[ Page 3563 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

G. Janssen: We have with us today His Excellency Johannes Fietelaars, Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada. Joining him is Karel Birkman, consul general for the Netherlands. If the House will permit me a moment. . . . [Dutch spoken.]

I ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Reitsma: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's my privilege to join with my colleague for Alberni to welcome His Excellency Ambassador Johannes Fietelaars and the consul general at Vancouver, Karel Birkman. I will make reference, if I'm permitted to speak a couple of Dutch words, to the incredible affinity that exists between the Canadians and the Dutch. [Dutch spoken.]

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: In addition to our special guests from the Netherlands, we have a special guest from Hungary. His Excellency Karoly Gedai is the Ambassador of Hungary to Canada. He's visiting British Columbia from Ottawa on business matters. The ambassador is accompanied by Andre Molnar, honorary consul general of Hungary at Vancouver. Please give them a very warm welcome.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today for a very special occasion are three very special guests: Janet Plant, and Graham and Caroline Plant, who are here to celebrate their father's birthday. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: It's a pleasure today to make an introduction that's really an announcement that all members will be interested to know about. It's my pleasure to announce the upcoming marriage of the legislative comptroller, Don Phillips, and his bride-to-be, Ms. Jennifer Salgado of Houston, Texas.

Interjection.

G. Brewin: One of the members talks about something we'll talk about later.

They are to be married on Saturday, May 24. Don and Jennifer met on a western Caribbean cruise early last fall. Will the House please join me in offering them enormous congratulations and best wishes.

V. Anderson: We have with us today Keith Frew, who is president of the Marpole Museum and Historical Society and one of my constituents. He's here as a representative of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and with him is David Lach from Co-operators General Insurance and Carson Thompson from Federation Insurance. They're here to deal with us about the upcoming earthquake.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are the executive of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. They are Mayor Jim Lornie of Campbell River, Mayor Frank Leonard of Saanich, Director George Holme, chairperson of the Nanaimo regional district, Councillor Pearl Myhres of Zeballos and Director Roxanna Mandryk of the Comox-Strathcona regional district. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Coell: In the House today I have a number of friends who I would like to welcome. Ron and Carol Olson, from Sidney, are the managers of the Anacortes ferry and the Canadian partners in that venture. Would the House please make them welcome. I also would like to add my welcome to the executive of the AVIM. I once sat on that executive, and I wish them well. I'd like to welcome Frank Leonard and Jim Lornie, close personal friends.

W. Hartley: In the precincts today we have 40 young elementary school students, grades 2 and 3. They're here to learn about government and history, and they're here with their teacher Ms. J. Lusk, from Maple Ridge Elementary School. Please make them welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today I have 29 grade 7 students from Okanagan Falls Elementary School with their teacher Mr. Suthic. He's the vice-principal of that school also. They brought down seven parents and the bus driver. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce Ariana Chaster, a constituent of Victoria-Beacon Hill, who interviewed me this morning for a presentation she'll be giving to her kindergarten class on the equality of women, a topic she chose on her own. She's accompanied by her mother Sally Chaster. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, you'll be aware, again, that it's not very often I get to stand in the House and introduce anyone from the far north. [Laughter.] But it's certainly my pleasure today to introduce to the House 22 students from Dr. Kearney Junior Secondary School, who have raised the money on their own to come down here. They're with their principal Mr. Chisholm and a teacher, Ms. Petryshyn.

E. Gillespie: I'd like to add my greetings to those of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to Comox-Strathcona regional district director Roxanna Mandryk, constituent and friend.

Oral Questions

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
DESIGNATION ENACTMENT

My question is for the Attorney General. How many more victim impact statements will be thrown out of court before he decides to follow the law and enact the appropriate designations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the details of the case. The hon. member is talking about a particular case; I'm not aware of the details of the case. I'll look into it and advise the House tomorrow -- take it on notice.

[2:15]

[ Page 3564 ]

G. Plant: In any event, the Criminal Code is very simple on this point. Victim impact statements are admissible in evidence if the provincial cabinet passes the appropriate designation. The Victims of Crime Act came into force almost a year ago. So my question for the Attorney General is this: why has he allowed almost a year to pass before passing the necessary designation? What will he do for the victims whose statements have not been admitted?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take the question on notice. I will be speaking to the criminal justice branch and get back the answer tomorrow.

LEASED VEHICLE FOR
CHAIR OF B.C. TRANSIT

Can the minister responsible for Transit tell the House if the Deputy Premier informed her, as the incoming minister responsible for Transit, of the existence of Mr. Corrigan's leased luxury automobile?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly, as cabinet colleagues, the former minister responsible -- who was doing double duty at the time -- and I discussed the matter of the future of B.C. Transit and the future role of the chair.

CAR ALLOWANCES FOR
CROWN CORPORATION EXECUTIVES

Since the issue of luxury cars supplied to senior bureaucrats was raised in the past, why is it that this government only responds to these excesses after it becomes a media event?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Please let's hear the answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly our government takes the issue of executive compensation very seriously. As a matter of fact, in terms of our public service compensation, we're in a respectable range, perhaps toward the low end of compensation. We still manage to have an excellent public service, delivering excellent services across government.

There is a balance to be achieved in terms of executive compensation that meets the test of what the taxpayer demands, as well. I know the opposition struggles with that compensation matter in terms of their own internal situation, as well. So we do that: we review it regularly, and changes have recently been made.

INTERNATIONAL RESTRUCTURING OF
PROVINCIAL CARPENTERS' UNION

Will the Minister of Labour tell us what steps he is prepared to take today to protect unionized workers in British Columbia from an American restructuring that will put American rules in place, governing Canadian workers?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for the question. I just became aware of the situation within the last 24 hours. I view it very seriously. I think the hon. member will appreciate that I do need some time to do some basic research. I need to talk to the Provincial Council of Carpenters and to some of their international representatives. I need to do some work in order to be able to outline those steps that we are going to take to recognize that we uphold the democratic rights of all citizens of British Columbia, including unions.

G. Wilson: By way of supplementary, we have in this province a critical situation with respect to unemployment and the need for local hiring, in order to make sure that jobs are protected in the regions of the province as well as in the urban centres. This forced restructuring is going to eliminate the opportunity for agreements to be cut between unions, management and government with respect to the provision of local hire. It is going to directly affect hundreds of workers in this province who will no longer be able to have local hire protected in their agreements. Will the minister commit today that in whatever review he is doing he will move to protect the opportunity for local hire, so that we can protect local jobs in the communities of British Columbia and not have them dictated by American unions?

Hon. J. Cashore: While to some extent my mandate is to be a keeper of the process with regard to fair administration of labour law, I want the hon. member to know that I will always support the efforts of our government, which are exemplary in terms of standing up for the creation of jobs and its success and in having the best record on job creation in Canada.

B.C. TRANSIT CHAIR COMPENSATION

Can the minister today get her story straight and tell taxpayers why we should pay anyone $56,000 in severance for a $4,000-a-year job?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't mind repeating the answer that I gave earlier this week to exactly the same question. The order-in-council stated that Mr. Corrigan would be paid $4,000 per year plus $500 per day, per diem.

[ Page 3565 ]

In the course of Mr. Corrigan's duties from 1994 to 1997. . . . The government under the former Premier pursued a very aggressive policy toward expanding public transit and took on initiatives that were brought in after Mr. Corrigan's original appointment. Those include the ten-year plan "Going Places" and the establishment of light rapid transit in conjunction with the greater Vancouver regional district. Only last month we completed the establishment of the table that will negotiate funding and governance issues for transportation matters across the greater Vancouver regional district.

With those tasks complete, I asked Mr. Corrigan to assume the duties of a part-time chair. He had taken a substantial loss in terms of his law practice and decided that he would return to his law practice.

R. Coleman: Mr. Corrigan went on to complain that he worked so hard for B.C. Transit that he didn't have time to take any vacations. Well, according to his travel itinerary he had time to go to Anaheim, California, for a week last October. The only problem is that B.C. Transit forgot to include the cost of this trip to Anaheim in answering the freedom-of-information request that we gave them.

Can the minister tell the House who went and how much this trip to Anaheim cost B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The trip the hon. member refers to is the time when B.C. Transit received an international award for its service. I will take the question of the details of the trip and the cost on notice.

CAR ALLOWANCES FOR
CROWN CORPORATION EXECUTIVES

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please. If we're going to ask a question, we have to wait for the answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's some confusion in the question. The reference was to B.C. Hydro, and I assume the hon. member means B.C. Transit. So I'll rise to answer that question.

In fact, there is a policy in place across government, which has been established by our Crown corporations secretariat, that makes it very clear what the vehicle lease policy is. Executive vehicles should be available only to chief executive officers and vice-presidents, leases should be 48 months in duration unless a more favourable rate can be negotiated, and executive vehicles must not be vehicles which the general public thinks of as luxury vehicles.

K. Krueger: It's understandable that it's difficult for the cabinet to choose who shall answer, because these luxury car lease deals are popping up all over.

Clearly the NDP have had problems with their patronage appointments and their luxury cars. There was Marc Eliesen and his $8,000 car allowance. There was Connie Munro, who had to have a Volvo 750 so she could fit it in her garage. Then Derek Corrigan drove off into the sunset in his Saab 900.

Can the minister tell the House why the NDP, after all the public outrage at these perks -- and the public is outraged -- continues, for years, to give appointees luxury cars?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let's look at who actually put this policy in place in 1990. Let's look at who was on the B.C. Transit board when the policy was put in place. This is dated July 18, 1990.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Do you know who was on the board of B.C. Transit at that time? The Leader of the Opposition was on the board that established that policy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. Members! Members, please. We're not going to have time to get to these questions.

B.C. TRANSIT CHAIR COMPENSATION

Can the minister tell the House who is telling the truth: Mr. Corrigan, who claims that he was charging exactly what he said he would charge, or the Premier, who said it would be a part-time position?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I know there's often an orchestration of question period, but this is ridiculous.

That question has been answered. But let me put in context, for the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, the work that has been done in the last few years in the area of transit for the constituents of her riding. There have been major improvements to the transit service in the greater Victoria area that have been shepherded through since our government took office in 1991. There is a transportation system in place now that is award-winning and that is viewed as a model to be considered across Canada. That has benefited her constituents, and that's the work that was being done at B.C. Transit over the course of the last three years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, could I just remind members that. . . . This has nothing whatsoever to do with question period; this, rather, has to do with standing order 9. Standing order 9 makes reference to strange configurations like the decorum and dignity of the House.

I suggest to members that you place me in an awkward position, given my obligation to impose and uphold the rules 

[ Page 3566 ]

of the chamber. Sometimes, when I can't hear questions or answers, we're clearly offending the rules of dignity and decorum. Can I ask members to please take that under advisement for future conduct.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

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

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

K. Whittred: First thing this afternoon I would like to revisit the area of caregivers, and respite in particular, largely because I inadvertently left the main source on what I wanted to speak about this morning in my office. I am referring specifically to a report called "For I and Mine: Respite Services in British Columbia," dated June 1995. This report was commissioned by the provincial respite advisory committee, created by the Ministry of Health in September 1993, which reported eventually to the then Minister of Health and the then Minister of Social Services, who is the current Minister of Health. So that is the background of the report I am using.

Now, it is certainly not my intent to go through all of the various aspects of this report. I think we have touched in general on the main issues. What I want to do is to refer to just a few of the recommendations and to see if these are in fact being followed up on. The first recommendation of the report is as follows:

"A respite coordinating committee be created to coordinate provincial level policy development and to monitor funding and service development decisions. The committee should include representatives of those who use or who are affected by respite services, their advocates, organizations that provide services and all ministries involved in funding or providing respite."

Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly the ministries are working on implementing this report. I actually met with the authors of the report, along with. . . . I don't know whether the Minister of Health of the day was there; I'm sorry, my memory fails me on that matter. And we are working toward making sure that we're moving forward in a coordinated way on the recommendations.

K. Whittred: I will take that answer as a no: there has been no specific committee set up, but you feel that you are addressing the issues in another manner.

A second provision -- and this is an issue that I really haven't addressed in my canvass of issues in this area -- is to give first nations the option of taking authority and responsibility for provincially funded respite services to first nations people. I have not specifically canvassed the area of first nations people, but I'm aware that a very recent report has been issued regarding caregivers for first nations. Could I ask the minister exactly what is being done in that area?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe the report the hon. member is probably referring to is a report on the health issues of first nations elders. That report will be received and made public at the June meeting of the Seniors Advisory Council. I expect that is what the hon. member is referring to.

In the area of home care services for first nations, there are some pilot projects going on right now at the regional level that are very successful -- one right here within the capital health region. They provide home care on reserve for elders but also for the first nations population that need home care, and they're very successful.

As always, issues of health care for first nations people are made complex by the division of responsibility -- really, one could argue that there isn't a division of responsibility, that first nations health care is the responsibility of the federal government. In this province we have made sure that we do as much as possible as a provincial government to ensure that first nations people on reserve don't fall through the cracks, in spite of the fact that it is the responsibility of the federal government.

K. Whittred: While we're on this topic, it reminds me of a question, if I may be permitted a little side trip. Sticking with the issue of first nations, I'm somewhat familiar with that, because there was an issue that came up in my own community regarding home care services to the Squamish nation. I gather that they look after that themselves, that it is their own responsibility. However, I also gather that residential care is contracted with the regional board. I wonder if the minister could tell me if that is a unique situation or if that is in fact fairly common practice throughout the province.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is by contract and differs from region to region in the province, based on the request from the first nation. For instance, Westbank has a similar contractual arrangement to what exists in the member's community.

[2:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Respite care and the responsibility of staffing to offer respite care is part of the integrated services that continuing-care assessors hold responsibility for. There is no designated position.

K. Whittred: I will attempt to limit my queries to those recommendations which I think would perhaps have universal provincial application.

Another one which I think might fall into this category is a recommendation that each community establish responsibility for providing 24-hour access to respite information and services, on an emergency basis. I will perhaps modify that a 

[ Page 3567 ]

little bit by asking the minister whether or not all regions of the province have access to some sort of 24-hour emergency crisis intervention for caregivers and/or clients.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are always emergency services available through our health care system, but there's no designated line such as the report recommends.

K. Whittred: This particular recommendation is one which I feel is probably a provincial responsibility and could easily be done through some sort of protocol -- that is, that the needs of caregivers for respite services be identified and referrals made as part of hospital discharge planning. I wonder if any sort of protocol has been put in place.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Respite care is part of the resourcing that's reviewed and determined and assessed at the time of discharge planning. It is part of discharge planning.

K. Whittred: I'm very happy to hear that.

Another one that falls in the same line is a recommendation that all service delivery systems contain measures or guidelines for prevention of the conditions which would lead to neglect or abuse. The same question: are those protocols in place provincially?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The office for seniors has an education and training program for prevention of elder abuse. We have a protocol for assessing and determining elder abuse when a client may present herself or himself with symptoms, and the adult guardian legislation provides for a legislative prohibition against elder abuse.

K. Whittred: Just pursuing that one a little bit further. . . . I am familiar myself, through my own previous occupation and what not, with protocols that deal with the abuse of children. With the aged, do these protocols. . . ? Can the minister describe to what degree these protocols go beyond assessing obvious physical abuse that might be apparent to a health care worker? I'm looking now at situations that may arise in other areas that might deal with emotional or financial abuse and with other caregivers in the community network.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll make available the full package of all of the information we have on elder abuse. The protocol -- the educational programs and the outreach -- that we do in that area is very extensive, and I'd be more than happy to make all of that information available.

K. Whittred: I appreciate the minister's gesture. But I think I already have all that information, so I don't think I require it at this moment.

The final recommendation from this particular package that I want to inquire about is recommendation No. 40: "The Ministries of Health and Social Services, in collaboration with service users and their representatives, review issues of user fees, income testing and additional care costs." I am generally familiar with the user fee system. It is also my understanding that there have just been increases. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two initiatives that have occurred. One is the regular quarterly adjustment, based on the change in the OAS rates. The contribution on behalf of the client is based on a percentage of the OAS rate. That took place recently. There's also an income verification project going on right now, where we are verifying clients' income based on Revenue Canada records, and there will be adjustments in individual payments based on that.

K. Whittred: While we have mentioned the issue of adult abuse and elderly abuse, I would be remiss if I didn't at least ask, for the record, the status of the four acts. I must confess that I know the answer, and as you are probably aware, members on this side of the House have been participating on a committee with members opposite. We view this as a completely non-partisan issue. I'm just wondering, for the record, if the minister could report on the status of that committee at this time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Are the four acts that the member refers to the adult guardianship legislation?

Yes, a very extensive process has been going on since the adult guardianship legislation was passed, which was three years ago. Certainly from our perspective, the office for seniors continues to be an active participant in the joint community-government committees to guide the implementation of the adult guardianship legislation.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard is doing a review to make sure that an appropriate schedule is in place for proclaiming the legislation, and to recommend ways in which the implementation can be done as cost effectively as possible. We have also retained the expert services of John Hogarth, who is a lawyer with expertise in this area. In the meantime, our ministry is preparing for the legislation to be implemented in the very near future.

I must say that these are pieces of legislation that have provoked a great deal of interest within the community, and there are strongly held views on all four acts. I look forward to the day when all matters are resolved to the vast majority's satisfaction and we actually proclaim the legislation.

K. Whittred: I would like to state for the record that I share the minister's desire that this legislation is, at some point -- hopefully, in the very near future -- brought to some reasonable conclusion, because it certainly is very necessary legislation.

I would like to move now and canvass for a few moments the issue of volunteers, not only within the continuing-care system but also generally within the area of seniors. The value of volunteers is certainly a point made in the book about respite need. I think that the value of volunteers within this area is not in the least questioned. Many, many groups who are greatly concerned that their funding is going to be lost have canvassed me, as critic in this area. In many cases their seed money has been provided for by government grants.

I will start with a letter I have from the B.C. Association of Community Care. Without reading the whole thing, I would simply point out that they express a concern. Perhaps I could read one paragraph which more or less summarizes this:

"The financial contributions made by independent societies to the health care delivery system are quite substantial. Service clubs, community-based charitable organizations and/or denominationally affiliated organizations play a central role in fundraising. Such societies have partially or fully funded the purchase of land, construction of buildings and even operating costs of the original facility. Fundraising is a growing activity of volunteers which adds value to capital programs and services. With government deficits, the need for the community to assist with financial support is greater than ever, and organizations depend more and more on generous donors."

[ Page 3568 ]

"We are concerned that replacing the board of directors with a centralized administrative structure would tend to shift community care from a holistic approach, which recognizes the importance of social, emotional and spiritual components of care, to a medically based model. A decentralized health care structure is better able to foster diversity and innovation. Many continuing care facilities and agencies originated under community societies in response to local needs and opportunities. Society boards also serve as a mechanism to inform and involve a wide range of community citizens in the health care system."

[3:00]

But it also seems to me -- it may be just a matter of emphasis -- that what is really needed in the area of community care is further integration with the acute care system, so that our health care system is not dominated by an acute care model and so that the focus is shifted much more to a continuum of care and the appropriate care for people in the appropriate environment. This includes a much greater emphasis on continuing and -- in the context of continuing -- community care.

So I expect this organization to have an even bigger part to play as we regionalize health care.

D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Symons: In the gallery and about the precincts are 75 grade 7 students from James Thompson Elementary School in Richmond. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Hallett, and several adults. I would ask the House to please make them welcome. Indeed, since there are a lot of people doing other duties, we'll have to work harder at making that welcome really meaningful to them.

K. Whittred: Continuing with the volunteers, I would like to make reference now to the concerns of the Seniors Health Promotion Network. I am probably correct in assuming that the minister has heard from this organization. To start with, I wonder if the minister could state for the record the kinds of projects that were funded by the Seniors Health Promotion Network.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sustaining the network will now be part of the regional health boards' responsibilities.

K. Whittred: Yes, I understand that. Can the minister tell me what their funding was previously, under the centralized system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In last year's funding it was $325,000.

