belt from Victoria to Nanaimo and up to Campbell River -- in the interior, in the Okanagan, in Kamloops and Prince George, and in the
[ Page 3527 ]
Kootenays. Growth issues are coming up all over the place. This ministry has a tremendous role to play in helping to manage that type of growth. We work very closely with the minister responsible for transit, for example, in ensuring that proper transit is introduced throughout the province, particularly in the lower mainland. So there's a great deal of work being done that I think is going to bear fruit over the next few years.
A lot of it is going to take place in a slightly different context than it has before; that is, in my opinion, it will be less talked down and more jointly agreed to. I think there's a strong recognition within this ministry that as much as local government is a creature of the province, in many ways it is an equal. The philosophy that I've taken is that for any changes that are to be made, we've got to sit down and discuss jointly.
So those are some brief opening remarks. I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. colleague, and I look forward to us getting down to business and debating the issues and answering any questions he has. My staff are here, and we're ready.
G. Abbott: Like the minister, I'm very much looking forward to the Municipal Affairs estimates. I hope it will be a very productive exercise for the minister, for myself and for my colleagues on this side.
To begin, I'd like to congratulate the minister on his elevation to cabinet, in particular on his appointment to the post of Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have always fancied that as one of the more important appointments in the provincial government, and I'm sure it reflects the great esteem in which he's held by his Premier and his colleagues. I have had the opportunity to congratulate him previously, but maybe the congratulations will help to carry him, to sustain him through these long deliberations associated with the estimates process.
I think the minister's background in municipal government will be invaluable to him in his post as Minister of Municipal Affairs. Seven years is a considerable length of time in that particular area of responsibility, and it will be very, very valuable in assisting the minister in not only dealing with the day-to-day issues which I'm sure confront him as minister but also in terms of the broad view -- the vision of where we might go in this province in terms of relations between the province and its municipalities and regional districts. I think that vision is very important. Without that vision, we do tend to get bogged down in the day-to-day affairs which, while very important, really don't necessarily lead us to any higher plane in terms of those relations. So I look forward to having the minister share his experiences in municipal government.
I have had some of the same experience. My personal background is more at the regional district level. I spent 17 years as a director and the last ten as the chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, and also half a dozen years as a councillor at the district of Sicamous after it incorporated. Hopefully, we can use that experience for our joint benefit, as well.
The one observation I would make at this point is that when I was first elected to the regional district in 1980, I think the Municipal Act was probably about a third or half the size of what it is today. I get tired, actually, carrying the Municipal Act around now. It is a far larger document than it was 17 years ago. Maybe to some extent that is inevitable, but I think there has also been, over time, an accumulation of materials in the Municipal Act which perhaps are no longer needed. I think a good housecleaning and to some extent a good purging of some of the more redundant aspects of the Municipal Act may be in order, and I look forward to hearing the minister's views on that as well.
There have been some very remarkable -- or perhaps a better way to put it would be monumental -- changes in the area of municipal affairs over the past year since I last canvassed Municipal Affairs estimates with the former minister. Anyone who read an account -- those who would have been unfortunate enough to read an account -- of our estimates last time around would probably be struck by how relatively stable things seemed to be in those estimates compared to what I think are the very dramatic changes we saw in the subsequent 12 months. For example, there have obviously been some very positive events. I think the signing of the protocol -- I think it's called the protocol of recognition -- with the Union of B.C. Municipalities by the Premier and the then Municipal Affairs minister was certainly very much a positive development over the past year. In fairness, even during estimates, there were certainly some indications that that protocol would be signed in September.
Based on the discussion in the estimates of 1996, less predictable were things like the elimination of the downtown revitalization program. In response to my questions at that time, the former minister indicated that the downtown revitalization program was very much a success, which was a view we held in common. Certainly there is nothing in my reading and rereading of the 1996 estimates that would have suggested that the downtown revitalization program would have faced elimination within months of our discussion. I understand that there may be a successor program, which I hope the minister will presently tell me is bigger -- well, not necessarily bigger, but better and more efficient, and so on -- than the one it replaced. I guess that remains to be seen, but there was enormous concern among municipalities about the loss of the downtown revitalization program, certainly concerns that personnel like Martin Thomas might be lost in the changes. Hopefully, that has not been the case; hopefully, Martin Thomas is going to be with us in the foreseeable future; and hopefully, there is a successor program to the downtown revitalization program which is, as I say, going to be better and more positive and so on, than the program it replaced. I look forward to canvassing that issue with the minister.
I think there was also very considerable upset among regional districts and municipalities about the cuts to the economic development commissions and some of the other smaller programs related to municipal and regional district operations. And, of course, there was enormous upset and disenchantment associated with the changes announced on November 26, 1996. I think that was a very dark day in the history of relations between the province and its local governments. It is going to be some time before the hurt and the upset and the distrust occasioned by the announcements of November 26 will be overcome. I think this minister is going to have to work very hard to once again cultivate the trust and respect of local governments, following the events of November 26.
I think we've all spent enough time in our debate over Bill 2 to make our feelings abundantly clear about those changes. Certainly we won't be leaving these estimates without further discussion of it. But after our debate on Bill 2, I think the minister is well aware of my views on the way in which those changes were announced. Obviously there was a very real failure of consultation in the case of the November 26 announcements. I don't propose to belabour that, but clearly there were some problems in the way that was done. I hope this minister and this government have learned from that
[ Page 3528 ]
experience that indeed another level of government in British Columbia deserves far better treatment in terms of discussing those kinds of changes than what was provided on November 26.
[3:15]
The changes led to the repeal of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act, which provided, from year to year, some certainty as to what the global amount of transfers from the province to municipalities and regional districts would be. Again, I made the point very clear to the minister in Bill 2 debate that, in my view, without a mechanism or a provision along the lines of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act the ministry will be placed in an almost untenable situation from year to year in trying to guess what the global size of grants might be. There is going to have to be some measure of predictability and certainty restored into the process that is not there now. I think it will be very difficult for this minister to deal with local governments from year to year on the basis of uncertainty, unpredictability, instability of grants. There will have to be a better mechanism developed than, I guess, what doesn't exist right now to deal with that.As well, other changes that we've seen over the past year
More recently, the adoption of the joint council approach with respect to future consultation and decision-making between the two levels of government
I should also note in my introductory comments that the minister is very fortunate in having the very capable staff that he has at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Over the years I have always been impressed by the professionalism that is found at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm sure they will do their best to try to ensure that municipal relations are conducted on a very responsible and professional basis in this province.
The minister noted in his introduction that there had been some reductions in the provincial budget for the operations of this ministry. I want to discuss that with him, and also the reorganization that has occurred subject to that reduction.
Could the minister first advise us of the extent to which the Ministry of Municipal Affairs budget for ministry operations has been reduced?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I begin, I would like to introduce my staff, who my hon. colleague made some nice comments about: my deputy minister, Suzanne Veit; my director of financial operations, Lori Wanamaker; and my assistant deputy minister, Ken MacLeod.
The answer to your question is $15.5 million.
G. Abbott: I apologize for not having the facts in front of me -- $15.5 million over what amount, to put it in context percentagewise or otherwise?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's down from a budget of $146,769,871. It represents a 10.59 percent reduction.
G. Abbott: The minister indicated that the reduction in funding for ministry operations had necessitated some reorganization within the ministry. Could the minister outline for me the reorganizations that have occurred within the ministry?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The total overall reduction was about 42 FTEs and was accomplished through a number of ways. First, within the ministry operations itself there was an overall reduction of five, which amounted to about seven FTEs. The downtown revitalization program -- which the member has already alluded to -- the library services branch, municipal investigations, the building standards office, and the office of the fire commissioner in Nanaimo: those are all areas in which staff reductions took place.
G. Abbott: Overall, then, 42 full-time-equivalents in those various areas that the minister outlined.
Could the minister advise what vacancies there are currently within the senior staff -- if I can use the term "senior staff" -- of the ministry or the minister's office?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently there are no existing vacancies of senior staff in my office.