K. Whittred: Can the minister tell me: is that money still being given to the regions in the same proportion as it was before?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

K. Whittred: I have a couple of other questions to bring up in this category from representations that I have received. One is from the Caregivers Association. The Caregivers Association, I believe, is one of the organizations that received funding under the umbrella of the Seniors Health Promotion Network. They point out that they provide respite and caregiver support for about $6 an hour and that the ministry could not possibly provide the service for that same amount of money. They are concerned that with the change in governance, they too are going to lose their funding. I wonder if the minister could comment on behalf of the Caregivers Association.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Caregivers Association of B.C. has not received any money since 1996, and there will not be any further government funding.

K. Whittred: How would the minister respond to the caregivers' claims that they were providing this service to a large number of people for a very, very reasonable rate? I have met with these people recently -- in fact, people from various groups -- and their question to me was: why are we being fired? We're doing this for nothing; we're not being paid, so why are we being fired? I think that's a very good question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's a question we struggle with daily across government services in the context of our current fiscal situation, and tough decisions are made about the best use for limited resources. This was a decision made by asking: what is the best possible way to spend our health care dollars? That's on front-line services. But I do know that regional health boards will continue to fund caregiver organizations and will do so on a local basis.

K. Whittred: I'm interested in the minister's response that they will continue to fund front-line organizations, apparently implying that caregivers are not part of the front-line process.

One other program that I would like to mention, because it struck me as sort of ridiculous, was a small program run by a community organization in Penticton. This was a really neat little program. It was a meal preparation program, and it was run through the Penticton and district seniors wellness association, which is another one of these groups that I believe are losing their funding. What they did was get seniors together in a church hall, I believe once or twice a week, and prepare their lunch. They not only had their lunch, which provided nutrition and socializing, but they also prepared extra meals which they froze to take home so they would have a nutritious lunch for the next day.

[ Page 3569 ]

Now, all they were asking for was $300 to buy some pots and pans, and they apparently had great difficulty getting this sort of money. This kind of program -- it costs almost nothing; it addresses all the needs of seniors' well-being, like nutrition, social interaction and mobility -- is the very thing I think we're talking about when we're talking about community health. I wonder why it feels like that kind of program is not valued in the community. That is a concern, and I wonder if I could hear the minister's response.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, unlike the federal government, we truly do value the contributions that seniors organizations make. We're left once again in a situation where the federal government is opting out of all seniors program funding -- New Horizons. They've sunsetted their organization's funding, and we're being faced on a daily basis with organizations coming to us, saying: "The federal government is abandoning us. Can you help us?" We are working right now on a strategy to determine what, if anything, B.C. taxpayers can do with the abandonment of seniors by the federal government.

Let me just tell you what we do with our own tax dollars. Let's use the example of meals for seniors. We spent a million dollars -- $1,043,603 -- on seniors meal programs. That was last budget, and we've increased that in this budget. The cost is very effective, there's no question about it; the cost per meal is $1.16. We continue to fund those programs, and they are valued -- but, again, in the context of who best makes those decisions for funding community programs. Should it be us in Victoria, or should it be the regional health board and the community health council? I would suggest it should be the regional health board and the community health council.

Overlying all of this discussion is: how do we best cope with a federal government that has abandoned seniors in this province?

K. Whittred: I do not disagree with the minister's statement that these decisions are best made locally. However, I do have concerns, after talking with many of the organizations, that very important and crucial programs that are often small and often overlooked may in fact become lost in the shuffle as regions make their decisions.

I would like to ask a question now about the peer counselling program. This is a program that I believe was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Services. One of the things I discovered in my meetings was that it was recommended that this be moved to the office for seniors, and I believe that this has been done. I wonder if this could be confirmed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am well aware of this very valuable program, because I had an opportunity to meet with the senior citizens counsellors under my former portfolio. We are discussing the best location for this program. The criteria are based on the fact that we have to take an integrated and coordinated approach to addressing the priority needs of seniors. The whole goal of the senior citizens counsellors program is to make sure that seniors get assistance in accessing the services and benefits provided across government.

Ministries love this program, and there's pride of ownership in the program. But I expect that the discussions will conclude in an amicable way.

K. Whittred: I share the minister's enthusiasm for this program, because I too have heard nothing but good things about it. Perhaps it would be useful, in the interests of sharing and being helpful where I can, to share with the minister the particular reasons that the people I met with felt that it would be better served by being under the auspices of the office for seniors. It was a general feeling on the part of the seniors counsellors that by being in the Social Services ministry, they were somewhat out of the loop. They felt a bit isolated from other organizational and community structures that serve seniors' organizations. So I share that with you, for whatever it is worth.

Continuing with the peer counselling program, I wonder if the minister would state for the record exactly what the purpose of the peer counselling program is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a counsellor program where seniors, on a volunteer basis in their community, work to make sure that the seniors in that community know what government programs are available and how best to access those programs for seniors across government.

K. Whittred: I would like at this time to again share just a little bit more information or input, if you like, that I had related to this. In discussion, some of the people involved in this program felt that there was a need for the mandate of this program to perhaps go a little bit further than it has -- into the area of being available when seniors had crisis situations and being available to help them access family, and perhaps more into an area that we would normally think of as a social service rather than an information service. I'm wondering what the minister's reaction to that is.

[3:15]

K. Whittred: I think I have just about exhausted those areas that I wished to canvass. One last area that I will just mention to the minister and ask for comments on are those areas of federal jurisdiction that fall within the category of seniors and are of particular concern to seniors. These, of course, involve Bill C-91. I am very familiar with the minister's approach to Bill C-91, and, of course, all of those things and issues that surround the Canada Pension Plan, RSPs and other areas of economic security for seniors.

So my question to the minister in this area is: does the minister see it within her mandate to bring these matters to the attention of the government in Ottawa?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure your colleagues won't assume that was a lob to me -- a soft lob. And thank you for raising the issue.

Yes, I see it as my responsibility on behalf of not just seniors but all British Columbia taxpayers to bring to the attention of the federal government how damaging their law -- Bill C-91 -- is to British Columbians.

It costs $40 million per year in excessive drug prices in Pharmacare alone -- a direct result of the law of Bill C-91. I went to Ottawa, and I didn't say: "Get rid of Bill C-91, and get rid of the 20-year patent." We know that that's just simply impossible. That's setting ourselves up for failure. I went there and said: "Yes, keep your 20-year patent, but make it work in a way that's fair to taxpayers. Don't allow the 20-year patent to become a 25- or 26-year drug patent" -- which is what's happening now. We also gave some good advice, I think -- 

[ Page 3570 ]

and were actually carefully listened to by the standing committee reviewing Bill C-91 -- on how they could control excessive marketing practices which lead to overuse of drugs -- particularly by seniors. Unfortunately -- and I'm sure it wasn't my presentation that provoked it -- they called the election within days after that. We will await the conclusion of the federal election and once again start our advocacy on the issue of Bill C-91 on behalf of British Columbians.

In the area of pensions, yes, that is a very important item. It is on the agenda for the next meeting of federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for seniors -- which includes me. We also have a committee in British Columbia organized by the office for seniors that monitors all the changes and impacts to pension and retirement income legislation. And, of course, we work very closely with the ministry responsible for pensions in our government, which is the Ministry of Finance.

K. Whittred: I sort of walked into that one, didn't I? I didn't intend to provide the minister with a soapbox, but I am glad to hear that she is representing these issues with the federal government on behalf of seniors.

Just a couple of little things to conclude with. Of things I have noted that drive seniors crazy, one of them has to do with technology. A frequent complaint that I get often has to do with things like parking ticket dispensers, automated phone systems -- you know, the kind of phone number where you phone and have choice A, choice B, choice C and so on. And I simply pass along to the Minister Responsible for Seniors that this is an area that is very difficult for seniors. Many of them become extremely confused and therefore give up on the process.

Another one that I will pass on to the minister is the federal 1-800 number. There is apparently only one number to access for many, many seniors issues that relate to their old age pensions and benefits which, as you know, are largely federal. So perhaps I will leave you with that little bit of warm advice and leave that in the good hands of the office for seniors.

I have to leave in just a moment to catch a helijet for an event in North Vancouver. So thank you.

I. Chong: I just have a few questions for the minister. Although they have been asked by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I would just like more precise clarification.

On the issue of the adult guardianship legislation, which I understand was passed in July of 1993, and which I understand is going through a process for proclamation at this time. . . . I understand there are some seniors groups that are concerned about the representation agreement. If those concerns cannot be addressed, will that particular act be removed, rediscussed and dealt with in isolation from the proclamation of all four acts? Or how will you be proceeding with that?

The Chair: Hon. member, that is a matter of legislation, and it's not a subject for debate during estimates. You have to wait for second reading or find another opportunity to ask that question. But it's not a proper topic, as is demonstrated on page 138 of the rules.

I. Chong: Hon. Chair, thank you for the clarification. It's just that it had been brought up earlier. We had just discussed the matter of proclamation, it was clarified to us, and I just wanted further clarification. So if I'm not able to approach that subject, that's fine. I'll wait until I speak to the seniors groups and get more direction from them.

The other area I wanted to touch on, as well -- which the member had asked about and addressed prior to my speaking -- was the Seniors Health Promotion Network. I am clear on the fact that it was a volunteer group and that the budget of $325,000 was provided by the Ministry of Health. And, in fact, I was told that that funding had expired at March 31. The Minister of Health has just advised that the funding will continue and be passed on to the capital regional health board.

Can I confirm that that entire funding would be passed on? How will it be dealt with?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The $325,000 was the provincial funding. The responsibility for the program is being turned over to the regional health boards, and the allocation of funds across the province is to be determined.

I. Chong: Again, for clarification, I recognize that the $325,000 was the provincial funding, and that it will continue at this point. And the allocation of that $325,000 is all that we're talking about. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not even holding to the $325,000. There may be changes in that; there could be increases, for all we know. We are now figuring out where the money should go on a region-by-region basis or a community health council basis. Those discussions are ongoing.

I. Chong: I guess my concern is that, given the change -- and I know there has been a discussion at length on regionalization. . . . This is of primary concern to a number of seniors -- especially those that reside in my riding -- because a number of very small grants have been allocated. They were very prudent in what was being allocated to a number of groups which exist throughout the capital region area, in particular.

The concerns I received were, first of all, to ask and canvass the minister as to whether the $325,000 would be in place -- if it's greater, fine -- and if the allocation that will be passed on to become the responsibility of the regional health boards or the community councils. . . . If a particular group is not satisfied, is there any recourse, redress or appeal process that groups would be able to seek through the ministry? If the seniors' group felt that they were shut out. . . . As I have it, there are about a dozen groups that receive grants from the $325,000. They're very concerned that they'll be lost in the shuffle and that regionalization efforts will leave them without representation.

Their concern to me, which I'd like the minister to give me some direction on, is: is there any kind of approach they could take, or are the capital health board and the community councils the only places they have?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They will be able to talk to the health board directly. That is the approach they should take if indeed their fears have substance. I would ask them to be patient, but they can appeal directly to the capital health board.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. I will pass that message on, because I know fears are perhaps premature sometimes. Again, they are seniors, and that's what they do concern themselves with.

The other area I want to ask the minister on, hon. Chair, is. . . . She mentioned that federal funding for seniors projects was being abandoned, yet my recollection from last summer is that there was a press release from Health Canada -- "New Horizons: Partners in Aging" -- that said funding of some 

[ Page 3571 ]

$44,000 had been provided for a project. I'm wondering whether or not that is a project that the ministry also participates in and whether there was shared funding in place for the New Horizons program.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was solely federal money.

I. Chong: The answer I'm hearing from the minister is that this was a program that was totally federally funded, and in fact it was a seniors program that was provided. So federal funding has not been totally abandoned by the government. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if the member is trying to defend the federal government's record on seniors with this one, minute example, good. But they have basically sunsetted the entire New Horizons program.

I. Chong: I'm not trying to defend anyone; I just want clarification. The earlier comment was that programs had been totally abandoned, and I found this one particular one. I wondered whether there were more and whether or not the provincial government was also providing some matching dollars.

Another question I have is another concern that seniors have at this point. I am wondering whether the minister has. . . . I know I may be approaching the wrong ministry. Again, it deals with the issue of no-fault insurance and seniors. Has the Minister Responsible for Seniors looked at this issue in respect of how this may affect seniors?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's future policy.

I. Chong: I thought that might be the answer, but I just wondered if there had already been any projects or discussions in place.

The other issue I'd like to quickly canvass -- and again I will see what the minister has to advise us on this -- is property taxation, which seniors are currently finding. . . . I realize that this has to do with Municipal Affairs; however, we're wondering if seniors have been able to speak to the minister. Is there any group or any branch of the ministry that they're able to approach? Seniors who are on fixed incomes and who are dealing with heavy property taxes due to increases in their values. . . . Has there in fact been any attempt for them to have consultation with the ministry to deal with that?

[3:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, this is a matter that my Seniors Advisory Council has addressed. They say that we need to make sure that all of our seniors are well aware of it and that there's public education about what is available to seniors in terms of the property tax deferment program run by our Ministry of Finance. In fact, that is not only a program where you can actually defer your taxes but there's also consultation available to seniors about whether it meets their financial needs and how to do it. It's a matter of making the information available to seniors in order to make the proper decision and alleviate their own concerns. We do our best to advertise the program, and we'll continue to do so.

I. Chong: Those were the very few, brief questions I had on this particular subject area, and I thank the minister for her answers.

K. Krueger: One of the issues touching on the lives of seniors that repeatedly comes up in my constituency is the long lineups to get into the extended-care and medium care facilities as people reach that age. It's tremendously stressful on the seniors who need to get into those facilities and on their loved ones who try to support them. They sometimes find themselves dealing with their mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers through the last stages of their lives, when they're very ill-equipped to do so. People die in their family's home still waiting on those waiting lists. That is the situation in the Kamloops-North Thompson and Kamloops constituencies. I'm not certain if it's a situation in most constituencies around the province. I wonder if the minister could please give me a status report on that situation and tell me about plans to remedy it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the Blues are out from this morning, but we did have a good discussion on this matter of provincial wait-lists this morning. I ask the member to take the opportunity to read that, and then if there are further questions, I'd certainly be more than happy to answer them.

Very briefly, there's a provincial wait-list strategy. Seniors get to choose to be wait-listed for two care institutions anywhere in the province. The wait-list is established chronologically but also takes into account the special needs of a particular senior or person needing continuing care. That could be a change in health circumstances that requires the person to move up on the wait-list.

There are stats available by region, and I can make those available to the member.

K. Krueger: I spent some time travelling around my constituency with public health nurses who are involved in continuing care and, with the families' and patients' permission, sitting in on some of the interviews that are done to assess people as to whether or not they ought to be moving on into that kind of care. I've received distressed communications from these nurses concerning a recent Labour Relations Board decision that continuing-care nurses need not necessarily be registered nurses. I would appreciate an update on the status of that matter and what the government's intention is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We certainly would never interfere with a Labour Relations Board decision. However, I believe the concerns raised by nurses to me directly around this matter have been addressed in the legislation that I tabled yesterday, and we can appropriately discuss that during that debate.

K. Krueger: That's good to hear, and that's what we'll do.

I have a concern with regard to the fact that the members of the regional health boards have been appointed. While many of them seem to me to be really good people, I don't know if their level of expertise is such that they are going to be able to deal with problems like the one I was just discussing in the same way as people who have spent a lot more time in 

[ Page 3572 ]

their life preparing for that type of decision-making. I'd like to know about any concrete plans that the government has to actually build facilities or deal with improving the number of beds available to people in my constituency and elsewhere around the province for medium and extended care.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will be making announcements very shortly on our capital investments for 1997-98. Capital planning for continuing care remains the responsibility of the provincial ministry, but we'll work in consultation with regional health boards and community councils.

K. Krueger: Eight months before the May 1996 provincial election, the minister of the day and the MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson, who was an NDP MLA, made a promise in Clearwater that a multilevel health care facility would be built that included the provision of beds so people could live out their lives in the community where they spent them with their loved ones. Of course, it's a bitter disappointment to people there that the facility isn't in place. In fact, it's far from it. I would appreciate an update on the status of that particular project.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the meantime, we had an election where the issue of debt and debt accumulation was a primary focus raised by what is now the official opposition. At that time, there was a great deal made about the fact that our government had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, universities and colleges, and somehow that was considered a negative by the official opposition.

It became such an important issue that after the election, during which we listened very carefully, we put a freeze on all capital construction plans and did a complete review of capital construction. We made sure that we put in place all the criteria for justifying our capital expenditures across government, and we put in place some excellent further criteria for cost containment measures. That was a direct result of the last provincial election. Hence projects such as the one that was announced in Clearwater have been confirmed, so that each and every commitment we made will be implemented over the course of the next four years. But the way we do that will be announced in the coming days by my ministry.

K. Krueger: With respect, the financial situation of British Columbia was known and understood, and it has been clearly documented by Treasury Board officials in documents that we obtained and produced publicly. It was documented well before the election. Nevertheless, a promise is a promise is a promise, and that facility was promised eight months before the election. It wasn't one of the $2 billion worth of promises made in the 60 days before the election. Rather, it was made as a result of careful consideration. It was apparently a business decision that was taken well in advance of the election, so I would very much appreciate a specific date as to when the shovels will go into the ground in Clearwater to honour that promise.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just take that as advice from the member for us to continue to spend on capital projects. I appreciate his advice to me, and an announcement will be coming shortly.

K. Krueger: My advice is to keep specific promises but not to spend money on fixed-wage policies and unnecessarily expensive ways of building capital projects without open tendering. If that advice could also be accepted, I would very much appreciate it -- and so, I think, would the taxpayers of British Columbia. People expect good value for the dollar. They also expect government to keep its promises.

In the matter of the seniors population, it is astonishing to people that it seems to have taken the government by surprise that there are presently so many seniors in our population. The continuing-care nurses I was referring to say that their cases are much more severe on average than they used to be, and they are expected to deal with a whole lot more people than they used to do. As the population has aged, the resources haven't been put into place to absorb the impact or to provide the same level of attention and care as was provided in the past. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on those points.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the concerns of the registered nurses in terms of the appropriate staffing mix for continuing-care institutions. Our ministry staff are well aware of that and are working within the industry to resolve the issue. But certainly, staffing mix is an issue that needs to be addressed by the institutions themselves among the various professions that are affected by that.

Secondly, I would just advise the member that we continue to provide increased funding to continuing-care institutions where there has been understaffing, and we will continue that policy. We are also working as a ministry with the BCNU on a study regarding levels of staffing and the mix of staffing.

K. Krueger: I know that the minister is a compassionate person who cares about the individuals who are hurt by constrictions in the delivery of service. I hear of these cases, and I'm sure she does too.

One elderly gentleman had lived most of his life in Kamloops and was approaching the end of his life. In the last eight hours of his life, he had to be taken by ambulance to Ashcroft, because that was the only place where there was a bed for him. He died there, apart from his family, and it was extremely traumatic for the family. Really, it seems unfair to him, although I'm sure everybody was doing the best they could under the circumstances. That's why I hope that this particular problem is one that will receive a high level of priority from the regional health boards, and I hope that they have that direction from the ministry.

I had a constituent speak with me this past weekend -- and I've had a number of them over past months -- about the reference-based pricing policies. I understand the rationale for them. This gentleman said that because of the medication change that was attempted with his wife as a result of that policy, she ended up in intensive care for ten days because of a bad reaction to the new medication. I'd ask the minister how common that type of problem has been with the reference-based pricing policy.

[3:45]

[ Page 3573 ]

have received no reports such as the hon. member describes. So I am very interested in him, if he could, making sure that the patient's spouse asks the doctor to report this to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, because certainly to date there has been no report.

K. Krueger: I will do as asked. I wish to speak with the minister later in these estimates about other matters, but for the time being my colleague from Langley would like to ask some questions on seniors issues.

L. Stephens: I would not like to go over a lot of the ground that colleagues have gone over. There's been quite a bit of canvassing of different issues. I do want to have on the record a few things around mental health that are in my particular constituency and of concern to me, but they will be primarily for the minister's information. I'd like to start with the issues in the constituency, and then I'd like to go into women's health issues, which are broader and in the more provincial arena.