G. Abbott: So, for example, when the minister indicates that there have been reductions in the municipal investigations branch, I presume, then, that Fred Thompson is still with the ministry and that it's more junior staff who have been eliminated?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the case of the individual you just mentioned, he retired, and that particular program was incorporated into the ombudsman's office. So there's no vacancy, whether it may have been due to retirement
G. Abbott: Could the minister outline -- and I'm looking for some detail on this -- the ways in which the delivery of services from the province to local government has changed over the past year? For example, the minister's comments with respect to municipal investigation is very useful. Obviously there's been a decision made, in the interest of efficiency, about moving municipal investigations into the ombudsman's office. So there's been a well-defined change in the delivery of services there. Could the minister outline for me, in whatever detail he feels is appropriate at this point, how other services have changed their delivery to local government?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess one of the key changes would have been building standards shifting over to more of a policy function; that certainly would have been one. The other would have been around the office of the fire commissioner --
[ Page 3529 ]
the closing of the fire commissioner's office in Nanaimo and that service being administered from here in Victoria. I guess the other would be -- and it doesn't entirely relate to the Municipal Affairs side of things -- the transfer of the SAFER program to B.C. Housing, so that all subsidy programs for housing are now administered out of Vancouver. In terms of what services are available to municipalities, they're still there; they're just not necessarily
G. Abbott: The changes that have been made with respect to building standards
Hon. M. Farnworth: Prior to this year, we never really had what you would call a corporate policy approach to the ministry. Things tended to operate independently. We've now taken a corporate policy approach, so building standards has been moved into that, and it's being administered from a policy basis. There's currently a business plan being developed and reviewed as to how to implement it -- as to how to deliver what building standards used to deliver in a more efficient format. It's also part of the safety systems review, a report which was just delivered to me a couple of weeks ago. Out of that will come recommendations and perhaps legislative change next year. That's going to evolve over the next several months in terms of consultation with all the different stakeholder groups. That's what's happening right now.
I think there were eight FTEs at the time. The key policy people, or the key people who were involved in interpreting the code, are still with the ministry -- just in the policy branch. So the expertise is still there.
[3:30]
G. Abbott: We may have to deal with this in a little bit more detail later on, but as a general question now, is thereHon. M. Farnworth: The only area that really changed is, again, building standards, where you used to be able to phone up and get informal advice instantly. Now that's no longer the case. Instead you have to use an appeal process. The Building Safety Advisory Council is there, and that is an avenue that can still be used. As well, I think part of what's going to happen, what you'll see evolve in the next while, is changes made to legislation for building officials that are going to formally recognize what they do, in the same way that engineers are recognized -- that sort of thing. So they'll be able to develop something within that function as well. The only real change has been in terms of being able to pick up the phone and get instant advice, and we no longer do that.
G. Abbott: Just to put the 42 positions in context, then, what would those 42 positions represent in the context of the overall staffing of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at this point in time?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be about an 8.5 percent reduction. Last year we had 498 FTEs and this year it's 456.
G. Abbott: Does the minister have any plans to canvass or talk to local governments with respect to issues surrounding the delivery of services -- whether they're satisfactory or whether there are ways in which they can be done more efficiently or effectively? Is there any anticipation on the minister's part that a consultation process with respect to delivery of services will be undertaken?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I think there'll be considerable opportunity for consultation with municipalities in a number of key areas. First, as I mentioned before, is a safety systems review which addresses all aspects of safety throughout the province, and that has a big impact in terms of municipalities. One of the things that I want to see before any changes take place is that there's adequate time for reaction to the proposals contained in the report recommendations. So I expect feedback from the municipalities there. And that may provide, in an immediate sense, local and regional reaction to some of the recommendations, because that may vary throughout the province. The second and, I guess, the most important is that joint council process -- it is for them to come forward with recommendations and changes that, I would say, reflect the opinions or concerns of the municipalities on a provincewide basis. If this change is going to take place, that's how I see it developing.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise how many FTEs were eliminated by the closure of the fire commissioner's office in Nanaimo?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There were a total of nine FTEs eliminated: five in the office in Nanaimo and one from each of the other four regional offices throughout the province. At the time the eliminations were made, those four regional offices were vacant positions.
G. Abbott: I guess what I would like to know is the functions that were provided by those offices -- I guess they are still being provided by some of the regional offices. I gather, in the case of Nanaimo, whatever functions had been delivered out of Nanaimo are now being delivered out of Victoria. What services or functions have been lost as a result of the closure, and what implications does that have in terms of services to Nanaimo?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of services that have been available to the community, none have been lost. What simply happened is that the person or the provision of that function has now been shifted to Victoria. So, in terms of advice in investigations, that still takes place. In terms of investigations taking place, an investigator now goes up from Victoria as opposed to Nanaimo. But all the functions that used to take place are still taking place. They're just delivered out of Victoria.
G. Abbott: Certainly the provision of investigative services would not appear to necessarily inconvenience or impact the community. I'm wondering about the other functions, however. For example, are residents of the community obliged to drive to Victoria, now, for permits which they were once able to get in Nanaimo? Or are they able to access those permits through a local government in Nanaimo?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The office of the fire commissioner was not a permit-issuing operation. So, in terms of the public being inconvenienced in that way, that would not take place.
G. Abbott: The movement of the SAFER program to B.C. Housing, which I guess we've discussed in the context of
[ Page 3530 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes -- section 27 or something like that.
G. Abbott: One of those bills, anyway. It wasn't one of the more memorable sections of Bill 2, as I recall, although it may have been a very constructive change. Could the minister advise how many FTEs were eliminated as a consequence of this move?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Eleven FTEs were transferred to Vancouver. Not all of the individuals occupying those FTEs went. Some of them found positions elsewhere in the government here in Victoria.
G. Abbott: I'd like to turn now, if I could, to some of the more broad-brush kinds of issues associated with the operation of the ministry -- or the mandate, the goal, the vision of the ministry. Could the minister outline for me his goals and expectations for the coming year for his ministry?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Where to start? There are so many things I'd like to do. But in terms of the ministry itself, I want to establish a good, solid working relationship with municipalities, so that there's a good consultative approach; that my office is open and accessible to municipalities and they can feel very much that there's an open-door policy within the ministry; that we are as much a resource centre; that we're here to help facilitate whenever possible.
I guess the key -- and this is what I discussed with the member before in some of the Bill 2 debate and in some of the regional meetings of the municipal associations -- is that I want to see us start to move and change that relationship between the province and the municipalities, and really get that process involving the joint council and the principles that were outlined in the protocol -- and we signed it last September
I think the other priority area is to really start to include municipalities in determining that change package. Like, what are the priorities, what are the key areas that have to be dealt with first? Is it approvals? Is it expanded-authority jurisdiction? Is it resolving some provincewide issues that have been outstanding at UBCM conventions for a long time? I think that's what municipalities are looking for: to see that the province is
I'd say those are probably my three top priorities that I see we need to have in the coming year. I think if we can do that we will have made a good start in carrying on into years 2, 3 and 4.
G. Abbott: That certainly would seem to be a fairly ambitious program on the part of the minister, to make progress in all of those areas. I hope that we will be seeing from this ministry some definitive moves in terms of policies which will, in fact, empower local governments to a greater extent than today. I think that, functionally, the province is not well placed at this point to provide what the municipalities and regional districts are looking for on the financial side, which is -- to use that tired phrase once again -- predictability, certainty and stability. I think that is something the ministry is going to have to work on to get that down. Certainly the prospects for enhanced autonomy
I guess that leads to my next question, which is: what measures aimed at enhancing local autonomy or empowerment will we be seeing in the weeks and months ahead?
[3:45]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think there will be a substantial legislative package for this coming year. That will deal with a number of proposals that we have put forward and that the UBCM put forward. Some of it came prior to the formation of the joint council; some of it has come about because of the joint council. That's one part.To me, the second is the most exciting, and in some ways will be the most telling -- that is, how we develop proposals and a legislative change package for next year. That will be the first year in which change comes about with that joint council process having been in place.
In terms of change, I asked at the last meeting for the priorities of the UBCM to be brought back as quickly as possible -- hopefully, by the end of June -- so that my staff can then start to work on that, develop some sort of legislative framework and develop whatever policy work needs to take place so that we have a package to bring to the House next spring.
G. Abbott: I can be a little bit more specific about what I had in mind. Are there going to be further measures introduced in the House in the present session or in the fall term -- should there be one -- aimed at the enhancement of local autonomy. Or have we seen the sum of the legislative agenda of this ministry to this point in the session? Will we be seeing more? Could the minister outline, to the extent that it's possible, the areas in which we're likely to see that, and the direction in which that would take us?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to assure my hon. colleague across the way that there is a substantial package still to come. We've only just seen Bill 2 and Bill 22, the MEVA act. Those are the only two pieces of legislation -- and the provisions in Bills 25 and 26 -- that have taken place. I think the primary focus on legislation to come will be around the area of approvals, so that municipalities and regional districts can do more things without having to come and get my signature or the approval of Victoria.