The one thing that has caused us a great deal of consternation, if you like, is the flesh-eating disease cases that have occurred in Langley. I know that there's been an inquiry into why there are so many cases in one spot and that they haven't been able to find anything at the moment. It's reported that the health officers are considering making it mandatory for all health professionals to report cases of flesh-eating disease and infections associated with it, such as invasive streptococcus A.

I wonder if the minister is giving direction of some kind on that particular initiative and whether or not this is something that should be pursued. For us in Langley -- I would encourage the minister -- this is a serious issue.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The direction that I would follow on this would be to receive the advice or the recommendation from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control or the provincial health officer. Then I would be prepared to immediately act upon their recommendation to me.

I certainly sympathize with the community around this matter and was pleased that our B.C. Centre for Disease Control took such quick action to have a national conference on this issue. Of course, it has been publicly reported that they came to the conclusion that the cluster of disease was unrelated. Nevertheless, they will continue to explore the matter. If they come to the advice that this is a reportable disease, then I will certainly act on that.

L. Stephens: That is comforting. I wanted to bring that to the minister's attention, because we will be monitoring how that particular process is moving along and whether or not the health officers are going to be looking at it seriously.

I want to just briefly talk about mental health. Again, on the record, our particular community is very concerned about the government's decision not to cover olanzapine as a first-line treatment and to withdraw risperidone from its coverage -- again, for all of the reasons that previous members have talked about. It seems to be a consensus that communities and those in mental health that have had a long history of dealing with those disorders believe that these two initiatives deserve a second look.

Again, the Schizophrenia Society in my community is very concerned, particularly about keeping its youth safe. That brings up housing. Something that I'd like to know is if the minister has any initiatives to expand safe and secure housing, particularly for young adults that suffer from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, we had a very good discussion on olanzapine and risperidone. I know the member is well aware of that. We will continue to make our decisions based on the best evidence available; we will continue to review the evidence and will change, if needed, based on the best evidence available.

On the issue of housing for people with mental illness, we are in the process right now of investing $2.2 million this year, which will be spent in a variety of ways. Initially, there will be 200 more independent supported units available for people with mental illness. Beyond that, there will also be money available for support services in the community as they live independently. Lastly, we're also working with the B.C. Housing Management Commission, investing health care dollars to ensure that the new policy of priority placement in BCHMC housing being given to people with mental illness does occur.

L. Stephens: Could the minister just indicate to me where these 200 more independent supported units would be was canvassed? If all of that was taken into consideration and talked about, I will look up those conversations in Hansard. If not, I would like the minister to say where those units will be. Is there going to be an allocation around the province in any sort of equitable way? Will they be run by non-profit societies? All those issues around that. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we didn't actually have a discussion about how the beds will be allocated initially, but they are allocated on the basis of need. That means about 120 to 130 are in the lower mainland, and the rest are allocated throughout the province.

There will be a combination of methods by which supported independent living takes place. The model that seems to be working very effectively is market rate -- market housing -- but with support services in place to accompany the person. It's market rate, but with a subsidy to the person and staff support as well.

L. Stephens: Has this particular initiative been announced, or will it be announced soon? Could the minister indicate where I could get more complete information on what this will entail?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I announced it, not in a news release but to the community -- to public mental health. Certainly the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division, is making sure that I do my job. They have the information, but I could make it available to you in a detailed way, as well.

L. Stephens: Thank you for that information.

The other issue that's important to our area is case management -- the resources for case management to help individuals determine where their best interests lie, as far as treatment and accessing services. Is that going to be a function of the regional health boards? Now, I understand that the union boards of health are being folded into the regional health boards. Would that be an issue that the regional health boards would have to deal with? If so, what would be the process or the mechanism for mental health to bring forward those kinds of issues?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe the member is asking about case-managing for people with mental illness. The mental 

[ Page 3574 ]

health workers will be the responsibility of regional health boards and community health services societies, and there will be coordinated case management. Also, we had a good discussion yesterday about how that coordination, when we're talking about children, will take place with the Ministry for Children and Families.

And yes, the union boards of health have been transferred to the regional health boards and community health councils. I'm pleased to say there's excellent representation by union board members on the current regional health boards and community health councils. Union boards of health provide an invaluable service, and that contribution will continue through the regional health boards and community health councils.

L. Stephens: I know there was discussion the other day around bulimia and anorexia, which are two illnesses that I think are becoming much more common and that certainly seem to be on the increase. I know a discussion was had by a number of members around that particular issue, but I would like to highlight for the minister that I think it is one that we need to pay particular attention to, particularly with our youth. There needs to be some information and educational initiatives in that direction -- perhaps also educating adults, parents, as to what to look for, what signs to look for with their children. I know a couple of young girls who have anorexia, and it's really quite devastating for the families and even friends.

The other issue that I'd like to talk a little bit about is the provincial health officer's annual report. This is the '95 one; the '96 isn't out. When he was making some recommendations around mental health, he talked about restoring and maximizing the level of independence and quality of life for women with mental illnesses. His recommendation was to "improve reporting of population mental health status and effectiveness of mental health services." I wonder if the minister could talk about whether or not a baseline has been established for women with mental health and whether there has been an improved delivery service for women with mental health problems.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we do keep a database on people with mental illness, and that information is available. I'm sorry that I don't have it with me today, but if the member would like me to report later to the Legislature on that, I will. Of course, I am pleased -- this has been an unheralded announcement, too -- with the putting in place of plan G under our Pharmacare program, which covers drugs for people with mental illness, and that's good news as well. But on the statistical, if any, increase, I'll have to report later.

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've had a great deal of discussion on the performance measures we're putting in place in the acute care hospitals, which include patient satisfaction and health outcomes. And indeed, the same performance measures will apply to our mental health system, as well. So those will be the indicators. As we regionalize, the performance indicators will be based on the recommendations of the provincial health officer.

L. Stephens: One of the other issues that comes out of mental health and women is that many women -- a third of the women -- who require mental health services are women who have experienced violence, and these require some specialized programs. I know that the women's bureau in the ministry has made some progress in this regard and has put together some programs. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about whether this is being expanded and if there are going to be some extra services and extra facilities around women who have experienced abuse and violence and who are requiring mental health services.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we did discuss the Stopping the Violence programs. The Ministry of Women's Equality is coordinating those programs. They work very closely with our women's health bureau and also now the health authorities -- it was just in the individual communities, but is now through the health authorities -- to implement those programs.

The details of the programs that are in place, how they address the concerns. . . . I mean, they're certainly inclusive and integrated programs. But if the member is asking if there are any Stopping the Violence programs targeted specifically at women with mental illness. . . . Oh, okay, she's not asking. Within the context of the Stopping the Violence programs, there is a mental health component to each and every one of them and advice on mental health issues.

R. Kasper: I appreciate the opportunity, actually, to ask a couple of questions during the minister's estimates. It deals with the whole question of the practising of medicine in the province, and the main issue that I've encountered in the past few weeks deals with our Member of Parliament, who actually practises medicine part-time while still collecting a full-time salary as a Member of Parliament. The questions I have relate to the whole issue of the right of a physician to practise medicine in the province and to maintain their billing status. Since this individual is a Member of Parliament, are there provisions in our billing practices for them to take a leave of absence so that they can still practise medicine upon completion of their duration as a sitting Member of Parliament?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The policy is that a physician can be out of the province for two years and not have their billing number affected, and after that they have to apply for an extension of that right beyond two years. Certainly if there is any question around this, the matter can be referred to the Medical Services Commission for review.

R. Kasper: I'm glad to hear that answer, because that's contrary to what I've been hearing publicly. This particular individual has billed the system in excess of $60,000 over the past two years and claimed that he had to do so in order to maintain his status as a practising physician in the province. But he had previously billed in the other years and had practised medicine on a continuous basis. So I find it odd.

But more importantly, what I find odd is that this individual happens to be the strongest advocate within the Reform Party of Canada, who's out there doing his utmost, to do away with our health care system in Canada -- and in British Columbia, in particular -- advocating a two-tier system. I find it totally hypocritical and ironic that this individual has been double-dipping into our health care dollars while the federal 

[ Page 3575 ]

government has been cutting in excess of $300 million to the province of British Columbia over a three-year period -- dipping into our health care dollars in order to feather his nest, to practise medicine. In the event -- and I'm sure he's hoping -- that a two-tiered health care system would occur -- over my dead body -- he'd like to be there front and centre so that he can collect his gravy train and continue to do so.

Another concern I have is that this same individual has a licensing authority to practise medicine in the United States. Not only does he have the opportunity to practise medicine in this province, in this country, he also has the opportunity to practise medicine in the United States, which clearly demonstrates to me that his concern is for a two-tiered health care system. So that he can be in line. . . . He's already been groomed by our neighbours to the south as to how they deal with health care issues and those concerns.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

I think it's important that we get this on the record so that the minister knows that these kinds of activities are occurring -- that there are advocates within the system who are pounding their desks, not only in the offices where they're practising medicine as doctors, but in Parliament in Ottawa, where they're demanding that we restructure the health care system so that they can have a two-tiered system. Individuals, for him. . . . And his attitude is very blatant. He says: "Those who can afford to pay should go to the front of the list." I hope that the minister could at least comment on our concerns, the government's concerns, about preserving our national health care system in Canada and, for that matter, British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This matter -- the preservation of universality in our health care system -- has been a major topic of discussion throughout these estimates. Frankly, there is a lack of understanding about what universality means and about the fact that the federal government only considers the universality of medicare to cover physicians, who are treated very specially in our health care system, and hospitals. Beyond that, the contribution to the rest of our health care system is strictly from B.C. tax dollars. So it is an important topic of discussion, and it has been laced throughout our discussions in estimates.

I am concerned about those who would advocate a two-tier health care system. Certainly our public has considered that and has discarded the idea completely and without hesitation. There is absolutely no support amongst the public in British Columbia for a two-tier health care system. We have recognized that public point of view by incorporating in provincial legislation, under our Medicare Protection Act, the five principles of the universality of medicare. We are the first and, to date, I think we continue to be the only province that has done that.

I am concerned by those who are within the system and benefit by the system through earning wages from the publicly funded health care system. I am concerned by those who would advocate anything other than a universally accessible health care system that is based on need for health care and not on the size of your wallet. So let me reassure the member that there is continuing and unfettered commitment by the NDP government to a universally accessible, single-tier health care system.

M. Sihota: I just want to make a few comments on that same issue, because Dr. Keith Martin, to whom the hon. member just referred, is also the Member of Parliament for our area, representing the Reform Party. And I have to tell the hon. minister that people in my constituency are absolutely outraged that on one hand he can collect the part-time salary as an MP, and at the same time continue to bill the Medical Services Plan here in British Columbia and engage in his own form of double-dipping -- I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of $60,000 over the last two years. They find it absolutely outrageous.

It's no wonder -- and they find it even more outrageous -- that he takes the following position, which he enunciated on June 13, 1995, in the Medical Post publication and which I want to quote. He says:

". . .those people who can afford private treatment should be allowed to have that treatment here in Canada and not have to go to other countries, taking Canadian dollars with them. . . . It will be argued that such a two-tiered system would provide superior services to those that can afford it. Of course it will. . . ."

Interjections.

M. Sihota: And I hear them now coming to the defence of their colleague, acknowledging that it's going to cost Canadians more.

I think it's important that all members of this House make it clear that it's absolutely unacceptable to Canadians that there be a two-tiered, USA-style system and that this kind of double-dipping occur. I would hope that the minister would concur that this is a rather shameful attitude on the part of that Reform MP.

B. Penner: I'd just remind the members opposite that the nomination. . .for the federal election.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce today two people who are visiting the Legislature: Dr. Soledad Tossell from Chilliwack and her friend Dr. Lane Scott, who, interestingly enough, is a physician visiting us today from the United States of America. He's listening with interest to this debate on health care issues in our province. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Sihota: Point of order. I notice that the member for Chilliwack was up in the galleries, and perhaps he may want to acquaint himself with the traditions with regards to strangers in the House.

The Chair: Point well taken.

[4:15]

[ Page 3576 ]

there, and if the government of the day wants to move itself out of here and go electioneer for all those NDP candidates in British Columbia, then just get at it. Why don't you just recess the House and go out? Both of them from Esquimalt are guilty. To come in here. . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member. There is a point of order.

G. Janssen: We are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and the member clearly. . . .

The Chair: Member, just a second, please. Give me a chance to recognize you.

The member for Alberni on a point of order.

G. Janssen: I ask the Chair to bring the House to order. We are discussing the Ministry of Health estimates. Clearly, if the member for Peace River North has a question on Health estimates and has some discussion, I ask you to have him direct those to the minister.

[4:15]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Malahat-Juan de Fuca. There you go.

Hon. Chair, we're talking about a two-tiered health care system. I find it very interesting when two members from Vancouver Island, who happen to be in a constituency where they've got a buddy who's fighting against Dr. Keith Martin in a federal election, stand up and blast the Reform candidate in the federal election over health care. When those two members live in the part of British Columbia that enjoys the best health care that British Columbia can offer. . . . The best health care that British Columbia offers is right here on the point of this island. You have every service available to you, whether it's in health care, whether it's in social services, anything. You have number one. In the north, we have two-tiered health care. We have two-tiered health care in the north, and we have had for as long as I've lived there -- and it's been awhile. So I want to know how the minister intends to deal with two-tiered health care in the constituency of Peace River North. That's one question.

Secondly, in response to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, when he talks about Dr. Keith Martin double-dipping and practising medicine. . . . How about the member who used to sit in this House as a provincial NDPer, Mr. Bernie Simpson, who had a business that made millions out of suing ICBC? He made millions -- Bagman Bernie -- out of suing ICBC, and that was all right. But I can understand that, coming from that gentleman. Has that minister -- or the used-to-be minister. . . ? I guess he created so many problems in the government that he got fired out of every portfolio going. He comes along and starts talking about double-dipping.

But I'd like to know how the minister intends to deal with the two-tiered health care that we experience in the north.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, it is a very important question, and I do commend the member and his caucus colleague for taking the lead from the opposition in representing this matter to government. There are a series of initiatives that have been undertaken. Certainly I work closely with my colleagues across the country to deal with the issue of how people in remote and rural areas access our health care system. It is not a two-tiered system at all, but the member is quite correct in saying that there are issues of proper access to health care depending on where one lives. In many ways our whole society copes with the issue of remoteness -- but through our tax system. Nevertheless, we do demand greater accessibility in our health care system, even though there is a different taxation system depending on where you live in this province.

We have taken several initiatives. There's the northern isolation allowance paid to health care providers. There's also our physician supply measures that have recently been implemented -- and are controversial. There's no question that amongst certain groups of physicians, the physician supply measures, which we have recently introduced in legislation to deal with the issues that the member brings forward, will be controversial. But we have taken, really, the bull by the horns and have implemented them in legislation, even though we know that people will protest our physician supply measures.

We also have an education program through the UBC school of medicine now to work with educational institutions in the north to do physician training that's never been done before. And that is so that people can receive their medical training in the community, in the northern areas, and therefore perhaps reside in those communities after their training is complete. That is meeting with a great deal of success, and I'm now working with the UBC school of medicine to discuss how we can further expand that program.

We have in place the travel assistance program for patients in rural and remote areas to assist them with travel. We also fund our health care system on the basis of where the treatment is given and not where the patient or the health care consumer resides so that there is equitable distribution and access to the services, even though the services may not be located in the person's own community. These are not issues that are unique to British Columbia, and I know the member is aware of that. And in fact we have spent a great deal of effort investing in trying to balance the needs with the resources available.

We have recently put in place the teleradiology project, and the member's own community is affected by that. The project is working extremely well. If the members are not aware of the northern teleradiology project, I would be more than happy to go on at length about its success.

We will continue to grapple with these issues, and we will continue to treat them as a priority.

L. Stephens: I would like to congratulate the members for Peace River North and Peace River South for the representations that they make to this House for their communities. As the northern members -- there's the two of them -- I think they've done a fine job in representing their communities.

As the minister very likely knows, a number of the official opposition were on a northern tour and visited the member's community and some of the other communities in the north. There were a lot of health issues that came forward and were discussed by those people in the communities.

[ Page 3577 ]

One of the areas that we're going to be talking about a little later on that I would like to talk about is the B.C. reproductive care program, which relates very much to what is happening in the interior and in the northern part of the province.

But for now, there's one final comment I want to make on the mental health services, and that is that I understand there is an interministry committee which does look at the issues around the Stopping the Violence program, and that includes mental health, social services, Women's Equality and the Attorney General ministry. The Attorney General was not aware that there was an interministry committee, so I would like to ask the Minister of Health if that in fact is the case and whether or not her ministry is represented on that committee.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if this is a test, I don't have the answer immediately. I don't know whether we sit on a committee or not, but we sure work. . . . We are integrally involved with the delivery of these programs.

L. Stephens: What we will be doing is making sure that we monitor very closely this government's involvement and those areas in the communities to make sure that mental health services are in fact delivered, as this government talks about.

One of the other areas that we need to talk about is community services. Again, I want to just flag these issues for the minister. The continuing care in the communities really isn't there. The hospitals are really concerned about discharging people into communities, because the supports for the families and the patients aren't there. This is why many people end up back in the emergency ward or back in the hospital again.

What the hospitals are telling me, what my hospital is telling me, is that they are becoming very concerned. When they discharge a patient into the community, they are not comfortable that that particular individual is in a safe environment, that the people who are looking after that individual know what they're doing and that the community support is there. They're concerned that the individual will end up back in the hospital again, sicker or in more distress than when they were discharged -- or certainly more than when they were admitted the first time. So those are issues I want to highlight for the minister.

Also, lack of availability of acute care beds is becoming a serious problem. There doesn't seem to be recognition that we have a significant population that still requires acute care beds. And we're not past the point where individuals coming into the health care system are in on the preventative side and are more healthy. We still have a significant number of people coming into the health care system that are acute and need acute care beds. The congestion in a number of emergency departments around the province, I think, will attest to that. I'm sure if the minister has spoken with emergency staff, they will probably tell her the same thing.

So those are the issues I want to convey to the minister that I'm sure she's hearing from a number of people.

Home support is another area. Again, this primarily affects women. Women are the primary caregivers when they are faced with looking after family members who need medical care or need support. Also, 99.9 percent of home support workers are women. This is an area which has a huge impact on women and women's lives. And when funding is cut -- as it has been -- and when the initiative is taken to move people out of the hospital much more quickly to go into their homes again, this has a huge impact on women.

What I would like the minister to address is: what kind of a structure is in place, or what kind of initiatives is the ministry bringing forward around funding and the structure of home support?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We increased funding by 5 percent this year, and that was after an increase last year. The overall community continuing care budget has increased by $569 million since 1992.

If I could, I'd like to commend the member for putting this in the context of a women's issue. I agree -- I totally agree -- that it's a women's issue, and fair wage is certainly part of that issue for community health care workers, particularly home support workers. It is a matter of controversy right now, in that the industry and the unions representing workers are taking strike votes. I am certainly aware of the issue of fair wage for home support workers.

But I also want to note that giving proper recognition to the value of the work done requires substantial tax resources. We've had discussion about this before in this House. I do say this with the greatest respect to the member for Langley: we can't say at one point that the way our government could resolve every single health care issue is by refusing to pay a decent wage to the health care workers -- and by attacking us giving proper wages to the health care workers. They are integrally involved; they're the same thing. When you deliver proper health care services in an industry that's 80 percent labour-intensive, by the nature of that you have to talk about wages -- and an adequate wage. I believe that the member opposite recognizes that. But it does cause me some trouble when every single solution by some members opposite is offered by saying: "Cut the wages of the workers providing the health care services, and then you'd have enough money to deal with wait-lists."

[4:30]

There's no question that my focus and interest are on women, both the caregivers. . . . And by that, I mean women who are left in the home to look after their sick husband or their sick daughter or their disabled son, or whoever it may be, without adequate and proper community supports there for them to rely on. Moving care facilities from the acute care setting into homes, where there isn't any support for individuals, is a very serious problem. That's the issue I really want to address: how are New Directions or Better Teamwork, Better Care making that transition from the acute care hospital into the community in a way that is meaningful and appropriate for people in their homes?

In this particular instance, I really want to focus on the women who are left in the homes to look after their family members, and how they are going to cope with these changes that seem not to have found any kind of resolution around moving from acute care into the communities. I'd like the minister to address that problem.

[ Page 3578 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and we've really had good discussion, led by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, on this matter. So again, I'll refer the member to Hansard. But let me summarize our discussions quickly, if I could.

There is substantially increased funding for continuing care -- which includes community care, home support services, respite care and Meals on Wheels. All of those programs have received substantial increases in funding. We've also more carefully directed our dollars in a way that actually meets the needs of the patient that the member describes.

In previous years much of our community care or home support dollars went toward providing housekeeping services that were not health care-related. We changed the criteria, and now we have a few fewer clients -- even though there are tens of thousands served every month. But there are many more hours of service being delivered to the clients now for their health care needs, to alleviate the family situation -- just as the member described.

We have also said to regional health boards: "You must integrate these services now. You must not say, just because a patient leaves an acute care institution, that somehow it's somebody else's responsibility and we have to start from Ground Zero in dealing with this patient." The health authorities will be required to integrate services. I personally know that there are regional health boards that are coming up with some very substantively creative ways of integrating those services, up to and including the community support service agencies right on the site of the hospital.

Also, there are other methods by which we will integrate services so that the continuum of care is provided not only for the patient but also for the family.

L. Stephens: As the regional health boards progress and work through their management plans and as those kinds of programs reach out into the community, we will be watching to see that, in fact, those programs are integrated. Because I agree with the minister that that's what has to happen, and hopefully, it will happen.

I'd like to leave the local community for now -- other than, when we get to facilities, there are some things I'd like to talk about with the capital program, which I understand we'll talk about a little bit later.

I'd like to look at some of the leading causes of death for women, and I only have the stats for 1994. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death -- heart attacks and strokes -- for women now, and lung cancer. All of these particular diseases can probably be traced back to smoking. I know the government has taken a strong stand on developing programs for smoking and is trying to provide information and education around those kinds of things. I wonder if the minister could perhaps update us on what is happening around the smoking issue.

Also, perhaps first of all, I'd like her to talk about cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer -- those two specifically. Aside from the smoking campaign, I'd like her to talk about what she's doing around prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment information and support, and research around cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer for women.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am pleased to be able to cite examples from the health care system. I take only minimal credit for it as a government, because really, the successes are out there in the community -- our world-renowned researchers in this area and our health care professionals providing these services.

I'm just going to do this off the top of my head, but I will provide even more detail if the member requires it. In the area of cardiovascular disease, we have recently funded a $500,000 study that will be done by the Heart and Stroke Foundation -- to do a public survey of all the issues around the causes and effects of heart disease, a really in-depth, personal study on what the health care issues and the lifestyle issues are that lead to heart disease in individuals. It will be related to tobacco use as well, and will survey very carefully the effects of tobacco advertising on young women, in particular.

We also have just opened up the heart centre in St. Paul's Hospital, which already has a world-class reputation as not only illness-focused but prevention- and wellness-focused as well. I would be pleased if the hon. member would like to visit the program, because it is truly wonderful. When I was there, I visited the wellness section. There was a range of adults from young to quite old in the wellness program, which incorporates exercise and dietary advice as well -- and many lifestyle issues that of course contribute to this number one cause of death, particularly among women.

In the area of lung cancer -- again, I'm not a health care professional -- I feel that I've received some of the best advice possible from our B.C. Cancer Agency and the B.C. Cancer Society as well. The contributing cause for lung cancer is indeed smoking. In the very next few weeks, the members of the House can expect a very comprehensive announcement by our government around a tobacco reduction strategy.

I also was pleased to be informed by the head of the B.C. Cancer Agency just last week about leading-edge research and treatment of precancerous lung tumours. I'll just take the opportunity to announce their good news. They have developed breakthrough research in laser treatment of precancerous lung growths, I believe. They can examine high-risk patients for these precancerous growths, thereby treating them and then giving some very serious lifestyle-change advice for the patients affected.

That's just the general thrust, but if the member would like, I could also spend a great deal of time on the issue of tobacco use.

L. Stephens: The program that the government has initiated around the anti-smoking campaign was going to focus on teenage girls particularly. That's an area that showed a significant increase; teenage girls had a significant increase in smoking. Has that been effective, or has there been any ability to do any measurements at this time? Could the minister talk a little bit about how she is focusing that particular program? Is it in the schools? I know there has been some advertising on television, but I'd like to know whether there has been any measurement of any success rates or whatever.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Indeed, the member raises a very important issue. Success has been reversed in the area of tobacco use; indeed, where the rate of tobacco use was falling, it is once again rising among certain sectors of our population. The member is exactly right: the greatest increased use is amongst young women -- teenage and young women. It is very disturbing. We have targeted our program, really, so that the main thrust of our tobacco reduction program is aimed at young women, although we do have other programs for the general population as well.

A successful program is the Knowledge Network's "KidZone" series, which is targeted very specifically at tobacco use by youth, and actually deals with strategies on how to get youth, in their own environment-friendly way, to 

[ Page 3579 ]

stop smoking. We also have an overall tobacco reduction strategy that is targeted very specifically at smoking prevention programs for children, youth and young women, and that is delivered through our education system.

We invest in conferences. Just very recently, we invested $6,000 towards a conference that's targeted at 12-to-14-year-old students. Its very specific focus is problem-solving, healthy lifestyles and the prevention of substance misuse. The students will be trained how to initiate tobacco reduction activities and education within their specific schools.

Let me just bring one other program to the member's attention. There are numerous programs in place, but the Canadian Cancer Society, through the B.C. division, is expanding its demonstration projects for women, which are used to develop, implement, monitor and evaluate tobacco prevention and cessation programs for prenatal and postnatal women, low-income women and women in the workforce. Actually, we've recently given more money to the Cancer Society because those programs have proved to be very effective. Again, I would just offer that that's what our record is to date. But the members of the Legislature can expect an announcement of expansion of a whole tobacco reduction strategy in the upcoming days.

[4:45]

L. Stephens: Could the minister break down the budget for this year that the ministry will be setting aside for this teen smoking initiative in the education system, or wherever the money is going to be coming from? Is it coming from the minister's budget, or is it coming from the Education budget? Does the minister know how much it is?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a $2 million tobacco reduction strategy that's funded by my ministry, some of which is used to fund programs in schools. But I will certainly make the Minister of Education, Skills and Training aware that he may be asked a question of whether they have programs on their own.

Let me just give you some examples. There's the $500,000 that went to the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which I've just talked about, and $250,000 is allocated to a public education program on environmental tobacco smoke. Over and above the $500,000 to the Heart and Stroke Foundation there's another $120,000 that goes to them for the tobacco reduction strategies they have in each region. There's $24,000 to the North Shore health department for a research project on the impact of a comprehensive program on smoking uptake and cessation in the school-age population. I referred to the Canadian Cancer Society conference funding. Those are the major examples of the current funding for the tobacco reduction program.

L. Stephens: Part of the anti-smoking campaign involved a prohibition on selling cigarettes to people under 19, and there are penalties involved if retailers are caught doing that. Could the minister provide a number that has been received by the government by way of penalties? How much money has the province received by way of penalties, and how many retailers have actually been charged with selling tobacco to individuals under 19?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is right; our Tobacco Sales Act prohibits the sale of tobacco products to persons under 19 years of age in British Columbia. I'll just give you the details of the program. To date, 14,500 routine visits have been carried out to more than 7,000 tobacco retailers throughout the province to ensure the enforcement of this legislation. More than 300 stores have received ticket fines, and under the Tobacco Tax Act, 15 retailers have had their authority to sell tobacco suspended. That was at the end of the last fiscal year. We continue to make this a priority in the enforcement of this very important legislation.

L. Stephens: Of those retailers who were charged, convicted and fined, could the minister give me a number on what those fines amounted to? How much money was paid to the ministry or the provincial government or the treasury or whoever for those infractions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I did make a public announcement on those. The Ministry of Finance collects the fines and will have that information, so I could prepare the Minister of Finance for that question. But over and above tickets, retailers actually had their licences withdrawn, as well, and suffered a substantial revenue loss because of that.

L. Stephens: The other question that I have is: what is the cost of this enforcement program? Is it borne by the Ministry of Health? What would that cost be for the last year? What does the minister anticipate the cost of that enforcement to be for '97-98?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the last three years this program has been jointly funded between our province and the federal government, and has cost $1.2 million over the three years. The program will now be part of the health authorities, and they have been directed by the Ministry of Health to continue to make this an enforcement priority. I will just say that a few months ago I was very concerned that the federal government may not continue its joint funding of this program. I certainly have encouraged the Minister of Health that this should be a priority. We have had unofficial word that they agree and will continue the funding. But I'm anxiously awaiting the conclusion of the federal election so we can have that formally confirmed.

L. Stephens: Is the joint federal-provincial funding part of the overall social transfer tax initiative, or is this dedicated funding? Is this a dedicated federal-provincial program, and as such does it have a dollar amount attached to it? If so, what is the provincial share of the money they are actually spending on this enforcement program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The enforcement activities are through staff. I can get the information about the number of FTEs that go into enforcement provincewide.

L. Stephens: So when the minister says that this is a joint federal-provincial initiative, what she means is that the moneys used come from the provincial transfer payments. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a separate agreement, a joint agreement. Under this agreement the federal government has contributed $1.2 million over the last three years. The joint agreement is for us to enforce both the federal legislation and the provincial legislation. So, in effect, the federal government is paying us to enforce its legislation as we enforce ours. We match their dollars in kind, through the staffing resources, to enforce both pieces of legislation.

[ Page 3580 ]

L. Stephens: That clarifies things considerably. I'll make a brief comment about the smoking issue, because it does have serious consequences not just for women but for men, as well, and for children. The more we can do to develop appropriate and effective anti-smoking campaigns, the better off we all are.

I'm going to move now to another initiative, and that's breast cancer. As the minister knows, British Columbia has the highest incidence of breast cancer in Canada. I'm probably going to give the minister another opportunity to say all of those great things that her government and ministry are doing on behalf of women and breast cancer. There have been some good initiatives come forward: the expansion of the mammography services is one, and the grants program to assist breast cancer support groups. But there needs to be a lot more done in this area.

I wonder if the minister could talk about what her ministry has planned for the coming year around breast cancer. I understand there is a pilot program to streamline the diagnosis of women who have questionable results. Presently they have to wait sometimes up to two months before they get notification of whether or not they need further treatment. So I'd like the minister to talk about that particular pilot program and then perhaps whatever other initiative is included in her '97-98 budget around the breast cancer issue for women.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The program to which the member refers is the provincial breast assessment and diagnostic partnership program. It began operating last November, and it's funded by the ministry. The objective of the pilot project is to shorten the time a woman with an abnormal mammogram must wait for a definitive diagnosis, from what was an average of nine weeks to about 72 hours.

It's located at B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre, and the hospital works in partnership with the B.C. Cancer Agency and the screening mammography program of B.C. It does provide interdisciplinary care as well as counselling and education about breast health. Clinical and diagnostic assessment takes place three mornings per week with a nurse, clinician, mammography technologist, radiologist and/or surgeon present.

I have heard back directly and very gratifyingly from people who personally have been affected -- and their families who have been affected -- by this very successful pilot project. Certainly I know that I'll cause some gasps around here, but it would make sense for us to expand as the pilot project reaches its conclusion and meets and -- what I will hope -- continues to meet with its success. It makes sense, then, that we expand it.

In the area of breast cancer, we have funded $2.7 million into cancer wait-lists. It's a general discussion around cancer wait-lists that we perhaps could have at a later date. But certainly we continue to fully fund our mammography screening program, which covers all the women in the province.

[5:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I too believe. . . . What I've heard from women, particularly in the northern coastal area, is that more needs to be done. I have asked our staff in charge of the screening program to look into that and to make recommendations on how we can even improve the service to women in the northern coastal areas. Right now, there are 20 screening centres and three mobile screening units, and they have provided about 170,000 screens. There are fixed centres located in Prince George -- I'm just dealing the ones that are in the north, but, of course, Prince George would probably say they're not northern -- Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Terrace. There are other fixed centres, as well, and then the mobile unit. Let me see: where does the mobile unit cover? It covers Hudson's Hope, Chetwynd, Mackenzie, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James, Houston, Burns Lake, Quesnel and Fort Nelson. Those are the areas covered in the north.

L. Stephens: Are there programs being developed around the research component of breast cancer, whether or not there is some additional research capability or programs in place in British Columbia, perhaps at B.C. Women's, to address breast cancer research?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would say that the B.C. Cancer Agency, in association with the B.C. Breast Cancer Foundation -- which, of course, is not funded by government -- is on the cutting edge of breast cancer. The B.C. Cancer Agency, of course, is funded but not the B.C. Breast Cancer Foundation. It's a wonderful organization founded by women in B.C. to make their contribution to breast cancer research. Yes, there is much activity taking place in this area, particularly around genetic research into breast cancer as well.

L. Stephens: There was a notice not too long ago that the mastectomy rate in British Columbia was higher than in some of the other provinces. I wonder if there has been any highlighting or flagging of that particular fact to the Minister of Health and whether there have been any investigations as to why that may be the case.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The provincial health officer does monitor cancer rates, and we can certainly make that information available to the member. This particular issue has not been brought to my attention personally by the Cancer Agency.

L. Stephens: Well, I'll just sort of highlight and flag that for the minister -- to perhaps take a look at the numbers and the stats around mastectomies and lumpectomies and whether or not our province appears to be doing more mastectomies than perhaps are needed. That's what the initial numbers I have indicate, and that lumpectomies are not as prominently done in British Columbia as they are in other provinces. So I'll just ask the minister to perhaps inquire about that and get back to me at another time.

The funding for the breast cancer program was $6.8 million in '96-97, I believe. Could the minister indicate what her budget is for '97-98 for the breast cancer mammography program?

Hon. S. Hammell: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery there are a number of grade 11 and 12 students from Queen Elizabeth high school in 

[ Page 3581 ]

Surrey. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Barlas and a number of adults. They are over here for the day to watch this place in action and to take in the sights of Victoria. So I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going to beg the member to repeat the question, please, if I may.

L. Stephens: I'd be happy to. I'm looking for the total amount of money budgeted for this coming '97-98 year for the breast cancer mammography screening program.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is excellent news here. The budget is now $7.7 million, and that's an increase of $1 million over last year's budget. So that's excellent news.

L. Stephens: That is good news, and I wonder if the minister. . . . We talked a bit about some of the programs, but could the minister tell me where, specifically, that extra $1 million is going to go?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That will be spread evenly throughout the system for increased screening, just to generally cover the demand across the system.

L. Stephens: I'd like to move to a variety of services now. I'd like to start with HIV -- women and HIV, and children. What was the budget for the HIV program last year, and what is the budget anticipated to be for this year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can actually provide the member with the fact sheet on this. AIDS prevention and education community group funding is $7.4 million; needle exchange funding is $1.67 million; bulk purchases of needles and supplies provided to exchanges is $590,000; and then the Ministry of Health funding through Pharmacare for AIDS drugs for people is $28 million. The centre for excellence is located at St. Paul's Hospital, and it provides education to clinicians, conducts studies, develops innovative laboratory analysis and carries out clinical trials, and operates a central drug program for HIV/AIDS patients. It's fully supported by our Ministry of Health, with $3.9 million in an operating grant and then another $10.36 million in Pharmacare funding. We also announced Dr. Peters Centre for AIDS, which has $1 million in funding from the province to create a hospice and drop-in facility for persons living with HIV/AIDS.

L. Stephens: Those are huge numbers for a disease that is 100 percent preventable. We're really spending a lot of money in that area, but it is necessary for the prevention programs and certainly for providing treatment to those individuals.

I'd like the minister to talk a bit about the prevention programs and what her ministry is contemplating in this coming year. Are there any new programs around prevention? And I'd like her to perhaps just focus on mothers -- women and their babies who have HIV -- street people and people who are marginalized. That could be the multicultural group as well. That's another area that we tend to not be concerned with -- so some of those groups of people who would have difficulty dealing with this particular illness.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, this is particularly relevant today as Health Canada released a report suggesting that the rate of infection requires some substantial legal change regarding the use of drugs. Our government truly recognizes that a different strategy has to be taken to cope with high-risk people. And of course, the highest risk category for people with HIV/AIDS is the intravenous drug user. It's exploding. The greatest increase of HIV/AIDS infection is amongst intravenous drug users, and these are the people most greatly at risk.

In February of this year I announced $3 million in annual funding specifically to address the problem of intravenous-drug users and the requirement for a harm-reduction strategy to be put in place in the downtown east side of Vancouver. Dr. Penny Parry is reporting back very shortly to the Vancouver-Richmond health board on how the money will be best spent. I'm sure the community will come to the conclusion that it should be a harm-reduction strategy, which means examining how we can best change people's lifestyles and give them the support in the community to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS -- recognizing fully that the curing of the addiction is a much, much larger problem and that we shouldn't wait for the curing of the addiction in order to prevent HIV/AIDS.

[5:15]

There's the Positive Women's Network. There's the Vancouver Native Health Society, YouthCo and DEYAS, which is a service to youth on the street -- just to name a few. There are many more. There's Healing Our Spirit B.C. First Nations AIDS Society, the Lower Mainland Purpose Society high-risk project, the Persons With AIDS Coalition, AIDS Vancouver and the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. There are over a dozen organizations that we fund for prevention and education specifically. We also have direct health care services in the community through street nurses, clinics and counselling that's given by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. We use that as an opportunity to educate, as well.

L. Stephens: There are a few stats here that I'd like to draw to the minister's attention. This was a survey done at St. Paul's. They talked to 700 women who they believed to be HIV-positive, and what they found was that nearly 75 percent of women were between the ages of 25 and 39, so there's that age group there. Many of them were poor: 52 percent reported annual household incomes below $20,000, so poverty was a factor there. Eighty-three percent were Caucasian. Thirty-four percent were mothers, and 12 percent of those had children who were HIV-positive.

I want to highlight one of the numbers for the minister. What this survey found was that 49 percent of the women said they had got the HIV through sex, not through needle and drug use; 13 percent were through drug use. I wonder if there's something being done around sexually transmitted diseases, which seem to be on the increase, as well, and whether the minister is focusing some attention on prevention programs in that regard.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member bringing that particular study to my attention. We have also since con-

[ Page 3582 ]

ducted -- it is ongoing now -- the VIDUS study, which is the Vancouver Injection Drug User Study established in '96-97. It's to monitor 1,000 HIV-negative injection drug users and from that to determine the rate of infection, which is proving to be very frightening. There's no other way of describing it. Women represent 25 percent of the newly infected, and aboriginals represent 15 percent among HIV infections as a result of intravenous drug use. Of course, intravenous drug use is the primary cause of increase in HIV/AIDS. Our STD program is ongoing through the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and it deals with all the issues, including transmission of HIV and AIDS through sex.

L. Stephens: The blood supply issue is another one that is certainly front and centre on a national level and has ramifications for all of us and all the provinces. I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about what the province of British Columbia is doing around the safety of the blood supply in light of all the revelations that have come forward from the Ottawa hearings. Could the minister bring us up to date on what the ministry is doing and what the budget for '97-98 may or may not hold for dealing with this blood supply issue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to start by reassuring the public that the blood supply is safe. The federal government is ensuring, through its responsibility, that the safety and supply of the blood system is intact. That is the federal responsibility.

Our province is working very closely to restructure the blood supply system and also to determine who best should collect blood. There are some very interesting negotiations going on around that. But in the meantime, the public needs to be reassured that the blood supply is safe.