One of the ones that I would like to see this year -- I doubt it will be this year, because I think there will be more work required; that's why next year is much more realistic -- is the area that I know the member and I have discussed: long-term leasing, public-private partnerships.
We've just done the MEVA for Victoria. That will be before the House for debate. It is very much a pilot project, but
[ Page 3531 ]
at the same time I also think that it lays the framework for how not only the province but municipalities can proceed with these types of projects in the future, and that would be a focus. Certainly it is my intent to get that on the legislative calendar for next year.
G. Abbott: If he can, could the minister outline more precisely the areas in which he anticipates improvements could be made to the Municipal Act in relation to approvals, whether those will result in the elimination of unnecessary regulation through the Municipal Act -- that kind of thing -- and in what areas that elimination of approval requirements might be found?
Hon. M. Farnworth: If I sound vague, it's not because I want to be vague. It's the same reason that I would not tell reporters about the Victoria MEVA: "Is it coming? What are you going to do?" I would say: "Look, I can tell you things, but I can't tell you because the House has the first right to know."
The primary issue is in terms of areas of approval; that is going to be the focus. Those approvals have been agreed to jointly by ourselves and the UBCM. I think one of the things I want to see happen in terms of changing the act -- because as the member said before, it's considerably larger than when he first became a regional district member back in 1980 and I was elected in 1983. The act is now what -- 1,100 sections long? I want to see us get rid of whole sections, so that at the end of, let's say, three or four years or whenever, we can look back and say, "Okay, this was the high-water mark" -- like the flood in Winnipeg, so to speak. The number of sections that have been eliminated from the act has been going downhill over time. That process has taken place, jointly agreed to by both parties.
You know, a lot of it -- the sections and the stuff that we're looking to eliminate this year -- is redundancies that really don't relate to today. Some of them raise issues of accountability that we need to address, but by and large they've been dealt with through a joint process.
I guess the best I can say right now is that the package is coming. It is a substantive package; it's a package that's been agreed to through the joint council process as much as has been possible for this year. The coming year's package will in large part be a package that is driven upwards through the UBCM, brought through that joint council process, then to cabinet and then into the House.
G. Abbott: I think that's good. I think that way of developing these kinds of legislative packages is very good and that the joint council process will be a great step ahead. I think as a consequence we will, hopefully, see the province doing things with local government as opposed to making some assumptions about what local government should be doing and then delivering it to local government in a package and saying: "Here it is. How do you like it?" That is the old style of doing it, one which I really don't think works anymore. The new approach, I think, will be far superior.
I appreciate that in the absence of the legislation being finalized, the minister can't tell me precisely what it's going to contain prior to its appearance in the House -- although I guess to some extent we are in the House here, just on a different side of it. I'll make it easier for the minister to get to the heart of where I'm going with this by asking questions which perhaps he will be able to address.
I think one of the significant concerns of the UBCM and local government for years -- possibly even decades, I don't know -- is the extent to which the province has, through the Municipal Act, regulated commercial undertakings in municipalities. I guess examples would be intervention over shop hours, regulating closing times, opening times -- that kind of thing. When the minister indicates that the legislative package will be eliminating unnecessary approvals, is one of the areas where substantial changes are going to be seen elimination of provincial regulation of, essentially, municipal-commercial arrangements?
Hon. M. Farnworth: On that particular specific comment
Having said that, the key area in terms of what changes are taking place
I said that the example the member raised
G. Abbott: Am I, then, to deduce from the minister's response that the elimination or reduction of the provincial role in municipal-commercial relationships is not a priority item for the current session? In other words, will the province, through the Municipal Act, still be carrying the same role with respect to opening and closing hours and those kinds of things, or am I reading something into the minister's answer which wasn't there?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of that specific proposal, I would say that you are more likely to see something like that in next year's legislative package as opposed to seeing that this year. The focus here in Victoria is in terms of approvals as opposed to restrictions. As I've said, one of the key things in terms of when we do things -- a priority basis -- is that I want the priorities set by the UBCM to come forward first. So the changes that are coming forward this year and that will make their way through have been their top priorities, what's ready and what's doable. Those are mostly of an approval nature as opposed to a restrictive nature. I'm totally amenable to removing those restrictions, but you're more likely to see that next year as opposed to this year.
G. Abbott: I hope it's not a concern about future policy that's
[ Page 3532 ]
[4:00]
Hon. M. Farnworth: If the hon. member wonders why I'm smiling, it's probably because that is something I thought that yes, we could move fairly quickly on. Initial discussions with UBCM wereI found this particular issue quite interesting, because it's an indication that: "We want more power. We want more authority. Give us more, give us
G. Abbott: And if I'm smiling, it's because I'm still pursuing
Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the key areas of interest for me has been around reserve funds. There's a great deal of consensus on how approvals for reserve funds operate. It's a concern to me; it's a concern to municipalities. That's something where there's a general sense of agreement.
The other thing I can say is that very soon the whole package will come forward into the House, and I make the commitment to the member that I will give him a full briefing on the proposed changes as soon as I'm able to. But I would stress again that the changes that take place are ones where there are agreements between the province and the municipalities, and they very much reflect their priorities.
G. Abbott: I hope my question has been answered. I understand from the minister's response that the broadest consensus between the province and local government through the joint council of the UBCM is in the area of financial services, operation of reserves and so on. That will be the focus of current reforms that we will see in coming years. Hopefully, next year more changes along the same lines in the commercial regulatory planning areas
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's a pretty good assessment. The hon. member forgot only one thing, and that's charivaries. I want to see them gone out of the Municipal Act. And if you can tell me what one is, I'd be glad to know. Charivaries: I think it's one of the sections that municipalities have control over. I don't think anyone's ever approved one in this province, but it's time that was gone.
The member has basically got a good sense of where we're going. One of the challenges has been that
G. Abbott: I regret that I can't help the minister with respect to charivaries. I think I used to drink those, actually.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Those are Bacardis -- cherry Bacardis.
G. Abbott: Oh, cherry Bacardis. I don't think we actually find those in the Municipal Act, do we? We'll leave that one quickly before either the minister or myself embarrass ourselves beyond redemption.
Are there any particular steps the minister or the ministry is taking, additional to the ones we've discussed, to reduce the size or the regulatory burden associated with the Municipal Act? Are there any initiatives or personnel that are assigned to this function in the ministry?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think there is a whole area of initiatives that you'll see taking place over the next little while. We've talked in terms of an overhaul of the Municipal Act and of making legislative change packages this year and next year. One of the key elements for me that is critically important is that we don't just make those packages and add them as sections to the act, and it keeps getting bigger. But while that's taking place, a sign of good faith or commitment on the part of government to change is, at the same time, to have a substantive process put in place that allows for solid review of the act, so that we can go through it section by section or topic by topic or theme by theme and review what's appropriate for today, what's not appropriate. Let's find ways of getting rid of them.
Within the ministry right now, we're developing a way of dealing with that. We'll be talking with the joint council about that. I have some ideas on how I'd like to see that take place. For example, I would like to see individual mayors involved in some of the review. If we come up with recommendations on how to approach things, I'd like to draw municipal leaders into the processes so that we can examine and come up with things that work.
In other areas of the ministry, we're currently actively involved in developing best practices: for example, development cost charges with the municipalities. There's such a regional variation. I'm not familiar, for example, with the interior, but I do know that in the lower mainland, development cost charges between municipalities vary wildly: I think $13,000 in Port Coquitlam and the Langleys, and right next door in Coquitlam, $7,000. So we're trying to work with the municipalities to deal with an issue that's of concern to them but also of concern to industry, and come up with best practices. If we do that, that's going to eliminate some unnecessary duplication and streamline things.
So there are a number of initiatives underway. When you asked earlier about my priorities, where I see the ministry going, I see this is very much a key focal point: getting that package of change in place, and at the same time getting a really concrete process in place to review the act and get it streamlined.
G. Abbott: Further to that issue of streamlining the Municipal Act and the processes that may be undertaken to complete that streamlining, has the minister had an opportunity to review the document we call the community charter?