However, that was not the case in the past, in the last decade. Of course, our government led in providing compensation to people with HIV/AIDS who had been infected through the blood supply. Also, we are the leaders in terms of the hepatitis C look-back campaign for people who may have received a blood transfusion and are now infected with hepatitis C. You may note that there are public service advertisements in the newspaper for people who received a blood transfusion any time prior to June 1990. We are notifying them that they should be tested to see whether they indeed have been infected with the hepatitis C virus.

We have also put in place a breakthrough database that's shared amongst all hospitals now, which can be used for future research around the issue of hepatitis C and the potential for hepatitis C to be received through a contaminated blood supply. We are also using this as an opportunity to educate physicians, and the public as well, about the identification and treatment of hepatitis C.

L. Stephens: The collection of blood for use in hospitals. . . . I wonder if there are going to be some increased screening processes put in place to make sure that what is being collected is usable. I wonder if the minister would comment on what kinds of safeguards are going to be put in place for the collection of the blood supply.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a very important discussion. I would prefer to do it outside of estimates, because this is federal regulation. Therefore I don't feel comfortable enough without confirming all of this with the documentation from the federal government about the screening of blood. Rest assured that the federal government very stringently regulates this, and those regulations have been updated very recently. I would be more than happy to assist the member in getting the information that's provided from the federal government.

L. Stephens: The regulations are federal; the collection would be provincial -- the monitoring. The public health nurses that do the blood collection. . . . Is the minister saying that that is federal jurisdiction? The public health nurses that conduct the blood bank drives -- is that not provincial responsibility?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The provinces jointly fund the Canadian Blood Agency, which contracts with the Red Cross to deliver the federally regulated service.

L. Stephens: In light of the decisions that have come forward around the collection of blood supply, is the province working with the federal government to determine those standards and those procedures of collection? When might we be seeing some of the results of those deliberations?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the regulation of the blood supply is a federal responsibility. What the provinces and territories are contributing is to work with the federal government in redesigning the Canadian blood system, because, of course, we pay for it. It was announced almost a year ago now that we're working on those, and it will be a major topic of discussion at the next ministers of health meeting. In the meantime, that process doesn't advise the federal government on how they should regulate the blood supply, but does determine, after the regulations are in place, how the blood supply system should work.

L. Stephens: What I'm trying to get at, hon. minister, is the comfort level of the citizens of British Columbia -- that in fact the blood supply that is here now, that is being collected now and is being used now, is safe; that there are mechanisms in place to make sure that that is happening regardless of what comes forward from the provincial, federal and territorial discussions around whatever possible changes -- and I'm sure there will be some major changes -- to how the blood supply is collected. What I'm concerned about is the time between now and then and how people can generally have comfort around receiving blood products, particularly whole blood, at this point in time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Indeed, the federal government has imposed much more stringent regulations concerning the safety of the blood supply, to the extent that that has imposed extra costs on the Canadian Red Cross that are then transferred right back to us in our payment for the Canadian Blood Agency. The regulations are so much more stringent that we have had to increase our funding to the Canadian Blood Agency by 20 percent this year. Whereas we funded the Canadian Blood Agency with $34 million in '96-97, we will be contributing almost $42 million this year. The '97-98 payment will be to the Canadian Blood Agency to pay for these extra, very stringent regulations. So that's a demonstration of the safety of the blood supply between then and now.

[5:30]

I'd like to talk a little bit about the drug and alcohol abuse programs that the ministry is responsible for. I was looking through the tables of the ministry's annual report. I was 

[ Page 3583 ]

looking at table 13, which is the age breakdown of clients, by agency type, that are identified as receiving alcohol and drug services. One of the things that struck me was the very, very high numbers in the zero-to-19 age group. This included people receiving services from an out-patient type of facility -- detoxification out-patient residential supportive recovery. It's 22,689, and these are the 1994 figures.

I wonder if the minister has an update on the individuals and groups receiving alcohol and drug services and what programs are in place to address those issues?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As was noted previously in estimates, alcohol and drug programs have been transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families. I will certainly bring this to the attention of the minister responsible -- to expect a question in this area.

L. Stephens: Does that include the women's programs as well -- all of the programs that deal with drug and alcohol abuse, regardless of whether they're youth or adults?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister could perhaps talk about prescription drug abuse. This is an issue that I'm sure the minister knows has a long history with women. This is a serious issue that doesn't seem to get too much notice or discussion. It's one of those silent or quiet problems that tend to not get a lot of publicity. I wonder if the minister could talk about how widespread it is and whether or not the minister has focused on this particular issue when we're looking at the wellness of women, particularly around mental health issues which prescription drug abuse seems to try to rectify.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. This is an area that we actually had a very good discussion on yesterday, and I think we did canvass it thoroughly in terms of the programs available, the therapeutics initiative, etc. I would just like to reiterate that I too consider this a very important matter, and I think it is a matter that affects women more so than other sectors of the population.

I am also very concerned about the intrusion of direct-to-consumer advertising that may occur in this country. We now have a prohibition against direct-to-consumer advertising -- that's where a drug company can advertise in a magazine. But the fact of the matter is that any one of us in this room can go to a magazine stand and find a dozen magazines targeted at women that have the direct-to-consumer advertising in place, because they're imported from the United States, where direct-to-consumer advertising has increased tenfold in the last few years.

In fact, I am very disturbed at the very specific targeting of prescription drug use toward women. I used this example when I appeared in Ottawa before the Commons Industry Committee regarding the regulation of pharmaceutical companies and noted that in some magazines there are as many advertisements targeting prescription consumption as there are cosmetic ads.

Since that time I have also received correspondence from a clinical psychologist who shares the hon. member's and my concerns in this area. She was very explicit and even permitted me to publicly discuss a client who is experiencing what is really an appropriate emotion -- for instance, grief over a death -- but is put on medication without ever being allowed a healing time or therapy. A client who experiences anxiety or sadness, which, it seems, could easily disappear over the course of time, has been told that she must be on medication forever. There are clients who are making real changes in the way that they're dealing with situations, and the client assumes that that is because of her prescription use of drugs. This clinical psychologist is very concerned about all of these trends. That's anecdotal, I know, but anecdotal based on clinical experience.

I certainly don't mind returning to this discussion. But it's one that I approach with a great deal of passion, and it could consume just as much time today as it did yesterday in the debate. So maybe the hon. member could refer to the debate yesterday, and then we could carry on at a future time.

L. Stephens: I'll ask one more question. If the minister talked yesterday about the education of doctors around this particular issue, was that the topic of discussion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and that's what I meant. There's a group at UBC called the therapeutics initiative that has recently sent out an education advisory around this matter.

L. Stephens: I'll move on to reproductive health, and the first issue I want to talk about is midwifery. I understand the new college that has been set up is now up and running and has registered, I would presume, the midwives in the province. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about how that particular initiative is coming along. Are all of the midwives registered? How many are there? How many have been registered in the province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The bylaws of the College of Midwives of British Columbia were approved by cabinet on April 2 of this year, so the college is just now beginning the process of calling for applications, assessing and registering midwives. The process, we expect, will take about five months, and we expect that registered midwives will be practising in British Columbia by early fall.

L. Stephens: Thank you. I believe that when the minister made the announcement, it was that there would be full public funding for midwifery. Can the minister give us a budget amount for her '97-98 budget around, I presume, the operations of the college and perhaps break down the different areas that are going to be funded through this initiative?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. This is. . . . There's no criticism intended in this, but we've got to go get the other book. There's only so many staff involved, and we're. . . . No, these are important issues, so the deputy will get that information.

In the meantime, yes, we've committed to provide the public funding, and we're presently engaged in funding discussions with the Midwives Association of British Columbia. But also included in that, we're funding the home birth demonstration project, and that's required by the midwives regulation. It's to make sure there are effective administrative arrangements for midwife-assisted home births. That project will be the basis of the development of a protocol with the B.C. Ambulance Service for emergency transfers of women to hospitals and the monitoring of all planned, registered midwife-assisted home births for a period of two years.

I will get the budget figure for midwifery services throughout the rest of the health care system.

L. Stephens: The objective of using midwives, I think, is a good one. They'll have to be integrated into the health care 

[ Page 3584 ]

system of the province. I wonder if the minister could talk about that process and how that is going to happen. Is it going to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, or is it going to be the responsibility of the college? Does the ministry have some guidelines around how that will happen, when it will happen and what kind of process will take place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, indeed, that will be determined by the college, working in conjunction with other colleges of health care professionals. In fact, as the bylaws were being developed, wide consultation took place with the other professional colleges, and the integration of the service will be on a regional health authority basis. Those issues and discussions are already well underway. For instance, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has been participating fully in the development of the bylaws, which discusses how the services will be provided as well.

L. Stephens: Because this is new to British Columbia, I wonder if there are mechanisms in place, or who would be the authority to resolve any issues around the service, be that best practices or conflicts between other health care providers in the system. Would the minister comment on that? Are these things being looked at and developed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's why we made sure when we developed the bylaws of the college that all the other health care professionals who would be affected by this had been consulted and actually agreed with the bylaws. So the best practices methods will be regulated by the college, as other professions are regulated by their colleges. But how the service is delivered will be determined -- as are any health care services delivered in an acute care hospital setting -- through the hospital itself.

L. Stephens: I wonder if we now have funding amounts we can talk about. How is the funding going to break down for this particular service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Indeed, the funding negotiations and how that service will be broken down are underway with the College of Midwives right now. Last year we talked about a figure of $1 million for midwifery. I expect that that will be the minimal amount that will be needed, but we're in discussion right now with the College of Midwives about the funding. As soon as that agreement has been reached, I will certainly make it public to the member.

L. Stephens: I presume that there would be an allocation for this proposal in the ministry budget for '97-98, even if it was simply provisionary. Is the minister saying that $1 million has been set aside for the '97-98 funding year to anticipate implementation of the midwifery program in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is a notional line. It's 10 percent higher than we budgeted for last year: $1.1 million. But I also want to just. . . . This is a new service; therefore we are discussing how this new service will be implemented and the funding required for it.

L. Stephens: There are a couple of issues that have been talked about by the physicians and midwives. If the midwives consult with the obstetricians, gynecologists or family doctors, will there be a fee structure around that particular issue? Is this something that has been discussed, or have they finalized these kinds of issues? I would presume there would be some kind of discussion around a fee structure for consultations with specialists or GPs.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That would be part of the discussions of the overall allocation of funds under the Medical Services Plan, and if the physicians wish to bring that forward, there certainly is structure under which they can do that.

[5:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a federal-provincial-territorial working group, which was established in February 1994. Yes, we do participate on that committee, but there has been a moratorium placed on the committee by the federal government. That was two years ago. It was a voluntary and interim moratorium. However, it remains in place.

The federal government has released a discussion paper on the regulatory component of the new reproductive technologies act, and we're participating in providing commentary on that discussion paper. The member is quite correct that this legislation in fact died on the order paper when the federal election was called, so it would require a reintroduction of legislation. In the meantime, though, my advisory committee on medical ethics is also examining the ethical issues associated with this piece of legislation.

L. Stephens: Yes, it was unfortunate that when they called the election, this particular piece of legislation died, but I'm quite confident that in the next month or so we'll see it back on the legislative agenda of the new Liberal federal government.

The discussion paper that has been announced and has been distributed and circulated deals with a number of issues that are quite substantive. I believe the provincial, federal and territorial responsibilities will be around three areas. These are: developing standards for the use of reproductive materials in medical research and practice, issuing licences to permit such practices, and monitoring and inspection to ensure compliance with standards. Would the minister care to comment on those particular areas and on whether her ethics committee is looking at these particular issues? Have they reached a consensus? Has there been anything published, or is there anything for public discussion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The federal government, as well as stakeholders, is actually seeking public input into this matter on those issues, and our provincial government is monitoring the process. I will tell the member that this has been kind of a moribund process of consultation, firstly, because of the moratorium, but secondly, because of the acknowledgment that the legislation would have to be reintroduced.

My committee on medical ethics is examining at least several of the issues, which are on compliance and enforcement. It's very interesting and they will be reporting soon.

[ Page 3585 ]

L. Stephens: Will that be a public report?

Interjection.

L. Stephens: That will be a public report.

Does the minister anticipate what kind of time line that is -- a month or two, three months, six months -- where the legislation would have to be reintroduced just to move forward? In her particular area, which is the provincial area that has been working on this, I presume they're aware that this is an issue that isn't going to go away, that will be ongoing. It will be the provincial government that would have to make sure that they are prepared and in fact have a position on this. So would the minister perhaps indicate when that might be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The committee is dealing with it now, and they continue to deal with it. But I would expect that they would also -- I don't know this for sure -- want to await the reintroduction of the new legislation or get some sense of its priority on the federal government's agenda before reporting out completely.

L. Stephens: I'm at the end of this particular discussion -- the new reproductive and genetic technologies. I do have some other issues that I would like to canvass, and those are around the B.C. reproductive care program and aboriginal women's health. Those are the only two other issues that I have to talk about.

But seeing the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
(continued)

G. Abbott: There are just a couple of matters that hang over from this morning. I understand the minister now has at least the percentage breakdown of the infrastructure program, where those funds will be dedicated.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The figures are as follows: transit, approximately 55 to 60 percent of total funding; local road rehabilitation, approximately 15 to 20 percent; road capital, 5 to 7 percent; cycling network, 3 to 5 percent; and soft infrastructure -- telecommunications and community cultural projects -- approximately 10 to 20 percent.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise where the communications component fits into this scheme? Is it assumed under one of the other categories?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's included in soft infrastructures. That includes telecommunications, communications and community cultural projects, so it's in the 10 to 20 percent.

G. Abbott: Could the minister please distinguish for me the difference between local roads and road capital?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can give you the answer, but the definitive answer will rest with Transportation and Highways. Road capital involves major road overhaul, reconstruction -- let's say you're building a bridge or a new section of road or something like that -- whereas local road rehabilitation is existing roads.

G. Abbott: Again, the total we are working with here is about $160 million, as I recall -- somewhere in the area of $162 million or $163 million. So 5 percent of that would not be a lot of millions, at any rate, for road capital. Fair enough, thank you.

I'd like to move on, then, to where we were when we parted, and that is the safety systems review and the liability issues that flow from the building inspection function. I want to pursue some issues there. I do appreciate the minister making available to me the safety systems review report, which has just recently been delivered to him.

I don't want to go through all the recommendations, but there are five or six that particularly caught my attention in terms of provincial public policy in relation to municipalities. I look forward to the minister advising me of what's meant by the recommendations and the implications of them and so on. Recommendations 5 to 10 are the ones that are of principal interest to me.

Could the minister explain recommendation 5: "That the province assume a leadership and coordinating role and through agreement, devolve its direct management of safety compliance and enforcement activities to other existing or new participants in the safety system"?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would assume that it means there may be other ways of delivering the service that industry and the province and stakeholders may wish to look at. One of the problems in dealing with the questions is that not having written the report -- this being a report coming to government -- these can, in large part, be open to interpretation. So I 

[ Page 3586 ]

just want to make sure that the member is aware of that. We're both working from the same report, but neither of us are authors of the report, though we will have to take the recommendations and get further input as to how they can be implemented and what exactly the impact means.

G. Abbott: Actually, one of the reasons why I'm raising the questions at this point is that I assumed that in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs some senior staff have been very closely involved in the safety systems review and may be able to explain what the proposed direction is with respect to some of these.

The way I read recommendation 5 is that the province will put into place legislation to permit a new approach to safety systems in the province. Then, after taking that legislative leadership, they intend to "devolve," as it says here, the management of that system to other players -- i.e., a safety council. I'm not sure if at some point the reference is made to a council or to some body that may be composed, in part, of municipal representatives, professional representatives, the private sector and so on. That would be my read of this, and I'm just wondering whether that's correct or not.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That may be one possibility; there may be other possibilities. This is a report with recommendations to government which we have not taken a position on at this point. Alberta and Ontario, for example, have undergone similar processes and have taken totally different directions in terms of administration and management. At this point it's very much something still to be decided. That's as good as I can tell you.

G. Abbott: I'm really trying to get to the heart of the overall direction that the safety systems review is proposing. When they use the term "devolve" the "direct management for safety compliance and enforcement activities to other existing or new participants," it suggests to me that the province -- or at least the review -- would like to see that area of regulation shifted to other players. The point I'm trying to get at here is whether it is a move which is consistent with the development that we talked about this morning: the elimination of the building standards branch and essentially moving building inspection management and decision-making to the local level. Would that be a fair summary of the point?

[2:45]

This report is a series of recommendations that have come out of a two-year consultation process between the province, industry and a whole range of stakeholder groups. The recommendations are now out there for discussion, and people may have all different kinds of ideas as to how they should be implemented, which ones should be implemented and which ones should not be implemented. I think that's the way they should be looked at.

G. Abbott: I'm certainly not fishing around for a fight on this. In fact, I think it's a step in the right direction to look at more local management and professional management of these issues. What I was looking for with respect to point 5 was some sense that this was in fact the direction the government was moving in -- that they wanted to get away from centralized regulation out of Victoria and into management by different players in the field. But as the minister has pointed out, obviously it might be a little premature to ask him to comment definitively on whether this is the direction of government. As he noted, government hasn't had an opportunity to fully consider the recommendations here and form conclusions about them.

Point 6 -- we can turn to that. The recommendation is: "That a safety authority be established, operating at arm's length or separate from government, that is capable of and enabled to deliver compliance and enforcement services now being delivered by the province and local government." I'll give the minister an opportunity to consult with staff here. I'm very interested in what vision or structure the safety systems review committee had when they used the term "safety authority." What might they have had in mind when they were putting that forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It could in fact be any one of a number of agencies. For example, you could look at something like a Crown corporation whose sole concern was the delivery of safety and safety systems. It could be a special operating agency of government. It could be to take one of the existing committees, like the Building Safety Advisory Council, and give it expanded authority and ability to do things. All kinds of different avenues were looked at.

G. Abbott: I'm slightly confused by the minister's response, in that it says here that a safety authority should be established at arm's length or separate from government. He suggested a couple of ways it could go -- a Crown corporation or an operating agency of government -- neither of which, it would seem to me, are at arm's length or separate from government. Again, I'll give the minister an opportunity to consult with staff on this. Is the intention here to look at a professional regulatory body, a private sector regulatory body -- something that the government would confer authority on to do this but which would be at arm's length or separate from government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is that it could be any one of those things. That's why if you look at the key phrase that's used in there -- "That a safety authority be established, operating at arm's length or separate from government, that is capable. . . ." It's a fairly broad term, and the range of ideas and suggestions is like a continuum. There are any number of distinct possibilities. It could range from a Crown corporation to some private sector body or to something in between. There's not a definitive body. There has not been a definitive suggestion or recommendation saying to do this, specifically.

G. Abbott: The scope of the safety systems review was quite broad, and I guess it essentially tried to capture all the safety areas in which the province had been regulating in the 

[ Page 3587 ]

past -- things ranging from building inspection, obviously, to electrical inspection, plumbing and gas systems, boilers and pressure vessels, elevating devices, fire prevention, etc. Is it correct to understand that the safety systems review committee expected that this "safety authority" would encompass all those things? Is that the expectation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Some of the recommendations are quite broad, because there's a wide range of opinion. I think that's one of the reasons we want to have a decent enough time after that report is in to get comment, to sort of narrow and start to define some of the recommendations in a more concrete way. In fact, they could conceivably do what you have suggested, or it could be some variation considerably shorter and narrower in scope. The recommendation has considerable latitude, and I think that this in part represents the wide range of opinion that went into making this report.

G. Abbott: I hope the minister indulges me here. Frankly, I think there are a number of very bold recommendations that have been made in this report, and they will have a very substantial impact on the way these safety issues will be addressed in the province in future. Obviously it will be the object of what will probably be enormous debate, at least among local governments and, I'm sure, among all the people who provide, in some way or another, safety services across the province.

In this initial go-round, I'm just trying to get some sense, philosophically, of where the committee thought the province should be headed. In that sentiment, I'd like to get a sense of what the mandate of the safety authority would be. Again, I know the minister won't know, but I invite him to take the time to consult with staff. What range are we looking at in terms of what it might have as a mandate?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess that one of the key things to remember is that this review was done to identify problems and a way to make and enhance a better system. And so, in that sense, that's where this report comes in with the recommendations of ways to do that.

What shape those recommendations take, how those recommendations are implemented and which of the recommendations are implemented still has to be determined. I don't want to be in a position where I'm prejudging or making pronouncements that this is what we're going to do or this is what we're not going to do. One, it's far too premature to do that. As the member has already said, this is a complex report. We're dealing with complex issues on which there is a wide range of input and a wide range of opinion.

But I think it's pretty fair to say that in the beginning of the report, on page 15, a number of problems have been identified: lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of involved participants leading to confusion, redundancy and mistakes; inadequate compliance confirmation; and weak enforcement tools and things like that, which clearly we want to get rid of, we want to solve.

So what I want to make sure now is. . . . If you're asking where it is that we're going, there's a wide range of public discussion that comes forward, and hopefully from that there's some sense of priorities, some sense of consensus and a better discussion of how we implement the recommendations and what the best forum is for that to take. Some may be by legislation; some may be by private sector committees -- you know, self-regulation. Some may be a combination of private sector and government; some may involve the establishment of a government agency. I think all those things are up for discussion. I don't think there's any predetermined plan that can impose something. It's very early for that yet.

G. Abbott: I don't want to even think about trying to back the minister into an uncomfortable corner from which he may have difficulty manoeuvring in the future. Again, that's not my intention.

I won't be so presumptuous as to say that I understand the philosophy or the guiding themes in this document, because I haven't read enough of it yet. But the sense I'm getting from the recommendation is that it is really consistent with where provincial and federal governments are probably going in this country and around the world in the area of municipal relations -- that is, to devolve more authority to local authorities and, where it's possible, to move away from provincial control of something which could be better managed at the local level. That's the sense I get of these recommendations. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it would seem that they are in line with that philosophy.

I want to turn to point 7: "That the private sector be identified and supported as a key participant in the safety system, especially in the areas of education, certification and the self-regulation of members." This point 7, it would seem to me, is consistent with that kind of philosophy. Again, so there's no mistaking, it's a philosophy that I endorse. I'm curious as to whether, from the minister's perspective, that is the direction of this review.

[3:00]

In the same way, one of the issues that I would be concerned about is leaky condos. The UDI and Canadian Home Builders have come forward and said: "Look, we think the government should look at the regulation or accreditation of builders." It could quite easily be in the form of a professional body; it could be. . . . There is a whole range of forms or options that it could take. But it all stems from the idea that various professions or various categories of private sector organizations would be able to fulfil a function that a level of government -- be it federal, provincial or municipal -- currently does.

G. Abbott: Turning to the eighth recommendation of the committee. . . . I think it's the committee that made this recommendation. Would it not be? Is that correct?

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The eighth recommendation is: "That regulators are indemnified against code violations by participants in the safety system." This would, it seems to me, be one of the most important of the recommendations, as this has been a very considerable issue in provincial and municipal relations for at least as long as I can remember -- so quite a while.

[ Page 3588 ]

Could the minister explain -- and again, I invite him to consult with staff -- what is intended by this recommendation? Is it to relieve municipalities and regional districts of liability in relation to errors and omissions that occur in the functions of building inspection and so on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It could include not just municipalities and regional districts but also, conceivably, provincial regulators or perhaps accredited private sector regulators. I mean, there's a fairly broad group that could be covered by that.

G. Abbott: So theoretically, the indemnification could extend to all of those areas, from building inspection to elevating devices, that are covered in the safety systems review?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Abbott: Is the intention of the recommendation that it cover all aspects of liability? Or just errors and omissions? Or. . . ?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Some of these questions. . . . Again, I stress that these are sort of our first impressions, opinions, in discussing this. In this case I would draw the member's attention to page 40. I think there's a paragraph there that explains that.

I'll just read it out for the member's benefit:

"The steering committee acknowledges these concerns and agrees that owners, professional designers and contractors, not local government, should be held liable for their non-compliance with local government bylaws. In part, this could be achieved by defining the roles and responsibilities of participants in legislation, as is recommended above, by establishing a regulatory framework that tracks individual and corporate participants and by ensuring that adequate insurance or warranties are available to compensate consumers in the event of a safety system failure. Some form of legislative immunity, as provided in the province of Alberta and through the Vancouver Charter, should also be considered."

Just to make sure I'm understanding the proposition correctly, the suggestion is that there is an intention, or at least a recommendation, that there be a shift in liability from local government, which has traditionally borne the brunt of these kinds of liability actions because of leaking condos or whatever it may happen to be, or a house that slides off the side of a hill or whatever. . . . Traditionally, municipalities have been regarded as those with the deepest pockets and most secure funds, and they tend to be the ones that bear the brunt of those kinds of actions. From reading this paragraph, it would seem to me that the suggestion -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, or add to or enhance my understanding -- is that that should be shifted to the builders and designers who might be involved in the process and who may bear a more direct responsibility for those inadequacies. Is that fair?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I would say that's what the recommendation does. It certainly seems to indicate that a much broader sharing of liability needs to take place. Clearly it is an important recommendation in the report. In fact, when I first mentioned it, I said that this seems to me to be one of the key recommendations, because it has such a big impact. It's an example of why this report is going to require a considerable amount of discussion and input over a broad sector before we implement the recommendations. This is a report that. . . . It's not a government report; it's a joint report to government. So I think it's going to have a big impact on the future of safety and safety delivery in the province. I think the key is to make sure it gets as wide a circulation as possible, and a good and thorough discussion on its recommendations.

G. Abbott: Not to belabour the point, but should this recommendation be adopted by government, it would represent a very significant shift in the way in which the provincial government has looked at this issue in the past. When I previously canvassed this particular issue in estimates, the position adopted by the minister at the time was that in relieving local government of at least a share of their liability with respect to building inspections and other issues, it might in some ways reduce consumers' rights to a fair settlement of their disputes. I gather what's being suggested here is that the committee and -- if their recommendation is accepted -- the government would instead be looking at this as not relieving the consumer of any of their rights but rather relieving at least a portion of local government liability, consequently shifting more of the burden, in terms of resolution of things, onto the private sector. Is that a fair assessment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Clearly that's something that may in fact happen, and the member has also just explained one of the reasons why there has to be considerable discussion. Not just focusing on this specifically, but any one of the recommendations has an impact somewhere along the system whereby somebody is affected. Established rights, in fact, could conceivably be affected as well, so all those things have to be taken into account. You can't just look at each recommendation by itself, but I think the recommendations have to be done as a package or as a whole. That's why I think the discussion period over the following few months, in terms of input and feedback, is going to be extremely important in determining how recommendations go forward and how and when they are implemented. The potential for significant change for the positive is there. Conceivably, some people may feel that some changes might be negative, and they have extremely strong views on that.

So that's why I come back to saying again that I think we have to have a good period of public discussion, of input from the participants from local government, from the private sector and from government -- all departments and ministries -- to ensure that when changes are made and when legislation is introduced there is as high a degree of buy-in as possible and an understanding of why things are being done.

G. Abbott: One of the suggestions that is made explicitly on page 40 is that the government essentially look at the model that is presented in the Vancouver Charter, which provides immunity from liability to the city of Vancouver. Would the minister: (a) confirm that; and (b) indicate -- I think it was in 1986 that the Vancouver Charter was amended to provide that immunity -- what the experience has been in the city of Vancouver with respect to how building inspection liability issues have been dealt with? Has the burden of liability effectively been shifted onto those third parties, as has been suggested here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Answering the latter part of the question first, I'd say it's probably best answered by the city of Vancouver, because they will have direct information in terms of how it has impacted on them. To answer the first part of your question, I think we have the same interpretation of what 

[ Page 3589 ]

they are suggesting is the regulation as it currently exists in the Vancouver Charter. I think that comes back to the debate we had earlier in terms of looking at changes in terms of how they affect everybody, as opposed to seeing them just for the benefit of one community or one particular area.

[3:15]

We have the whole GVRD area immediately around the city of Vancouver that has been operating under a different system. I would suspect. . . . I know that even in my small community of Sicamous during my brief tenure. . . . It had nothing to do with me and my performance as councillor. In my half-dozen years there were probably three or four different building inspection liability issues that popped up. I'm sure there must have been. . . . I hope there haven't been hundreds, but maybe there have been issues like this arising in the city of Vancouver over the past ten years.

It would seem to me that the province has a kind of unique opportunity to look at these two comparatives and say: "Well, here's what happened." I'm sure there must have been litigation on a number of those issues in the city of Vancouver. Did the changes to the Vancouver Charter in 1986 result in a spread of liability to third parties? I think we have a unique opportunity here to have a look at that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I agree entirely with the hon. member's statements. In fact, you know, when the policy work is being done in the ministry, I expect that it would be clearly one of the things that would be examined -- the effect of the amendments to the charter made in 1986. Just from an intellectual point, it would make a great doctoral thesis to look at something like this. But no, I think the member's point is well taken.

We discussed this earlier. Clearly, if you have regulations or the ability -- whatever it is, it doesn't matter whether it's indemnification or anything else -- available to one municipality that results in their being able to deal with a specific set of problems or issues differently from other municipalities, there is a sense that at the very least there should be an examination of the effect on the two different jurisdictions or on the municipalities that come under one jurisdiction as opposed to another jurisdiction -- what the effects and consequences are of the fact of there being two sets of regulations.

Then, when any change is made, equity should be a guiding principle. It could be, as we discussed earlier, either both parties or municipalities getting the same regulation or both parties having neither -- not one party having the benefit of a regulation that the other doesn't have. But I can tell the hon. member that in the policy work, those concerns -- in particular about the effect -- will certainly be looked at.

G. Plant: I want to join this debate for a moment or two, because I think it's an important one. I don't know that I'm joining it to disagree or take issue with anything that the minister has said, but to add -- at least from my perspective -- one or two more complications to the picture. If they result in repeating things that had been said during a moment when I was temporarily absent, then I apologize for that.

Obviously, the disparity in treatment raises the issue of which is the correct approach. The minister has identified the options that are available. It's good that there's a process in place for looking at this problem.

In my experience as a lawyer, I have observed the extent to which accountability as a principle does or does not work, with greater or lesser effect. Clearly, in cases where municipalities are held liable for a failure on the part of the building inspector to do something 30 or 40 years ago which has created a problem that has taken 30 or 40 years to emerge, that is kind of an awkward context in which to explore a principle of accountability. In most cases, the officials who didn't do the job they should have done 30 or 40 years ago have retired or left. It's really probably the case that the entire framework for adjudicating and examining issues of building code compliance has changed. Standards will have changed; the whole world of that aspect of building construction or geotechnical work will have changed. So accountability in that context is kind of an awkward concept.

But having said that, it also seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate principle that when lower, lesser or municipal governments undertake a burden of ensuring that their rules are complied with, then it is legitimate to expect that they will be held accountable for their failure to do that job. I know that courts have wrestled with this issue over the last 20 years or more. There are a host of complicated public policy issues around the redefinition of liability for public regulators and all of the participants, like contractors, and ultimately also for consumers.

When the minister says he recognizes that this is a complicated problem that requires consideration of all of the potential impacts before a change is made, I guess my first task is to encourage him even further to the recognition that this is so. This is an area where there should not be the introduction of a change in the law which would affect, in a long-term, significant way, the adjustment of accountability and responsibility without there being the kind of consultation that the minister is talking about.

The smaller or more technical point is just to say. . . . I mean, I understand that many who will look at this will think it is a good thing to indemnify regulators against code violations by participants in the safety system. People will recommend, and have recommended, that local government should not be held liable for their actions when they have assumed the burden of ensuring compliance. There are good policy reasons for and against that approach.

But in the longer term -- and I'm really now sort of making a big-picture point -- over the last many years and even decades, if not a century, the development of the common law in terms of ensuring that public officials are held legally accountable for their failure to do that which they have expressly undertaken to do is a good development. That is, it has made us a fairer and more accountable society, particularly when our society becomes, and has become, ever more subject to regulation. I hope the minister will, in addition to all of the other complications that he already recognizes, see the big picture. It recognizes that there is important value in ensuring that public officials, in appropriate cases, are held liable for their failure to properly do a job which they hold out to the public that they're doing.

[ Page 3590 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the hon. member's question. I mean, for a moment there, it gave me pause to think about what I was doing 30 years ago on this particular date. I would have been seven years old. Let's see; it's 3:20.

G. Plant: Ignoring a building code.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Ignoring the building code as it applied to tree forts, probably, at the time. But it gives you some indication about asking someone: "What happened and what were you doing 30 years ago?" I haven't got a clue what I was doing 30 years ago on a particular day at a particular time. The world has changed; regulations have changed. In fact, the world was a very nice place 30 years ago.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: But it illustrates, though, the changes that have taken place. The question the member raises is in terms of: "What are you accountable for? By your actions, what are you responsible for 30 years later?" That is an equally valid question today. Should we be taking into account the changes that have taken place since then, the fact that they weren't around then, the fact that the technology has changed, the fact that a whole host of things have changed -- building materials, technology, rules and regulations, all of that?

Today, when regulations and building methods are more complex, people in fact place a greater reliance on the systems that are in place to ensure that what should be done is in fact done. So when I was talking earlier, when we were debating earlier with my hon. colleague across the way, those things came up. One of the things I've stressed is that the recommendations in this report are significant and have the potential to have a big impact positively -- in some cases, some people may feel, negatively. Before any of those changes are made, there's got to be thorough discussion, thorough debate, across a broad spectrum so that people are aware of what's taking place. That's why I don't, for example. . . . In fact, there's not going to be legislative change flowing out of this report this session. It would be the next session at the earliest.

G. Plant: I want to just say that during the course of the minister's response a moment ago, I was reminded of the fact that we had in British Columbia, until the end of March of this year, a perfectly useful institution for looking at these questions, called the Law Reform Commission. It's unfortunate that this government has not seen fit to continue the life of that commission, because trying to look at these complicated issues in a non-partisan way, which I think is part of the minister's objective here -- at least I hope it is -- is the kind of thing that can quite often be done better by an independent body rather than from within a ministry, where occasionally politics is going to play a role. If I could encourage the minister to take this complicated issue down the hall to his colleague the Attorney General, and say, "You ought to get that Law Reform Commission back together," that would be an excellent outcome of this discussion.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his comments, and the point is taken.

G. Abbott: When the minister mentioned what he was doing 30 years ago, I thought he was going to address, in a very direct way, my next question. One of the long-term requests of local government is that there should be a statute of limitations, if you like, on how far back building inspection issues can be taken. In some cases, there are times when permits issued 30, 40, 50 years ago have been called into question and liability issues raised. Is a statute of limitations on building inspection liability one of those issues that will be addressed in the minister's review?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, I wish your colleague was here to hear the answer to the question, given that he raised the concept of the Law Reform Commission. It's something the ministry has looked at before, and it never got past the Law Reform Commission, which was adamantly opposed to it. In fact, the Attorney General ministry was adamantly opposed to it. So while I understand the concept and in fact have some sympathy for it, this is a case where other things come into play.

[3:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll second your remarks.

G. Abbott: A good point, and as you say, it is a shame that he isn't here to share it with us.

In terms of how this liability issue is going to be dealt with, I assume that the committee and/or the ministry will be looking very closely in the weeks and months ahead at how this issue is dealt with in other Canadian provinces and possibly in other international jurisdictions. Does the minister have a sense, through staff or otherwise, of how this issue is being managed elsewhere? I presume it's an issue in many jurisdictions. Are there some other cases in point that we can look at, apart from the city of Vancouver example?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has in fact been a fair bit of work done within the ministry in looking at jurisdictions across Canada as well as some jurisdictions in the States. There is a wide variety of approaches. There's no sort of common model or common consensus, and apparently it varies quite considerably, not only from province to province but from state to state. But certainly examples of what's being done in other provinces and other jurisdictions will be carefully looked at.

G. Abbott: I think that pretty much concludes my line of questions on the liability issue -- at least, that's all the questions I can think of at this point in time. Again, I think it's good that this longstanding issue is finally going to be addressed. I'm sure the UBCM, the municipal insurance authority and a variety of public and private sector groups in British Columbia will be taking enormous interest in how this issue unfolds in the weeks and months ahead. I think the minister is right that it's more important that this be done right, rather than in a hurry. Having said that, I think there is a problem here that does need to be addressed in a reasonably speedy time, as well. Is this issue one that has been or will be addressed by the joint council? Again, just to look at that point.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it most certainly will be. I mean, a lot of the recommendations have direct implications for municipalities.

G. Abbott: Given that this report has just recently been delivered to the minister, I presume that you have not had an opportunity to take the issues to the joint council at this point.

[ Page 3591 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not yet. In fact, I think, after myself, you are the first member of the House to actually have a copy of the report, so we get it first.

G. Abbott: I'm deeply honoured by that. Mind you, you may be the first member of the government that has been gifted a copy of the B.C. Liberal community charter. I'm sure, now that you have it in your possession and are undoubtedly reading and digesting it very quickly, you will be transformed into a community charter fan in a very short time, as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll nail it to the door at the top of the steps of the local cathedral.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure if that's good or bad, hon. Chair.

I'd like to move on, given that we've fairly well covered, for this point in time, the issue of liability. Getting back to some of the recommendations of the safety systems review,

point No. 9 is that "owners and operators of regulated equipment, devices and installations that are regularly employed by the public have mandatory maintenance contracts in place as part of an annual operating approval."

This particular recommendation quite intrigues me. If the minister will indulge me for just a moment, I'll reminisce back to where I was about 20-some years ago as a legislative intern. One of the fascinating days I enjoyed when I was spending my time with the civil service was when I was assigned one day to accompany an official from the elevator inspection bureau on his tour of duty around Victoria. It was a fascinating day. I've often thought that I should write a book, an account, of that fascinating period.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Lift goes up; lift goes down.

G. Abbott: Yes, it worked. We're still alive and we've come down safely.

The thing that has puzzled me ever since that day was whether there might be a better or more efficient way to deal with elevator inspections. I think there were three personnel -- three FTEs -- in the elevator inspection bureau at the time. They systematically made their way around Victoria and, I presume, elsewhere on Vancouver Island or wherever they were assigned, to put approvals into elevators. I'm wondering whether the province or the committee is recommending that there might be a better way of doing that. In fact, it has been suggested here that the installers or the owners or operators of the devices be given responsibility for ensuring mandatory maintenance contracts and all that kind of thing. If that is the case, that may be a step ahead. I'm not sure that we necessarily need an elevator inspection bureau and personnel when the private sector itself could certify and ensure that those things are in compliance with safety standards. Is that the intention here? Is that the direction that's being proposed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is inspection of a whole range of things, be they elevators, ski lifts or what have you. Currently, elevators are the only ones that are required to have an annual maintenance contract, so they're doing ongoing maintenance work, and you're not going into the elevator one day and -- thunk. It's a little late to call in the inspector or the repair people to fix it while you're dangling 14 floors up, stuck between floors. I've had that experience and it's not fun.

That's been in place for about two years. What we're looking at -- and what I think is meant by this recommendation -- is that that be expanded to a whole host of devices. In particular, ski lifts come to mind; boilers may be another one. There's some sense that there's an ongoing history, whether it be for future maintenance or whether an inspector can look at it and say, "Okay, given the history of this type of product or device, we need to be looking in this area for these types of things that come up after this number of years," or what have you.

G. Abbott: I think I understand the point the minister is making, but I'm not sure he answered my question, which is: is the drift of this recommendation -- and indeed the current drift of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with respect to this issue -- to try to get away from the province having a series of inspectors to deal with all of these things, but rather putting the onus or the responsibility directly on the owners and operators to ensure compliance with safety standards?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't think so. The recommendation speaks more to spreading out responsibilities so the onus is not entirely on the provincial inspector. It's a question of ensuring that. . . . The provincial inspector goes around, sees that it's in good operating order, that it's working, that it has the necessary permit or what have you -- that is what they do. At the same time, we're saying that over and above that we think there should be -- at least annually -- regularly scheduled maintenance in place. That would be how I would interpret the thrust of this recommendation.