[ Page 3533 ]
Folks on my side of the House have endorsed it as a way of dealing with the burden of the Municipal Act. Has he had an opportunity to review that? I suspect he would probably have had an opportunity to review a portion of it at least, because I think some aspects of the charter emerge in the joint council approach, which government has endorsed. And I'm not throwing this out -- I hasten to assure the minister -- in a partisan way. I'm wondering whether the very streamlined document that we see in the community charter would be considered by the ministry as a way to possibly deal with the problem of the excessive burden of the Municipal Act.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I manage to read most bestsellers; unfortunately, I haven't managed to read this one yet. However, if the member is willing to loan me his edition -- hopefully, a first edition -- I will be more than willing to read it and more than willing to look at it.
G. Abbott: Well, I'd be absolutely delighted to do that. I certainly wouldn't be sharing any secret with the minister in doing that. The community charter has been circulated to all municipalities and regional districts in this province at least twice. Certainly they are well aware of it, and I would be delighted to share it with the minister.
Some of the key concepts -- and I'd be curious to hear the minister's response on these
In the community charter there is also an obligation to consult through a joint council process with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and through them the local governments of British Columbia.
And a third element -- and I think the minister and I had perhaps not a disagreement but an interesting discussion on this point -- is whether with devolution of responsibilities should also come some corresponding allocation of resources from the province to local governments.
I think those are the essential elements of the community charter. I'd be interested if the minister, in turn, would provide his general comments or vision with respect to those elements. Let's begin with the elimination of regulation from Victoria. What is the minister's vision with respect to that issue?
[4:15]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that's very much the way we need to go. I mean, I've said publicly at some of the regional meetings that philosophically I believe that if the province isI've also made the point numerous times that I think far too much time is spent with municipalities coming to Victoria for approvals, for me having to sign off things, when really they are sophisticated levels of government. They're accountable to their own electorate. They have been elected for a three-year term to do certain functions, and they should be able to do that.
I recognize that we're trying to undo 126 years of governance, in the case of this province, and an attitude toward local government. It's not going to happen overnight; it's going to happen through a process of joint consultation.
One of the key guiding things is always going to be the provincial interest, because there is a responsibility on the province. Environmental issues come to mind, for example. If we are going to eliminate, streamline or do some reform, we want to try to ensure that whatever mechanisms are put in place, we don't see a patchwork of 180 different regulations. For example, there has been a lot of talk about the provincial Building Code. That's part of the safety systems review. One of the concerns is from the building industry of municipalities, who say they want more control and greater authority. That's fine, but we've got to find a way of saying: "Okay, we'll give you greater authority and greater control, but remember, there's a building industry here that has to work with you, and we don't want to see a proliferation of 180 different building codes." I mean, you may see something on a regional basis
It's the same thing with development cost charges. One of the things you want to do is to give municipalities more control over areas of financial approvals, how they use development cost charge funds and those sorts of things. Along with that goes an increase in responsibility, I think, and an increase in accountability. That is to say, let's not eliminate one level of provincial regulation and have it replaced with 180 different levels of individual municipal regulation and red tape. Let's see that when we make changes, we try to do it within a broadly based understanding that we do have to work at this together and that we should try to look at things such as best practices, so that there is uniformity and a common theme. I think there's a provincial interest there. Certainly, as I've said repeatedly, we don't need to be regulating the municipalities when they're quite capable of regulating themselves in the functions they're charged with doing.
G. Abbott: I agree in large measure with the minister's comments. I hope it doesn't sound too flippant, but I think that one of the things this minister and any future minister will have to do to try to achieve the objective we've been talking about is to give municipalities the opportunity to make mistakes at times and to learn from those. I don't think that in every case we are going to be able to say in the future that we have to be sure municipalities won't make mistakes or won't move in a wrong or ill-advised direction. Frequently, that's what has to happen.
I remember too many council and regional district meetings where some burst of enthusiasm would capture the council, and they would make a decision, only to realize a few weeks or months later that what they had embraced so enthusiastically those few weeks or months ago had turned out to be a bit of a tiger that they hadn't appreciated. There will be instances where the ministry is going to have to say it's concerned that maybe local government may take this new freedom and make mistakes with it. The underlying philosophy here has to be that local government is better placed than the province or the federal government to make decisions in a range of areas and that we're going to allow local government to make those decisions in that range of areas. They may make decisions that are wrong, ill-advised, ill-informed, hasty
Hon. M. Farnworth: Dumb?
[ Page 3534 ]
G. Abbott:
I think there's some agreement that in fact that's the case, and that is very much the
The second area I mentioned as being very much at the heart of the community charter -- and I'll also look for the minister's comments on this -- is the obligation to consult. The community charter assumes that, through the joint council mechanism, the province will consult and indeed seek the concurrence of local government on any issue or question that would in a fundamental way affect the operation of local government. I would be interested in the minister's comments with respect to the issue of obligation to consult.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member is quite correct. I think consultation is key to making the joint council process work. The way that I've seen it working, and the way I'm trying to get the process working has been
The chairing of the meetings is done on a partnership basis. I chaired the last meeting, for example, and at the next meeting it will be my counterpart, Gillian Trumper, the president of the UBCM. She will chair that meeting, so there's that sort of rotation taking place. There's a general agreement that if there are issues of outstanding concern or specific issues that we feel may require a particular meeting to take place, then that will take place. In fact, it is taking place later on this summer with regard to financial matters. I think we've had dialogue in terms of encouraging a good understanding of how the legislative process works.
One of the challenges is the fact that we operate on a different fiscal year, on a different calendar, than the municipalities do. They operate January 1 to December 31, and we're April 1 to March 31, so that creates some challenges in terms of time lines and getting consultation in place. That's why we said to the joint council at our last meeting: "Look, get your priorities in early, so that we know by the end of June what it is we have to be working on within the ministry to get ready -- so that we can advance that through the legislative process, so they can get onto the cabinet agenda and so that it's ready for next spring."
As I said earlier on, I think this year is very important in terms of establishing the practices, the sort of conventions, the understandings and the precedents on how the joint council process is going to evolve. Basically, it comes down to a recognition that both parties need to be notified and need to be meeting on a regular basis. And if that's taking place, then the issues are coming up and are being dealt with at the staff level, and they are being reported back at the next meeting. There's that ongoing dialogue between staff and ongoing dialogue between the political representatives.
G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's response. I'd like the minister, for the record if nothing else, to provide me with some assurance that there is not some bad news, shall we say, lingering out there that is so bad that it can't go to the joint council, and that in fact is so bad that it finds its way into the newspapers via some route or mechanism that doesn't involve consultation.
This is, I suppose, pursuant to the concerns I laid out in my initial comments -- that there wasn't a lot in the last set of estimates that would have led me to believe that we would be seeing the very dramatic changes in provincial-municipal relations over the past year. Those things did not appear to be coming, and I want the minister to assure me at this point that we are in fact into a new realm and era of consultation; that everything is on the table in terms of what is appropriate for consultation; that even if -- horror of horrors -- the province were to discover that it can afford no municipal transfers in 1998, news that horrendous would be the object of consultation with local government; that everything that will affect the operation or the finances of local government in a fundamental way will be a part of the consultative process; and that there is nothing so bad that it has to be retained in cabinet until the bad news is forcefully delivered to the people of British Columbia.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to assure the hon. member that apart from any act of God -- by that I think we mean earthquakes, tsunamis, Mount Baker erupting, annexation by Hawaii, though I don't know if that would be bad -- I don't see anything that could be so bad that it wouldn't be placed before the joint council to say: "Look, this is the situation this year; this is what's going to happen. I know you're not going to like it or be thrilled with this" -- or whatever.
As I said during the Bill 2 debate, one of the reasons we're going to have the special meeting on finances is so that I can have, hopefully by the summer, some sense of where we are. We'll be well into the financial year, we'll have a better idea of what the next year is likely to look like, and we'll sit down and discuss issues at that time. So I don't see anything that bad.
G. Abbott: I don't think there would be a great governmental culpability in, say, an eruption of Mount Baker. That we would not hold against the minister. He might perhaps bear some responsibility for annexation by Hawaii, but not that.
The consultative process involved in the joint council and so on
[4:30]
Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, as minister I always have to take into account the provincial interest, but at the same time I am in a position to have some sense of where we're going generally. So I think that to be able to sit down and say, "Look, this year it looks like there are going to be more cutbacks coming; I don't have a sense of an exact number, but I think we need to be prepared to look at something in the magnitude of, I don't know, X number of dollars," and then go from there[ Page 3535 ]
sends a signal. It gives some advance warning and the ability, then, to sit down and say: "Okay, we don't like this, but if this is what this is going to mean -- if a reduction of X dollars means this is what's left over -- then here's how we want it to be apportioned. Here are the factors that we think need to be taken into consideration."
Likewise, if I'm in a position to say,"Look, things are going really well; I'm confident that there are not going to be any reductions in transfers," or "They'll continue at the same level as last year," that also sends a message and gives the ability to say: "Okay, if that's the case, then let's look at the apportionment this way."
One of the key figures in the protocol itself is that there is a recognition of the provincial interest -- that sometimes the province does have to ask. But I've made a commitment: as far as I am able, I want to be able to let the municipalities know as early as I can. I'm mindful of the responsibility in terms of Treasury Board, and I'm mindful in terms of what the provincial interest is, but I also think that municipalities aren't looking for a definitive number. They're not looking to know what the exact budget figure is going to be. What they want to know is some idea of where they're likely to be headed in the coming year, so that they've got a good idea. I think that is something that's realistic and that serves the needs of the municipalities; at the same time, the provincial interest is protected.
G. Abbott: I largely agree with that response, particularly on the financial side. I would concur that local government is not particulary obsessed with whether they might face a 1 percent to 2 percent increase or decrease in the size of the provincial transfer to municipalities from year to year. They'll be interested, obviously, because it's money, but it's not something which is going to affect their operations or their ability to provide services to their communities in a very fundamental way. Of course, they would be very much concerned with a 10 percent reduction, doubly concerned with a 20 percent reduction and even more concerned with anything more substantial. I think the minister and I agree on that -- if those kinds of far more serious cuts are on the horizon, local government will very much want to know it.
On the other side of things
While it was an initiative on the part of the Attorney General rather than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the closure of those 11 courthouses nevertheless affected the financial responsibilities of local government in a very substantial way. There was very clearly a relationship between the closure of the courthouses and additional costs to municipalities in terms of both policing and, in some cases, the operation of the courthouses. So it was -- I think quite properly, in our new era of consultation -- something which might have been brought before the joint council for the consideration of the municipalities.
But my understanding is that when confronted with this question in the Attorney General estimates, the Attorney General said: "I'm sorry. We could not consult with municipalities prior to the announcement of the closures, because that would have contravened Treasury Board confidentiality requirements." I'd be very interested to hear how the minister would deal with that kind of situation, which may not be directly within the bailiwick of Municipal Affairs but very clearly has dramatic implications for municipalities.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In part, I guess I'm talking about what took place in terms of another ministry's estimates, another ministry's decisions.
I want to raise two issues on this. This is where I come back to what I said earlier about the evolution of the joint council process -- that is, is it to be a forum to deal with provincewide initiatives that affect municipalities and provincewide changes, or is it to be a forum that deals with a dozen, half a dozen or two dozen municipalities out of 180 that are affected by a particular ministry's action or a particular ministry's decision? That's one of those things that I see working itself out over the coming year -- exactly what type of issues should come before the joint council process. What types of issues are appropriate to be discussed there?
The second point I want to raise is that it does at times come down to timing. We talked earlier. There is a provincial interest and there is a provincial Treasury Board directive. It's one thing to be able to say: "Look, we have news that we want to share that affects all municipalities." By and large, it may affect them equally; the reduction in grants does that. There's a provincial interest there, and while I can't get specific, there's a general sense that everyone's treated fairly. There's no ability to play favourites, okay?
On other issues, I can see how the problem with confidentiality can have a much greater bearing, because there is then that ability to play favourites, not to treat some municipalities the same. If you get into saying, "Well, maybe this one we'll close and this one we'll
Sometimes the province just has to make a decision and accept that there's going to be flak about it. That's part of what you have to do to make a decision; that's it. If you don't, if you say or give a hint that something's going to happen, then you're just going to make a big pitched battle, and no one's going to be happy except the party who feels that you eventually ruled in favour of them, right?
It is a matter of timing, but it's also a matter of what's appropriate to go towards that joint council process. If it's to work, we've got to be able to deal with issues, I think.
Let's put it this way: there's a limited time available and X number of opportunities to meet during the year to have a thorough examination of issues, a thorough discussion and a thorough debate, and to make sure that there's a general consensus on issues that are being discussed. The question comes down to: how much can we do and what are our priorities going to be? That's something that I expect we will work out over the coming year. But clearly, not everything is going to be able to go to the joint council. If you were to ask me in terms of priorities, for example, clearly provincewide issues take first priority. Issues that are a priority to the UBCM take first priority. They are going to come up through the UBCM through their convention in September and October of each year.
One of the issues that you touched on was the issue of confidentiality. I have not found a problem. I think that both
[ Page 3536 ]
parties, the UBCM and the provincial ministers around the table, recognize the importance of this joint council process. We recognize the importance of what it is we're trying to do. I don't anticipate that confidentiality is a problem.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that as much as possible, we want to consult on a whole range of things, but at the end of the day, we can't consult on everything. The key issues are provincewide; the key issues are ones that apply to all municipalities. We have to go from that basis, and sometimes the province just has to make a decision.
G. Abbott: I do want to make it very clear that I do endorse the compulsory obligation to consult with municipalities on issues that fundamentally affect them. In fact, I would argue that the whole initiative surrounding the courthouse closures was, to use the minister's phrase, "a big mess." It's not a question of whether it could have become a big mess had they done it with some other approach which involved consultation. In fact, I think it was a big mess. I'm not going to spend a long time arguing about it, because the minister is not the Attorney General and I think the record on that point is reasonably clear: the initiative was not well thought through. I think the obvious fact that the decision has been reversed in a number of cases is certainly adequate demonstration that the original initiative was not given the kind of consideration that it should.
I think one of the things that consultation helps us to do is to get that sober second thought about an initiative before it's undertaken. If we are going to find that there's enormous hostility towards an initiative, I think it's better that people hear about it and that you hear their concerns, legitimate or otherwise, about the initiative. Indeed, if there is good reason to then take a second look at an initiative and hone it or reshape it in some way, then all the better. I think that's much of the beauty of consultation -- it forces the government, whether it's local, provincial or federal, to take a second look at where they're going and, hopefully, develop public policy that everyone can live with.
Again, I do think that the courthouse issue is something that, hopefully, the province has learned from, and that there can in fact be a better model of introducing changes like that. I don't think the courthouse issue has gone away.
[4:45]
Again, I'm not going to try to change this into an AG's estimate. My friend and colleague here has done a masterful job already of dealing with these issues, and I certainly don't want to do it here. But because we're talking about the joint council, we're talking about consultation. I want to make the point here that we are in a situation now where the courthouse issue is bound to come back again, and I think it's bound to come back at the joint council level. I think it's bound to come back there because in response to the threat of closures, different municipalities responded in different ways. The minister or my friend the Attorney General critic can correct me, but I understand that some municipalities responded to the threat of courthouse closure by saying: "Okay, we will assume a burden of responsibility that we didn't previously have with respect to the operation of courthouses." So we now have a situation in British Columbia where some municipalities are more involved financially in the operation of courthouses than others, so we have different ways in which different municipalities are being treated with respect to the operation of courthouses. I think that whenever one has a situation where there are different models or different ways in which a function is being administered or paid for, it's invariably the object of ongoing concern. So I'm certain that if the minister is not already hearing about this issue, he is certain to be confronted with it at the joint council level at some point in the future.Again to use this example, would it be a logical step for the Attorney General to be present at a joint council meeting at some point in the future to work these things through? Or is that anticipated in the joint council model that the minister embraces?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of points I'd like to make for the hon. member: first, the courthouse issue has been discussed at the joint council level; second, the Attorney General was at the meeting. In fact, he is at every meeting, because he is one of the standing members in the joint council process.
Just so the member is aware, the joint council consists of myself as Minister of Municipal Affairs and as one of the co-chairs, the Attorney General, the Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. We are the four ministries that local government deals with on the most regular basis, so those are the ministers that attend the joint council. The Attorney General is on it, and the issue has been discussed. The member is quite right: I fully expect that it will come back in one form or another for further discussion. I see it as an evolutionary thing.
G. Abbott: Just to summarize this before we leave the point, does the province now take the view that in fact they can discuss issues like the closure or operation of courthouses; that that kind of thing is appropriate material to be the object of consultation at joint council meetings; that in particular this issue that I raise of the different treatment of different municipalities with respect to the operation of courthouses is something that will be the subject of consultation between the joint council and the province; and that some initiative is underway to see a resolution or an equal treatment for municipalities across the province with respect to the issue of the operation of courthouses?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can answer the first part of the question. The second part is more of an issue for the Attorney General, and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that. On the issue of courthouses and discussion of courthouses at the joint council, the approach we're taking is that if there's an issue of concern to the UBCM and they want it discussed at that joint council meeting, all they have to do is to put it on the agenda and we'll deal with it.