G. Abbott: I'm getting a little closer to understanding what the suggestion is here: ensuring that those kinds of maintenance commitments are made and met. I presume, then, that at least one of the objectives from the provincial perspective would be that they could reduce the manpower commitment required to ensure that that maintenance had, in fact, been completed and performed satisfactorily.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again I would have to say that a way of interpreting or looking at the recommendation is that it's a way the province can keep up with increasing demand, recognizing that adding additional staff may not be the most effective way of addressing the problem. I look at this, and I see you have a way of spreading out responsibility and ensuring that the standards that may be in place in one area of the industry -- for example, in this case we talked about elevators -- are expanded to other areas of industrial activity, be they ski lifts, boilers or gas-operated devices.

There's probably a whole series of ways of looking at how this recommendation could either be implemented or the effects it might have. One of the things that came out from this report is that the recommendations are broad enough and wide-ranging enough that the implications are going to be many and varied. That's why it's going to require a good period of discussion.

G. Abbott: Move along from there to recommendation 10, the last one I propose to consult the minister on at this point: "That mandatory safety registration system be established that will enable the tracking and monitoring of all participants within the B.C. safety system." What I would like, as much as anything, is for the minister to define -- through advice from the staff -- what is meant by some of these terms and what the implication of this particular recommendation will be.

[3:45]

[ Page 3592 ]

ing is that it has come up through the report with recommendations, but there is considerable discussion amongst the different stakeholder groups as to exactly what it means. It could mean a number of things; for example, looking at qualifications, whether they're companies or individual tradespeople. It could look at things such as safety records or track records, violations or offences, things of that nature. It's fairly wide-ranging and fairly broad, and it needs a fair bit of discussion. I don't think there's a definitive statement that I could make on it today.

G. Abbott: I think that pretty much concludes my questions on the safety systems review to this point. I will, of course, be reviewing this document in a little bit more detail, and undoubtedly that will prompt some questions a little bit later on in the estimates process. But for the time being at least, I think we can leave the safety systems review. Obviously, there are some bold and ambitious recommendations that have been made here, and they're going to take some time to digest and work through. But certainly a number of them appear to hold the promise of providing a better and more efficient and more sensible way of delivering these services in the province than has sometimes been the case in the past.

I'd like at this point in time to have some discussion of 911, or the concept of a provincewide 911 emergency telephone system. Is there a staff member with Municipal Affairs that has particularly seized on that issue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would have to say no, in that that's under the purview of the Attorney General ministry. I can tell the hon. member that it is an issue that we have raised at the joint council. They have presented a number of concerns, and those concerns have gone to the AG ministry. They are the lead ministry on the 911 system, so they're working on it. My ministry is not directly involved in that issue.

G. Abbott: Maybe there are not a lot of questions. One question I had was whether the joint council had dealt with it. Obviously they have, as the minister has suggested.

I have been subjected to a number of the concerns of municipalities and regional districts around the province that in the past have implemented 911 systems on their own, and they are now concerned with how a new provincewide 911 might be implemented. There are obvious concerns with respect to equity. Some of the systems are new, some of the systems are old, some have enhanced 911 systems, and some have the old basic model 911. So a variety of local governments come into the picture with rather different systems, and I suspect that the province is going to have some considerable challenges in trying to sort out how a new provincewide 911 system would mesh with the existing 911 systems. But I'm not sure what questions I could pose that the minister wouldn't direct on to the Ministry of Attorney General.

Perhaps the minister could simply address some of the concerns that have been relayed to me in terms of how. . . . Perhaps the minister could just outline the process that we're going to be seeing with 911 implementation in the future.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a couple of key points. One, it has been raised at the joint council, where the issues of local government concern were presented at the table. There is a deputy ministers' committee that will be looking at those issues. In particular, the issues that the member raised around compensation and integration were certainly two of the key points that local government did raise, so I see them as being critical in terms of how an expanded 911 system or provincewide 911 system is implemented. It would be crucial to have those questions answered and to have solutions put in place. So those issues are being addressed through the AG ministry.

I. Chong: I appreciate his answers, because the 911 issue is of extreme importance in the capital region area. In particular, I know that the capital regional district directors have forwarded some information to the Attorney General's attention. There were some suggestions that they had made which I hope the Attorney General will be looking at.

My question to the minister is about the issue of the cost, the funding and the inequities that may occur, although I know that is currently underway and things are happening to look at remedying those inequities. Given the reductions in local government grant transfer payments, would the minister be looking at having to cough up funds, as a one-time start up or recovery, for those areas that will be looking at their local tax base to cover this? It is a local government cost, through regional districts or municipalities. If the Attorney General's department is determined that it proceed, then it has a direct impact on the municipalities. And of course, they will be approaching Municipal Affairs if the Attorney General has no funding for that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Those issue are currently being looked at. They are amongst the types of questions that local government has been asking. They are being looked at through the deputy ministers' committee of the AG ministry, and I expect we will have answers to all those questions in due course. At that time we'll go forward to the joint council and be able to report back to them, in a concrete way, about how their issues have been addressed, how they'll be affected. I guess we will have to deal with the results and recommendations at that time. It's too premature for me to say at this time what cost impacts there would be or how they would be absorbed, because all that policy work is currently underway.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that answer. I recognize that it's crystal-ball-gazing, not knowing what's going to be happening. But given the fact that there is a potential for this problem, some of the municipalities and the regional districts have approached me on this issue and have asked for some direction. They don't want to be left without the ability to have some consultation, and they are concerned that now is the time to ask these questions; now is the time to talk to the minister regarding potential funding -- whether he will consider that in his ministerial budget. These are areas that are legislated with one ministry but definitely impact another ministry, and sometimes we see that ministries work at cross-purposes. They're looking for some direction; they're looking for some avenue to approach the Ministry of Municipal Affairs if in fact this comes about.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That consultation is already taking place. As I said earlier, the issue has been addressed at the joint council process. The issues that the member raises are not unique to the capital regional district; they're not unique to any one municipality. The UBCM has been doing a coordinated effort, if you like, on members' concerns. They were raised at the joint council. The Attorney General is the lead ministry where the work on 911 is taking place. A deputy ministers' committee has been established. The key questions raised at the joint council around integration, compensation, costs and levels of service that vary throughout the province are all being addressed. It will come back to that joint council process. All that is taking place, so the municipalities are not 

[ Page 3593 ]

left out in the cold. The Attorney General sits on the joint council. He's there firsthand as a minister to hear what those concerns are.

I think the appropriate thing right now is to let that process work its way through, let those questions that have been asked get answered and let options come forward. I think that is the appropriate time to look at what the impacts of potential costs are going to be. There may be private sector involvement from the various telephone companies. There's a whole range of things. But in terms of the member's key concern around consultation -- are they being consulted and are their concerns being addressed? -- yes, they are, and before any decision is made, the issue will be discussed with the municipalities at the joint council. There's no point in implementing a 911 service provincewide if there's not community support for it.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that, because it's a response I can relay back to those who have contacted me. However, for the record, can the minister give me clarification for my own benefit that the joint council. . . ? Are we talking about the joint council that, I guess, is comprised of the table officers of the UBCM, or is there an expanded council, commission, group or committee to deal with this specific issue? I recognize that municipalities are being consulted, but regional representation is very important, as well. As I say, I do represent the capital regional district, and that's why I'm looking out for their interest.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Two points. Within government there's the deputy ministers' committee that is dealing with the issue directly through the Attorney General ministry. On the second point, in terms of the joint council, it is the four government ministers, with myself as the lead, and the table officers of the UBCM who represent the membership of the UBCM at that joint-council table.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me what the probable time frame is for completion of this process that has been discussed with respect to reviewing 911 and bringing back recommendations and suggestions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm unable to give him a time frame at this time.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me of the composition of the deputy ministers' committee that is looking at this on behalf of the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can get the hon. member a full list. I believe it's my ministry, Attorney General, Employment and Investment -- at least those three. But I'll get the full membership for the member.

[4:00]

The issue is not a new one, and again. . . . I've reminisced far too much, but I recall a UBCM discussion probably seven or eight years ago about a provincewide 911 system. Perhaps you were there as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

G. Abbott: I had the honour of chairing a couple of the UBCM meetings on that. There are certainly a lot of challenges that are going to face the deputy ministers' committee in sorting that out. There are, of course, the technical issues, which probably can be overcome, given that there are provincewide services in, I think, Alberta and a few other provinces -- I can't remember how many now. Technically it can be done. It's not typically done where systems are already in place in large municipal and regional areas, so that certainly adds a technical complexity that one might not have found in a province where no previous system had existed.

So the technical side will be challenging, but I suspect the political side will be even more challenging, given that we're talking about substantial dollars to the municipalities and regional districts. Of course, everyone sees their particular contribution and their particular system as something that's the best. There has to be recognition for that. So it's going to be a challenge, I'm sure, for the province, but hopefully one that will be productive and one that will ultimately yield a provincewide 911 system that, as I say, is universally bought into.

As I understand where we go from here -- and the minister can just confirm this as we leave this particular section. . . . The concept of a provincewide 911 system has been discussed at the joint council at least on one occasion. The responsibility for further work on that has now been delegated to a deputy ministers' committee. Presumably it's been delegated to some committee of UBCM as well, to assess from their side of things. Before there is any further legislation or movement with respect to this, it will once again be an agenda item of the joint council. I guess depending on what the recommendations are and the feasibility, something may then grow out of those further joint council discussions at that time. Is that a fair summary of where we're going and where it's ending up?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd give you ten out of ten.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn now to the issue of local government electoral reform. Now, I'm not sure whether there are any great issues on the horizon with respect to that, but if there's any shuffling of staff that would be necessary here, I'd welcome you to do it so I can get a drink of water.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The normal day-to-day sort of postmortem stuff that takes place after the election within the ministry is taking place -- the usual participation in newly elected seminars. The fact that the census has now come out will probably result in some changes at regional district levels in terms of the weighted vote and the amount of representation they get. So basically just the day-to-day activities. Of course, I get requests from municipalities at various times to look at different sections of the act. That's sort of a routine thing. But in terms of anything on the horizon of a major impact: not at this time.

G. Abbott: I assume from that response that certainly the ministry is not anticipating any consideration of perennial 

[ Page 3594 ]

requests to have another look at the three-year electoral cycle or that kind of thing. I judge from that that there will be nothing other than housekeeping kinds of changes on the horizon with respect to municipal electoral reform.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is no, there's not going to be anything. Mind you, there are a couple of local councillors in the community I represent who would think that as minister I should exercise ministerial prerogative and turn back to the good old days when we had annual elections. But no, I've got no plans to do that, hon. member.

G. Abbott: I probably would be one of the last in the province to urge you to do that, in fact.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To go back to the way it was, or. . . ?

G. Abbott: To go back to the way it was. I'm not urging you to do that. I guess every electoral system has its strengths and weaknesses, but I happen to think that the three-year term has worked and will continue to work out reasonably well. It has its disadvantages, as indeed the one-year term did, but it seems to be a pretty reasonable way to go. I'm certainly not suggesting that it change, although I'm sure the minister will at times be bombarded with requests to reconsider that.

The one specific issue I have. . . . I know the minister is aware of this, and I'd like his comments on it. This comes from a Mrs. Ann Robertson of Sicamous. Her particular concern surrounding the conduct of elections is one that I would like the minister's comments on. She has written to me to the effect that. . . . Her concern is that when she went to vote in the municipal election in November of 1996, she and her husband -- and I presume this is a sort of standard operating procedure across the province -- were asked for either their social insurance number or their date of birth.

I'll read Mrs. Robertson's letter so you appreciate her point of view, here.

"I am writing to ask you for the response that I expected to receive from your predecessor, Mr. Miller. I wrote to him on November 29 to complain of my being denied a vote in our last municipal election -- as was my husband -- because I would not give my social insurance number, which I use for tax purposes only, or my age, which is my personal information. This information is protected under the Protection of Privacy Act, but apparently the Election Act has precedence over that act. Mr. Miller's response was inappropriate and lacked information.

"Please advise how sections of the Municipal Act are decided upon and how they can be changed. Section 56(1) is a very bad law that should be changed. We have roll numbers that can be used for identification, or personal ID numbers should be issued, as they are elsewhere, if we choose not to use our SIN.

"Our age should not be asked for unless there is a question of whether the voter is of voting age. There is still age discrimination when it comes to obtaining employment, and we shouldn't have to give personal information out at the polling station.

"I would appreciate anything you can do to change this."

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is up to the chief electoral officer in each area, but it is standard procedure throughout the province to, if you're asked, either supply your date of birth or your social insurance number.

G. Abbott: Would the minister address the specific concern that Mrs. Robertson has with respect to giving out her social insurance number? She says the information is protected under the Protection of Privacy Act, but apparently the Election Act has precedence over that act. Is it the minister's understanding that there is some confidentiality provision surrounding the social insurance number and its use for electoral purposes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I really appreciate that question, because it happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Quite frankly, a social insurance number is nobody's business but the federal government's, and it's for the legitimate purposes for which it was initially created. You can get me going on this for quite some time. But no, the social insurance number is nobody's business except what the federal government requires it for. Quite frankly, it's not the bank's; it's not anybody else's.

If I speak strongly about it, it's because I have very strong feelings on it. I am in complete agreement with your constituent on that particular issue. So if she wanted to tell them to kiss off, she's got my full support. Can I make it any blunter than that?

G. Abbott: That inspired a passion which we rarely see in this minister. Clearly, if we want to elicit a very passionate response, we merely have to ask him about his SINs in the future and we will get an emotional. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not sins per se -- the number.

G. Abbott: Oh, the social insurance number, yes. Well, I was abbreviating there. I didn't want to get you upset again by a reference to it in full.

So given that, the minister has suggested that it may well be inappropriate to demand that of a voter or a prospective voter. Would a question at the polling station requesting your age prompt a similarly passionate response from you? Or can you imagine a situation where if you were of a different age or of a different gender or something like that, age would prompt the same kind of response?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue of age does not illicit the same response that social insurance numbers do. I think there is a difference. Age is a societally accepted standard in terms of identification. It's a way that we, you know. . . .

An Hon. Member: Not for a woman.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, for everybody. I mean, people may sometimes not wish to admit to their age, but it's required for your driver's licence; it's required for a whole host of things. Date of birth is standard on any application for a whole range of things. It's how we measure where we are in terms of our life span and where we are in society. I think it's a whole different issue. I mean it in a very positive sense, you know. I think it's a generally accepted and legitimate form of identification.

I think that maybe what's required is some sensitivity, is the ability to say. . . . The issue is one around eligibility to vote, which is one thing, and discretion in terms of whether the person is clearly over 21. That's one thing. But if it's in terms of the identification of an individual, if there are two voters with the same name. . . .

The fact is that most people are given a voter card at election time, and that is the primary source of identification. 

[ Page 3595 ]

But if you go to the poll and you don't have that with you, and if you have your driver's licence and you're asked what your date of birth is to confirm that, I think that is a legitimate question.

The question the member raises has been around two questions. We need to make it clear that it is one or the other. Quite frankly, I have a distinct preference as to which question should be asked. But on the age one, I think that is a legitimate, acceptable question to ask. Again, sensitivity is something that can be used without creating too much of a problem.

G. Abbott: I don't want to spend a long time quarrelling about this today, but as a relatively young man you may not have the same sensitivity to a question about age as an older person like myself -- or perhaps someone even older than myself -- might have. Although I personally don't have any great sensitivity about that, I can imagine an instance where it might be sensitive.

Rather than go around in circles on this, perhaps I can put the next question: are there alternatives to those two that we might look at and include as an acceptable way of dealing with this particular situation?

[4:15]

When you go into a polling station, your primary piece of identification is your voter's card. That indicates you are registered to vote, and it has your voting number on it. So having given that, I don't expect to be asked any further questions or asked to produce any other pieces of identification. That's what's required; that's what I tender. I get my ballot, and I go and cast my vote. If I don't have that and I now have to establish my identity as to who I am -- that I am the person I claim to be, either on the roll itself or as a voter who wishes to register on election day -- then I think it's reasonable to expect that I am going to have to offer up some proof of who I am, that I am the individual I purport to be.

There are a number of ways of doing that. The ones that spring to mind are a passport, a driver's licence -- some picture identification that someone could look at -- and if you have some mail that's addressed to you, that should suffice. All of those things do, for example, have your age on them.

If the member has some suggestions or ideas, I'm more than willing to look at them, but right now there are lots of safeguards within the system. There are opportunities to establish who you are. It does work fairly well, but we're always open to improvements. If anyone's got any ideas, we're more than willing to look at them.

G. Abbott: I'm not proposing that we return to our municipal and regional district voting rolls, because those were really cumbersome to administer and maintain and so on -- and in reality caused more problems than they cured. Perhaps there are some alternatives. Maybe the minister can respond to these suggestions as ways in which electoral returning officers might be guided by procedures in future municipal elections. Is a provincial or federal voter's card sufficient identification for a municipal voter? Could they, for example, use that as a way of proving who they are and their ability to vote?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll have to look into that. My understanding of the way it is right now is that when you go to cast your vote and you've got your provincial registration, your voter's card -- because now we have the permanent voters list -- as long as you're still at that same address and the two match, that's all you require to cast your provincial ballot. I would assume -- and this is just an assumption on my part, given that the municipalities now use that provincial voters list as a permanent voters list -- that if you have that, that should be sufficient. I might want to take a couple of things with me, like a hydro bill or something like that just as a further comfort level. That would be my assessment. We can get clarification on that, but I wouldn't see a particular problem with that.

G. Abbott: I wouldn't see a particular problem with it either, and perhaps the minister has a further explanation on the point. It makes complete sense to use a provincial or federal voter's card as proof of identification in these instances. The reality of the situation is that if someone sets out to vote fraudulently, chances are that in the initial round they're going to get away with it. It's only after a neighbour or an acquaintance or somebody like that says, "Oh no, I saw so-and-so voting, and they were not qualified to vote," that those kinds of situations really come to light.

Typically, if people want to vote, they should have the opportunity to vote. There's more trouble involved in trying to prevent someone from voting than in letting them vote and facing the consequences after. People have to take responsibility for determining their right to vote and exercising it.

I do hope that the use of the senior government voter's cards is a possibility, and if it is acceptable, it might be worthwhile for the minister sometime in advance of the next municipal elections to advise returning officers that it is an acceptable form of identification -- if, in fact, it is. Perhaps the minister has further information on that now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's one of those things which is mentioned in the act under "if, in the opinion of," which perhaps isn't as precise as the member or I would like. He's certainly got my commitment that we will look into the issue. I don't have a problem with what's being suggested; it makes sense to me.

Most people are honest, and they vote because they are eligible to vote and they want to vote. If they make the effort to go down there, quite frankly, that says enough right there. We'll look at it and see what we can do.

G. Abbott: I would appreciate the minister advising me of that so that I can at least let Mrs. Robertson know of what the outcome of that particular one is.

Another suggestion was made in Mrs. Robertson's letter -- and again, the minister may wish to respond to this. She says: "We have roll numbers that can be used for identification, or personal ID numbers should be issued. . . ." I'm not sure what she means by personal ID numbers issued; presumably, that would be like a municipal voter's card or something along that line. The suggestion about roll numbers, I presume, is related to property tax. Perhaps the minister could comment on the feasibility of that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That relates to the property tax, so you can pin down where an individual lives. The only concern that immediately springs to mind on that -- again, that's one of those "if, in the opinion of" sections of the act -- is that 

[ Page 3596 ]

it's not uncommon for an individual to own more than one piece of property. That would be the only caveat that I could come up with right away.

In terms of a permanent voter's number, there's a number on the voter's card, either federal. . . . But the provincial one is a permanent one. That deals with that part of your constituent's question.