G. Abbott: I will very shortly have some more questions with respect to the joint council structure and its operation, but where we were going was to the issue of the three central themes of the community charter and the minister's willingness to embrace those key themes. With respect to the first two -- the elimination of regulation and the obligation to consult -- I certainly sense that perhaps, with some minor reservations, the minister is very much in accord with those themes.
The third theme, which I think is very much at the heart of the community charter, is the notion that there should be no devolution of responsibility from the province to the municipalities -- or, I suppose, from any level of government to municipalities or from municipalities to the federal government and vice versa -- without some offsetting allocation of resources; that we shouldn't ask another level of government to undertake a function which we have previously funded, without providing them with some offsetting resources to
[ Page 3537 ]
deal with that. I'd be interested in the minister's comments with respect to that general proposition about no devolution without devolution of resources as well.
Hon. M. Farnworth: My general view of the way this will work is: devolution through consultation and devolution if necessary, but not necessarily devolution that requires financial contribution -- in that if we're going to devolve authority, it's something that's done jointly and that we reach an agreement. On that basis, we either eliminate sections of the act that require Victoria to make approval or we eliminate restrictions in the act that don't allow municipalities to do certain activities that they may want to do. That's an increase in authority. It may not require a transfer of financial resources. There may be other areas where some sort of transfer of financial resources may in fact be necessary, may be desirable. That is something that would be agreed to through consultation.
An example that's currently taking place is around the issue of transit. The province is currently engaged in negotiations with the GVRD concerning the role and structure of transit in the lower mainland. On the table are: how we pay for it, who runs it, who governs it -- all these things. They will either succeed or they will not succeed.
I understand what the member is saying. I guess the point I'm saying is that if it is necessary for financial resources to accompany a function, that's something that can be negotiated. That's something that you can consult on; that's something you can come to an agreement on. But it's not automatically the case that a transfer of authority or devolution of authority requires financial resources.
G. Abbott: The minister and I had a good discussion of this in the context of Bill 2. I think we're perhaps debating at a slightly higher plane now than then, although it was an excellent discussion. I agree that a devolution of authority doesn't necessarily imply or require a financial responsibility or a financial burden. But the point I make in response -- made in response then, and do again now -- is that very frequently it does. So I think there are two directions we can go. We can say that there will be no devolution of responsibility without first having what could be termed either concurrence or agreement through consultation: we simply won't go down a road that involves a financial liability to local government in taking on the additional responsibility without them agreeing. We won't do that.
The other road we can go down is to say: if we do have a devolution of responsibility, there are going to be resources to go with it. So fine, we can go down either of those two roads. I think that in the future, what we're going to be seeing is more and more assumption by local government of responsibilities that may have currently been undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Health or whatever it may be. The function of the Ministry of Highways approving officers, for example, may devolve to regional districts. Fair enough. Maybe in a lot of respects, subdivision approvals and all that sort of thing, or approval functions currently taken on by Highways, can be more effectively managed by regional districts. I don't know, but I suspect that we're going to see more of that.
The point I'm making to the minister here is that if we're going to be seeing that, when those things happen or when that kind of responsibility devolves, I want to see that we have an assurance from the province that there are going to be resources that go along with it. Perhaps the minister can explain which of those roads he proposes to go down, or provide some assurance that we will never see a situation where an obligation is imposed on municipalities (a) against their wishes or (b) without offsetting resources.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The key way of looking at this, and the way that I intend to pursue this issue, is to recognize that the change in authority has to come about through consultation. It may require a devolution of resources or it may not, but in order for it to be successful, there has to be support, and that means there's got to be a consultation process. The municipality has to feel that it's treated fairly, and it also has to feel that if it is taking on any additional responsibility, it either has the resources or the ability to get additional resources.
That's going to come through either of two ways. It's either through negotiation, through consultation with the province: "We're willing to take on this function, but either we require X amount of dollars from you to do it, or you require X revenue measure to enable us to do that." That's one way. The other way -- and it is a broader way and one that a lot of municipalities have been looking for, and I think that's where you're going to see some changes take place -- is to say: "Okay, look, we need more tools to be more creative and to be able to do more things, and part of that is in terms of revenue-generation."
You're going to see things like public-private partnerships. You're going to require legislative change that will give the municipality more authority. The net result is going to be their ability either to reduce expenditure -- capital expenditure, for example -- or to generate revenue. That's going to be one way. That's one focus.
Another area of change that has been requested is also in the area of removing limitations on what they can do with certain reserve funds or how much they can charge for licensing or cost recovery for services they provide. That is also going to provide them, potentially, with additional resources.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
The other issue is to resolve outstanding issues that have been at UBCM for a number of years. The one I keep coming back to is traffic fines. As part of that, you could link in photo radar, though right now the two are quite separate. Let's just focus on traffic fines. That's another area that has been outstanding for a long time that has the potential for revenue-generation.
[5:00]
What you're doing there is that you're expanding the ability of the municipality to raise revenue. At the same time, on one hand, you're looking at the ability to change regulation that devolves authority to the municipality, which does not cost them anything but allows them to generate revenue. Then you're also looking at changes that take place that may require changes to the Municipal Act or an authoritative structure that transfers or devolves responsibility to a municipality, and that may in fact require a transfer of resources to the municipality.There are three key approaches, and I think there's a role for each one of them, and there's room there for a wide range. The one thing that I want as much as possible to avoid, and I think we can
[ Page 3538 ]
I would like to use to show that that's succeeding is that there's buy-in from both parties -- that both parties feel they are being treated fairly.
I think there's a broad range of measures that can be used, and I don't think it's going to be necessarily one approach. This comes back to my original statement and my original views on this. Devolution may require a transfer of resources or it may not, and as much as possible, it's going to be consultative change that takes place.
G. Abbott: If, in fact, that very laudable goal can be achieved, I think that would be a great step ahead in terms of relations between the province and its municipalities. There have been far too many instances, particularly in the last year, of very substantial changes that have been made without any kind of meaningful consultation at all. If the approach that has been put forward by the minister here today can become the norm, the standard minimum to be expected of the province in its relationship with municipalities, then that's great, and as I've said, it's a very substantial step ahead.
I want to test the proposition put forward with the example -- and I'm just using it as an example now, because I plan to canvass it in a more thorough way later in the estimates -- of the issue of the declassification of roads. If my correspondence is any indication, that continues to be very much a substantial issue around the province, particularly in the lower mainland, it seems, but around the province. Is the issue of declassification of roads an example of where the minister will now be seeking to resolve this on a consultative basis rather than on a here-it-is-and-how-do-you-like-it basis?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The example the member raises is an interesting one, because that's an issue that's already being discussed in the joint council process. My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways has already presented a consultation process to the joint council. It's being worked on, and it's being implemented. My expectation is that we will now engage in a series of consultations as to how that devolution will or will not take place.
The member raised the point about the lower mainland. One of the key elements of the negotiations currently taking place on the lower mainland around transit involves the road system, and the fact that out of it, you may see a regional road network or regional road authority under the stewardship of the GVRD. It would makes sense to me, from my point of view, that those roads are negotiated on a basis that you would not see them going from the province to the municipality to a regional transportation authority. That would not make sense. Ideally, if that's where they end up, they go from the province to a regional transportation authority.
Having said that, the current deadline is January 1. I don't think it's hard; I think it's a soft deadline. That's what we're working to. We want, as much as possible, to have an agreement in place by that time. If we don't, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I certainly don't envisage an arbitrary decision taking place.
The process that's being put in place is one that came up from an issue that was raised by the municipalities and placed on the agenda at the joint council. The ministry came back with a response, saying: "Yes, you have valid concerns. Here's how we propose to deal with them." That agreement, having been put in place, is then being implemented. Our ministry staff and their staff are working together to ensure that takes place. Out of that we will, hopefully, come up with a solution that everyone agrees to.
It is, in some ways, a first test. One of the challenges of the joint council process is going to be to make things work, to evolve disagreements, to evolve problems and work them through. Sometimes we're going to succeed; sometimes we're not. As the member said before, you have got to allow municipalities to do things. Some things they're going to do right; some things they're not going to do right.
I think we've had a problem, we've arrived at a way of dealing with that problem, and it's working its way through. Time will tell whether it's the right approach or not, but right now I think it is the right approach. I think both sides are prepared to deal with the issue in the way that we've agreed to. It's working its way through, and I'm optimistic.
G. Abbott: One of the inherent aspects of being a critic is that one is very much compelled to note where there is a discrepancy between theory and practice. I think we have one of those areas of discrepancy here in terms of the way in which the declassification of roads was pursued. Now, perhaps the declassification is post-joint council or pre-joint council
Hon. M. Farnworth: Pre-joint council.
G. Abbott: It is pre-joint council. As I recall, the original announcement with respect to the declassification of roads was made probably within a few days of the November 26 announcement surrounding the changes to the Local Government Grants Act. As I recall as well, the Minister of Transportation and Highways pretty much announced it as a fait accompli. This was a done deal. The municipalities were going to inherit these sections of roads in their municipalities whether they liked it or not, and that was the end of the story, pretty much.
Again, we may pursue this in a little bit more detail, either in these estimates or in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates, but at some point I gather that UBCM got a legal decision which indicated that the province could not, as readily as they had thought, divest themselves of responsibility for these sections of roads. As a consequence, the province backed off. The minister can correct me on this piece of history.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm just going to say that legal opinions are a dime a dozen.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.
G. Abbott: Well, this one was apparently worth more than 8 or 9 cents, as it turned out.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Most legal opinions usually are.
G. Abbott: At any rate, the province, for whatever reasons, appeared to draw their horns back in at one point a little later on, and they launched into the new process.
At the time they did that, the province indicated that they wanted to see
[ Page 3539 ]
tion of roads. But that is no longer a hard date at which the transfer will take place. Could the minister (a) correct my history and (b) tell me whether my summary is a correct one?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of history, the decision was made on November 26 and was a budget decision. In terms of the process, the implementation decision was deferred until January 1, but we've got a process in place that's working on two fronts.
One is the process that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has put in place. It would be more appropriate for the Minister of Transportation and Highways to speak to that. If that's working, then I wouldn't see that just because January 1 happens to come along and we haven't reached agreement, boom -- that's it. That to me wouldn't seem to be common sense.
The other is that there are negotiations currently underway with the greater Vancouver regional district around transportation and transit. They're also a major player, so I would expect them to also finish their course.
Clearly, what happened was that the announcement was made on the 26th, the issue was raised at the joint council and the concerns were outlined -- the reasons why municipalities had the concerns they did. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways agreed to go back, look at those concerns and see if there was some sort of validity. Is it worth a second look? Is it worth review? They came back and said: "Yes, we're willing to sit down. Here's the time frame; let's see what we can do in this." There was buy-in from both sides, and that process is taking place. The end result may well be satisfaction from both parties.
I'm not in a position to prejudge it, but that is
[5:15]
It's an ongoing evolutionary process. I fully expect that part of this first 18 months is going to be spent ironing out the kinks, eliminating the bugs and getting a better understanding -- fleshing out of what this concept is, what the principles are, and establishing precedents and conventions for the general operation of how we make this work. The ministry's committed to doing that, and every indication I've had from the UBCM is that they're committed to doing that and that there is a substantial bind. And if we continue to do that, I think by and large the process will be successful. It doesn't mean at the end of the day that we're going to agree on everything, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome is going to be one that everybody likes. But if at the end of it, whatever decision is reached or whatever decision is made, there's an acceptance that other options were looked at and explored -- that other points of view were considered and there was a thorough examination of the issue -- then I think, by and large, it will be a success.G. Abbott: I'll certainly be wanting to come back again in estimates to the specific issue of declassification of roads. We've been discussing it here as an example of how an issue between municipalities and the province might be worked through the joint council, and I think it's been a good example. I'm sure our critic for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will want to participate in the specific discussion of declassification of roads, because I think there are a range of general and specific issues surrounding that initiative which need consideration. Some of them, of course, are going to have to wait until the estimates in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. But obviously there's a big municipal component here, too. So I'll look forward to returning to that particular area of discussion later on in these estimates.
The other example I want to look at, as a test of the proposition that the joint council is a way to win agreement through consultation, is the issue of traffic fines. I'm not as expert in this as I would like to be. Perhaps the minister can fill in some of the blanks for me in terms of how the traffic fines issue currently works in the province of British Columbia and how the joint council is setting about to wrestle with this issue of traffic fines and, hopefully, reach a conclusion that both the province and local government can live with.
As I understand it, there are, sort of, two areas involving traffic fines. There's the one that's sort of conventional traffic radar, where a ticket is issued and so on, and people
An Hon. Member: The historical grievance.
G. Abbott: Historical grievance? Yeah, that would be a good way to put it.
For example, in a municipality like Vancouver, the city of Vancouver police officers might set up radar-issue tickets. The tickets will be payable to the province of British Columbia. So the city of Vancouver might be laying out funds for those police officers but see no benefit from the traffic crime revenue.
The second area -- I'm not sure what would be involved in a city like Vancouver -- is the photo radar element. In that case, I don't whether the municipality is putting out funds for photo radar or not. I gather they're not, but again, there isn't the same kind of grievance, because it's a provincial program, and the funds go to the province.
How has the joint council set about to try to resolve this difficult issue of traffic fines and their disposition?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is right. It's complicated and it's not complicated. There are two components: Penticton and Kelowna -- Kelowna east or Kelowna west. There are two key things. There are the historical grievances of your regular traffic fines, which have been debated at UBCMs as long as you were going to them and as long as I've been going to them. And that's the general issue that's been out there. Then there's the added complication of photo radar.
The two are sort of linked, but not really. You could deal with both issues, or you could deal with them separately. There's no urgency to one or the other in terms of how you deal with them. I think you can deal with one, and, if necessary, you can deal with the other one separately; or you can deal with them both together.
We'll deal with the historical grievance of the UBCM first. When I became minister, I said: "To me, that is one of the things we have to start to do: address priority grievances of the UBCM. What are some of the outstanding issues still out there that haven't been resolved?" That's a key one, because the potential for revenue generation for the municipalities is there. At the same time, it also has the ability to stabilize revenue for the province, and we're also eliminating a key
[ Page 3540 ]
irritant between the municipalities and the province. Basically, it isn't right that municipalities go out and do all the work, and the revenue goes to Victoria. They're paying the bill, and they're not seeing any of the benefit. It's sort of the reverse of photo radar. I said that I would place that on the agenda of the first joint council meeting, and that has taken place. There's a general agreement between us and the UBCM to see if we can deal with this issue.
What's happening to date is that we are working, in terms of consulting, on looking at how big the issue is and what the parameters are that we have to deal with. We've invited the UBCM to participate in that, and that will be taking place. Then what we want to do is develop a number of options, because there are different kinds of formulas one could use. There are different ways of deciding what should be in and what should be out -- deal with a series of options, come up with recommendations, discuss that at the joint council level and try to come up with some agreement. There has to be the whole Treasury Board-cabinet submission from the provincial end, and then there also has to be acceptance from the UBCM. But it clearly has the potential of being a defining issue in showing municipalities how that joint council process can work.
For example, over the last number of years the amount of revenue that has been coming to the province has been in a steady decline. There may be all kinds of reasons why that is, but one of the key factors, I think, anyway
But I think this has the opportunity to really show to municipalities how the joint council process can work, because it will eliminate a key irritant, it will result in increased revenue opportunity for the municipalities, and it will result in increased revenue stability for the province. I would like us to make substantial progress so that we can have a thorough report in time for the UBCM. That may or may not be possible. It certainly is my goal that at the UBCM in Vancouver in October, we can have something substantive to tell them.
G. Abbott: Perhaps we should explore that just a little bit more, given that I think this is the first time that the province has definitively said the traffic-fine issue is an issue which would properly come before the joint council for consideration. Perhaps I've missed some happy news announcements somewhere over the last few months, but as far as I know, the province has not, prior to this point, openly embraced the notion that the disposition of traffic fines was something that was up for negotiation and possible reconsideration. We've seen some conflicting messages over the months from the Premier and the Attorney General about whether the province would be willing to share traffic-fine revenue.
I would have to surmise from the minister's comments that the province has now made the decision that the disposition of traffic-fine revenue is negotiable -- it is the appropriate subject for consultation before the joint council -- and that in a few months we should be seeing the results of that at UBCM. Is all that a fair summary of where we've gone?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There's actually nothing new, I think, in what I have said here this afternoon. The Premier has made public statements that he's prepared to consider
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: At this point I will resist reminding the hon. member that she's using a word that
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I'm not backtracking.
The commitment the Premier made at the last UBCM was that this was an issue that he was prepared to look at. This was actually at the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. I made a very clear and definitive statement that as far as I was concerned, this was an issue that it was time we dealt with, that it was an issue that we had to look at, that I was letting them know at that meeting that it would be on the table for discussion at the joint council and that this is the type of issue that I expect to be placed before the joint council. That's exactly what's happening. I think it's a first step, and one of the things I want to do is get it resolved. I really think there is a win-win proposition here for the municipalities and for the province.
You know, the Attorney General sits on the joint council. He's in agreement with what's taking place. The question now is -- to use bureaucratic language -- to scope out the problem, scope out the issue, look at the parameters, develop options and all that stuff. Then, once we do that, we can come back and say: "Look, here's what we've come up with. Let's take it to the next step, which is political discussion" -- the political discussion within the UBCM itself, the political discussion at the cabinet table -- "and make a decision."
Clearly, it's one that I think is a real win-win situation, one that I have made a priority within the ministry when I became minister. It continues to be a priority, and it's working its way through the joint council, which is exactly what it should do.
G. Abbott: I think the minister's commitment with respect to the issues we've discussed here in the context of the declassification of roads and the traffic fines issue
Again, I don't think it should come as any particular surprise to the minister or to the government that there is a certain amount of cynicism out there about the discrepancy between the promise of performance and the actual performance of this government with respect to consultation issues. There is a lot of concern in this area that has to be overcome, and I hope the minister makes a sincere attempt to overcome that.
[5:30]
Before we leave this general area of the broad vision of the minister -- and hopefully the government as well -- and the underlying principles, I'd like to get the minister's response to what I think is one of the more succinct statements of the proper relationship between the province and its municipalities. This comes from a 1992 publication of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I think it's entitled "Modernizing the Municipal Act." I'll just read this key phrase from it. I welcome the minister's comments as to whether this is in accord with where he'd like to go in municipal relations. It says:"A new approach to municipal legislation has been endorsed by UBCM. This would be a useful area in which to implement the principles that local government should have wide enabling authority to manage their communities, and thatI'd be interested in the minister's comments with respect to that proposition.[ Page 3541 ]
the provincial government should only restrict the authority where there is a specific identifiable provincial interest. Rather than set out specific narrow powers, as is now the case, the Municipal Act would simply provide the basis for local government to determine, by bylaw, what was needed in each community."
Hon. M. Farnworth: In general, I would agree with that. One of the things that we're doing is working with UBCM on general principles and guidelines in terms of how we achieve that goal. I think that one of the keys and one of the most important ways to redefine the relationship to achieve what the UBCM states they would like it to be is in terms of the Municipal Act: in terms of renewing it, in terms of making it a more -- some people hate the phrase -- empowering document to allow municipalities the ability to do the things they do, to deal with those issues which they are mandated to deal with.
That brings me back to some of my earlier comments. As important as the fact that we have a legislative package that addresses some of the key priorities that they want to bring forward and that we have a package for next year of legislative change that addresses their key priorities is that there's a process in place that allows us to review the act by theme or by section or by activity, or by however we want to look at it, and to streamline it and make it workable and do what the UBCM would like, at the same time recognizing that there is always a provincial interest. That's why one of the ideas that I have and one of the things I would like to see this do is bring municipal people into that exercise and ensure that there is as wide a degree of participation as possible. If we do that, then we can achieve an overhaul of the Municipal Act that does empower municipalities, at the same time recognizing that there is a provincial interest.
It's not going to happen overnight, but I think that if people see steady progress on an annual basis and they can see, you know, "Okay, this year they've dealt with this section of the act; it used to contain 120 sections and now it contains 20" or however many is appropriate, then we'll get to that goal. I think it is the way of the future, and it is a goal that makes sense. It's not going to happen overnight, but I do think we'll get there.
G. Abbott: I'd like to turn now to a slightly different area, and that is the minister's understanding of the obligations and responsibilities that were or are associated with the signing at the last Union of B.C. Municipalities convention of the protocol of recognition, I believe is the proper title. I'm looking for a relatively thorough answer here. Could the minister provide me with his understanding of the obligations and responsibilities which are placed on the government as a result of the signing of the protocol of recognition by the former Municipal Affairs minister and the Premier?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The protocol came out of extensive work done by my immediate predecessor and his predecessor, the Hon. Darlene Marzari. It's been an issue of great importance to the UBCM for a number of years. The key component has always been to get the relationship between the province and the municipalities away from this sort of colonial power -- colony relationship -- you know, all rule is centred in Victoria; all bow to Victoria and pray five times a day, and your wish shall be granted -- to more of an equal partnership, a recognition that each has responsibilities and obligations, that each has a role and a function to play, that those roles and functions are equally valid, not subservient to the other, and both are equal partners; and to establish a more businesslike relationship -- not "partner-ial" -- based on mutual respect and a recognition of that respect.
Out of that is the framework of the protocol, that joint council concept, whereby legislative change and financial change are dealt with. It's a recognition that the province should, as much as is humanly possible, ensure that legislative change occurs with the consent of or through consultation with the municipalities; that we're reacting and making changes based on their priorities as much as on provincial priorities; that we have change taking place that's not sprung on municipalities; that we don't have change -- as the hon. member referred to before -- that's taking place because the province thinks it's a good thing to do and "Hey, aren't we clever for doing it?" but rather change that's taking place because it meets the needs and requirements of local government, and they determined what those priorities are.
The other is a recognition, I think, that there are financial realities that change and that we should, as much as possible, let the municipalities know ahead of time what the financial changes are going to be.
That brings you to the meeting of the UBCM where the protocol was signed, and it seems that there is a considerable amount of history around those months -- September through November. It's grown into mythical proportions almost worthy, I think, of a Homeric epic about what was and was not said or what was and was not implied when the signing took place.
At that time the Minister of Municipal Affairs made it clear to the municipalities that he was reluctant to sign because there were cuts coming. But he also recognized that this was of key importance to the UBCM. There had been so much work done on it -- a considerable amount of work done on it -- that he'd sign it. We support the principles outlined in it, and that's why I say that the joint council process that's been put in place and that's been evolving is very much in the spirit of that framework.
What's happening now is that you've got that consultation taking place; you've got both parties working together to make it work. It's going to take about a year to 18 months to do that. You've got to put flesh on that framework and establish precedent, conventions and understandings -- getting the guts of the agreement to work so that everyone feels comfortable that there's the work taking place at the staff level and there's the political work taking place. And those things are happening. That, to me, is key. So that's how it's come about. That's how we're living up to the commitments which were made in that protocol, and that's why I think it's ultimately going to be successful.
G. Abbott: The question I had for the minister actually revolved around what his understanding was of the responsibilities and obligations associated with the signing of the protocol. I wasn't actually headed particularly towards a trick question, where we called into question whether the former Minister of Municipal Affairs had met his obligation -- although we may get to that. We probably will, but at this point that's not where I was headed.
Where I was headed at this point in time
G. Plant: But since you raised it
[ Page 3542 ]
G. Abbott: But since the minister raised it
Anyway, the question I was really asking was: apart from the creation of the joint council, are there any obligations or responsibilities associated with the signing of the protocol, in the minister's understanding of the responsibilities there? Is there anything that the province has a responsibility to do, apart from create the joint council, in the signing of the protocol recognition?
The Chair: Minister -- noting the time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I was just about to say, after my answer to the member -- I'll talk for a little while -- that we could take a break. I would appreciate it.
The key concept that comes out of the protocol is the establishment of the joint council. It's incumbent on the province to recognize that and not to subvert that, and to recognize that the change that takes place has to operate within that framework, within that joint council format. That is the philosophy that this ministry and the government are operating under. Everything that affects municipalities now has to take place within that joint council framework, and if we do that, then we are living up to the spirit and the principles of the protocol that was signed back in September. That, to me, is
Let's put it this way. It's one of the challenges that this ministry faces, because we have to
So, in answer to your question, just to summarize again, basically it's a recognition that the joint council process is the guiding body that change takes place under, and the key is for the province not to subvert that.
G. Abbott: Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress -- and resolutions of Aboriginal Affairs -- and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.