G. Abbott: I agree. I think that the permanent voter's number does take care of that, and I really see no reason why this ministry or municipalities or regional districts should attempt to implement some kind of voter registration system of their own, based on the assumption that people have the right to vote. They should make themselves aware of their eligibility to vote and be guided by the rules surrounding that. It would seem to me -- and hopefully this is correct -- that the senior government voter's card would be completely appropriate as identification for that purpose.

I think that deals with that issue. I believe my colleague has a question on electoral reform.

I. Chong: I'm not sure if the minister received the letter that I received from the district of Saanich on March 17. They had recently endorsed a number of recommendations requesting amendments to the Municipal Act and asked that they be dealt with at AVIM and at UBCM. Barring that, perhaps these issues could be brought forward to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at this time.

There was a task force that the district of Saanich had set up, which I was aware of, because there was quite some concern about the recent, November '96 local government election. A number of issues came up, and the task force dealt with those. There were two recommendations they endorsed dealing with amending legislation and two recommendations proposing new legislation. What I would like to do is propose those questions to the minister and see whether he has any comment on them and whether he intends to deal with them. I'll quote the first recommendation for new legislation: the task force was requesting new legislation "to require that regional board directors be nominated and elected from among the candidates nominated and elected to council," and that the mayor automatically be a regional board director if he or she so chooses.

I'll just provide some background. I'm sure the minister is aware that in the last municipal elections, there were a number of candidates who wanted seats on local councils. Some municipalities had as many as 35 people running for eight and nine seats. So the question that the electorate posed to the municipalities afterwards was whether or not the voters should have the right to also select who they would like to be their representative on a regional board -- because there are regional districts in some areas -- versus having the local council make that decision amongst themselves after an election occurs. I think that is the basis of this new legislation, and I know there are various opinions on that amongst the local councillors and the mayors themselves. Nonetheless, it is a question from the electorate, and it's now posed as to whether the minister would consider new legislation in that regard.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The whole issue of elections to regional districts is a recurring theme not only in the community but within the UBCM itself. I'm aware of the request of the capital regional district to be looked at as a pilot project. Do I have any plans in the short term? No. I think the issue is one that will come up through the UBCM, and it can come up through the joint council process. I'm certainly not averse to looking at something, but right now I think the system's working reasonably well and what I'd like to see is some indication of support for changes from within the UBCM.

My recommendation to the CRD or to any other regional district that is wanting to make changes in the way that directors are selected -- either direct elections or some other form of elections -- is to get the endorsation of the UBCM, to get a buy-in from local government, and then we can go from there. But I don't intend to act unilaterally. I've tried to make it a general philosophy not to engage in changes of this nature without there being some sort of broadly based support.

[4:30]

I think the local councils are looking for some direction and some intention sooner rather than later, because 1999, as I said, is the election year. I think they're hoping that if this were accepted or rejected, they would know well in advance of that particular election. So the reason to have this raised at this time -- I'm not suggesting we jump the queue on this particular subject -- is that it is something that I think is supportable. If the minister is suggesting that councils write in support of it in the next year or so and that if there were enough requests from various councils and regional boards to look at this issue, it could be dealt with in a shorter time frame, rather than be delayed and perhaps miss the next municipal election. Perhaps the minister can offer some of his comments on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the time frame, the next elections aren't until 1999. We have a UBCM convention this coming fall, and it could be dealt with at that convention. I don't think the time for resolutions has passed. I know they have been working on this for a while, so I would anticipate that it would go through. So have it dealt with at the UBCM, and then I'm in a much better position to approve any change that's requested and to deal with the issue, knowing that there is a fairly high degree of support or consensus around the issue.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that answer. I will respond to the municipality saying that they can deal with it at UBCM, as opposed to waiting to deal with it initially until next spring through the AVIM process. I'll suggest that they could eliminate the AVIM process if they're going to go right to UBCM.

I would like the minister to advise me what his thoughts are on the other area of new legislation they were looking at -- and it doesn't necessarily have to receive the support of UBCM. The new legislation they require is legislation to prohibit all media advertising after midnight on the day prior to 

[ Page 3597 ]

the election and to require that all third-party advertising be identified with the name of the third party. Can the minister provide any comments on whether there's been discussion on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the first I've heard of this particular issue. So I'm more than willing to take any correspondence or any information that the member has and look at it and give the member an appropriate response when we've got all the information before us.

I. Chong: I will endeavour to get the exact reasons behind this from the municipality and forward them. As I say, I have just a short version. I'm sure the task force had a number of discussions they can provide us with. I will request that those be forwarded to the minister.

The other area that was requested was to amend legislation in the Municipal Act. They were requesting the minister consider amending the legislation to require each candidate to obtain 25 nominators and provide a $75 deposit returnable immediately following the election. As I mentioned earlier, due to the recent municipal elections, there was such a large number of candidates wishing to seek local government status -- the relaxed rules that were introduced some years ago brought out a number of the candidates. For the most part, all candidates wanting to run do so because they do want to offer public service, but there were a number of candidates -- perhaps not so much in Saanich, but in some other municipalities I know -- who I guess we would label as fringe candidates, with no intention of winning but of just disrupting the process and frustrating the electorate, if I can be so bold as to say so. I know that this municipality was looking for amended legislation to -- I wouldn't say restrict people but to somehow strengthen it -- ensure that there were at least 25 nominators and a $75 amount returnable immediately following the elections, so that it would not be a forfeited amount of money for those who have difficulty in raising those kinds of funds. I'd like the minister to offer some thoughts on that.

The Chair: The Chair must caution members that matters pertaining to legislation are not proper matters for this estimates debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am aware of the issue, and I'd like to see some support through the UBCM. Again, I think this is an issue that doesn't affect one particular municipality. It is an issue that affects all municipalities, and therefore I want to see some broad of level support before considering taking any action.

I can tell you that my own personal view is that I. . . . If someone wants to run, they should be able to run. It's like voting, right? If someone's eligible to vote, they should be able to go and vote with as little hindrance as possible. It should be as easy for them as possible. So my own personal view is that if you want to run for office, you should be free and unencumbered to do so. I think it's a little presumptuous sometimes to try and determine who is and who is not a fringe-party candidate.

An Hon. Member: You are.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I heard that comment, hon. member. I wasn't going to say this, but I will say this now in response to your comment. There was a time in this province, hon. member, when members of the provincial Liberal Party were viewed as fringe candidates. You set yourself up for that one, hon. member.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what democracy is all about. It's the ability to stand up and no matter how crazy your views are or how. . . . It's to be able to stand up and say what you think. I think that's extremely important, and before I would think about making any changes. . . . I think that's a fundamental tenet, and I'm reluctant to tamper with that.

I. Chong: I thank the hon. Chair for his caution earlier. I raise these issues as sort of the conduit for the municipality, which is requesting that its concerns be addressed at this particular venue.

In response to what the minister just provided us regarding the changes proposing that there be no hindrance to those seeking election, I must say that I heartily agree in that regard. However, there appears to be a hindrance for those who seek provincial election, in that there are requirements to pay a deposit, and there's also a requirement to get nominators. I suppose that at the municipal level they were looking for the same equity in that regard. So certainly if we were to remove the barrier at the municipal level, I suppose we should be looking at removing the barrier at the provincial level. I'll leave that for another discussion with the minister.

The last item I would like to mention and to just have read into the record is the last piece of amended legislation that the municipality is looking for the minister to consider. Again, I know he will perhaps look for UBCM direction on this. As I say, this is just perhaps a pre-warning that these are things that may be coming up at UBCM and that the joint council may or may not be looking at. The one piece of amended legislation they were looking for is to permit each municipal council to determine whether or not voting divisions will be established in their community. In fairness, I'm not quite clear what they're after on that. I don't think they're looking at some sort of a ward system; however, I would have to get the details of their task force on this. If the minister knows perhaps more clearly what they're referring to as for voting divisions established within a community and if he's aware of that, I'd certainly appreciate his comments.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the issue there is either wards or polling divisions. I mean, as it is right now most municipalities outside of Vancouver, let's say, generally operate on a. . . . If you've got your voting card, it says you can vote at X school. Well, if you happen to be, in the case of Port Coquitlam, at St. Catherine's church downtown, you can vote there as well. In fact, you can go to any polling station. I know some municipalities have felt that the time has come to formalize things more, that you should vote at a particular location and the city should be divided up into particular polling districts. That's one issue.

The other issue, of course, is around wards. Again, primarily that's been an issue of interest in Vancouver. But I expect that over time, as many communities get larger, you will see an increasing debate over whether or not communities should move to ward systems. By and large, I think that's a debate that will take place internally within each community.

I. Chong: There is one last question I would like to canvass the minister on before we move off the local government election process. As I understand it, the current allocation of funds for Elections B.C. is fairly substantial. I was wondering whether the minister can offer some insight -- given that there are another three non-election years -- on 

[ Page 3598 ]

why there would be a substantial amount allocated for that, given that the minister stated earlier that there was nothing in the works about electoral reform. It's just a query that I think a number of people may have.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can answer part of your question; I can't answer the whole question. In terms of my earlier comment about nothing being on the horizon, that is in terms of legislation that's generated from within this ministry as it would apply to local government. In terms of the budget of Elections B.C. and the chief electoral officer of the province, he's an independent officer of the Legislature. His budget is totally outside the purview of my ministry, so I am not in a position to answer questions on that.

G. Abbott: I have a few more questions to pursue, not so much in terms of electoral reform but about ways in which public assent can be gathered for capital projects -- or ongoing operations, in some cases. I want to take an opportunity to discuss that and also to discuss some innovations in municipal governments -- i.e., Rossland, I think. But I'd like to return to that.

A couple of my colleagues have questions in an area which I'm blessedly ignorant of, as I'm blessedly ignorant of so many things. This is just to advise, in case it requires a change of staff or whatever, that the area of multiculturalism is first, and then gaming. Is any change of staff required there, or shall we just proceed on that basis? No problem?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can deal with those questions here. If we can't, then we will endeavour to get the answers. I would just ask that your colleagues bear that in mind.

[4:45]

Interjection.

R. Masi: It's '94-95. The Multiculturalism Act proclaimed in September 1993 requires that all ministries report annually on their multiculturalism activities. The first question is: is the act still in effect, or have there been any changes to the act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: While the act doesn't come under my jurisdiction, it is my understanding that it is still in effect.

R. Masi: To move on, it indicates here that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is dedicated and committed to a philosophy and vision that embraces principles of human rights, dignity, respect and equities that will see the ministry's workforce reflect the diversity of British Columbia's population. It's a very commendable goal. My question at this point is: what actions have been established to in fact meet the outcomes presented by that goal?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The ministry is actively engaged in employment equity programs. We're actively engaged in governmentwide equity programs in terms of not only encouraging multiculturalism but encouraging women, ethnic minorities and visible minorities to participate within the ministry. We have a co-op program where I believe three out of the five students are aboriginals. In terms of boards, agencies and commissions that come before us, I think we are actively encouraging communities to nominate people from a wide spectrum within each of their communities to ensure that diversity is represented. From my own personal background -- particularly when boards and agencies come across my desk -- I try and ensure that there is a wide representation. So I think we are making steady progress, and I would hope, given that you've got a '94-95 annual report there, that I could probably get you something a little more up to date.

R. Masi: I think this is the best we can do in the Legislature these days. However, it's not so much specific to this report. As I say, it's more of a philosophic position that I'd like to hear from the ministry, and I think we're beginning to hear this now.

There's a comment in here about the human resources branch, relative to reviewing position qualification statements, with a view to promoting competency-based staffing approach. Could you comment on that? It would appear to me that the word "reviews" would suggest changes. Are there changes, and have we seen any?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of moving from credentialism, if you like, where you are assessed solely on the basis of your credentials, we are reviewing more of a knowledge-based. . . . I think that opens up the system to a wider variety of applications. It recognizes work experience, it recognizes life experience, it recognizes cultural experience -- a whole range of things that you don't necessarily get with a piece of paper with a bunch of letters on it.

R. Masi: I suppose that piece of paper is something that kept me working for a long time, so I have a certain amount of respect for credentials and pieces of paper like that. However, I see the sense that you're driving at, and I can certainly appreciate what you're saying. For some reason, and perhaps it's my unfamiliarity with the field of municipal affairs, I see the point here.

Safety engineering services seems to jump out here. It indicates that there should be a strategy for staffing safety inspector positions vacated through retirements, etc. Has that in fact happened, and how many?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to make two points; the first is just to clarify. Yes, credentials and the piece of paper are important. That's something I just want to point out.

On the second issue you raised, yes, we do have a strategy in place -- particularly, not just in areas of safety but in areas of what are traditionally classed as non-traditional employment opportunities, whether it's for women or aboriginals or people with disabilities or what have you -- for people who are not traditionally employed in a particular sector. I think it's especially noticeable in some of the heavier trades, like pipefitting, gas, welding -- some of the trades where it's been traditionally male-dominated. In terms of regulation, safety and inspection, that has traditionally been almost exclusively a male domain.

What we're finding now, as more and more people are retiring, and there are more women and other groups coming into the workforce and taking advantage of opportunities in these non-traditional areas, is that we're encouraging them to get certification and to take advantage of opportunities that come up with some of the vacancies, so that we can start to see more women safety inspectors in gas or in welding or what 

[ Page 3599 ]

have you, more aboriginal people taking advantage of opportunities. We have a strategy in place, and it's starting to work. I think that over the next few years you will see a noticeable change there.

R. Masi: In terms of ballparking, though, in terms of numbers of the total safety inspection staff, do we have a percentage? We could use, perhaps, women as the indicator.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's interesting that you should raise that question, because I remember looking at a list, in fact, I think about a week ago, and commenting exactly as you've done -- that it does seem to be rather a small number. In fact, it is a very small number. But we are making progress.

I can tell the member that our acting director and chief inspector of the gas safety branch is a woman, and that's a first in this province. I expect that you will see more over time. She is there in part because of encouragement in the ministry. Right now the numbers are low; there's no denying that. But I expect that over time you will see that change and will see a more equitable distribution throughout all areas of the ministry.

R. Masi: I see here also that there was or is. . . . Again, we could comment on this, based on the age of the report. An aboriginal issues coordinating committee has been established to deal with the movement of first nations people to self-government, which is an interesting little piece in itself. The impact issues such as taxation and land use, what those impacts will have on local government. . . . Is that committee still in effect? Or was it a temporary arrangement? Where are we on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just to clarify with the member, is that specifically referred to as a ministerial committee in this ministry? Or does it say it's a cross-ministerial government committee that may in fact be based in Aboriginal Affairs?

R. Masi: In the report here it's indicated as an aboriginal issues coordinating committee -- period -- made up of representatives from various branches. So maybe that's the key word for you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll get more information for the hon. member, because it sounds to me like it may be a cross-government committee that's based in Aboriginal Affairs.

R. Masi: I see here, too, under "Initiatives," where at one time back a year or so ago 164 municipal officials and local representatives from 47 communities attended a forum to discuss multiculturalism issues at the municipal level. Were there any tangible results from this? These forums take place; they present positions and proposals. But in terms of results, was there anything specific or hard that came out of that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These are more educational opportunities: opportunities to share information, to look at what the province is doing, to look at what different municipalities are doing and to look at different ideas that you may not be pursuing in your own community.

A few years ago, when I was on the council in Port Coquitlam, we attended one of the forums. I know we came back with a better understanding of areas that we needed to work on and strategies for resolving some of the problems that were occurring within our own municipality.

I think they related specifically to the one you raised a few moments ago around the number of women in the areas of safety and inspection. We realized that we were doing a good job in some areas and not in other areas. Basically, it was a question of finding out how to address the problems that were raised. So they're primarily educational.

R. Masi: I guess what I'm looking for here is some monitoring or some feedback from municipalities or some sort of hard evidence that there is a change taking place in the whole field of multiculturalism and in initiatives towards opening up positions.

I know you have to have these forums. They're sensitivity things and they have to be done. But is there any sort of feedback from the municipalities to the ministry relative to multiculturalism initiatives?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of any specific feedback on the forum that you're talking about, I'm not personally aware of any. It was obviously done a few years ago. But I am aware that there is an interest in multiculturalism within the UBCM, and there are activities within the UBCM geared to promoting multiculturalism and explaining the importance of diversity to different communities. We do make a financial contribution to that, so in that sense there are some sorts of concrete steps taking place. I think there is a concrete recognition of the importance of multiculturalism within communities and within the UBCM itself.

If what the member is asking for is some sort of specific progress in terms of either staffing or of officials within local government, I am not aware of anything specific. But I certainly will give this commitment to the member, and that is to raise the issue at a future joint council meeting as something that I think municipalities may want to address in a more formal way and get some sense of how local government stacks up within the province in terms of multiculturalism.

[5:00]

The member has got my commitment to raising it with the joint council.

R. Masi: I appreciate that commitment. I guess it's. . . . I hate to use this word "outcomes," but that's the buzzword these days; it's all over the world. But until we see. . . . I guess what I'm asking is. . . . I think we need a mechanism to in fact do an assessment of what is really going on in terms of progress.

I think I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: The Chair would like to recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara -- from a designated chair, if the member could, please.

V. Anderson: It's nice to know we have designated spots.

Following up, I would ask the minister -- as he's aware -- who represents the Municipal Affairs ministry on the government's Interministry Committee on Multiculturalism.

[ Page 3600 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an individual whose name is David Blake.

V. Anderson: Are there regular report-backs? Is there a plan within the municipal division about multiculturalism and program development -- what you receive from the multiculturalism committee -- reported back regularly to the minister? Is there a plan of activities that has been developed within current years -- both last year and the upcoming year -- on multicultural programming activities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a semiannual report-back to my ministerial executive on what is taking place. As well, there is an interministerial committee that has a new head; her name is Patsy George. I think you may know her; I know her as well. She has just taken over, and given the fact that she is a very energetic individual, I expect a considerable amount of activity out of that committee.

V. Anderson: Yes, I do know Patsy George very well, and she's a good person to have in that place. I expect there will be a good deal of activity there.

I'm wondering, though, what process the minister has within the Multiculturalism ministry for developing programs. You talk about equity programs, representing people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. A large part of multiculturalism is awareness training and programs so that people become more aware of our own cultural heritage and how we interact with others. What kind of programming is going on in that regard? Is it done regularly within the ministry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We do a number of things. There are sensitivity training workshops that are ongoing within the ministry. We celebrate a variety of multicultural events, including International Women's Day. We prepare a calendar of events for the upcoming year. In fact, that will be tabled in approximately two weeks. We hold a variety of seminars throughout the year. So there's a fairly wide spectrum of activities that take place.

There's a multicultural component in Municipal Awareness Week. That is something that takes place within the schools. It is done in partnership with the UBCM, and it is an effort to explain the importance of local government. There's a real push to create an awareness in schools, and there's a multicultural component in that. So there is a fair bit that takes place, and I suspect that in the coming years, with an interministerial committee in place that has a strong membership and strong leadership, there will be an increasing focus there.

V. Anderson: I appreciate those comments. It's important because, as we're aware, past reports really haven't indicated that -- particularly the comment, and it's true, that the last printed report is for '94-95, which is not necessarily this minister's fault if the reports have gone in. But that report is the one that raises the issue, if you like, and it says that although there was no specific review of services, policies and legislation regarding multicultural issues, there were reviews going on in other areas. Has there been or is there a review of multicultural issues at the present time and a program within the ministry as it relates. . . ? Related to that, what kind of budget is set aside for multicultural concerns or development as part of the budget of the ministry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently what's underway is that a number of activities that are proposed for the coming year will go to the ministerial executive. They will make recommendations, and then a budget will be determined from the recommendations of what is accepted. This will probably occur within the next couple of weeks. So there's a definitive timetable.

V. Anderson: We'll look forward to receiving the information when that comes forward.

I'm particularly interested in the calendar of events, and I would ask the minister if he's aware of the multifaith calendar and if he has made that available to his ministry. I know he has received it, and I'm wondering if it's being used within the ministry. I would encourage it, because there isn't a better source than that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will say that I look forward every year to receiving my copy of the calendar from the hon. member, and I have yet to receive this year's calendar. But I can tell him that when I do, it will go up on my wall in the same way that it went up every previous year, because it is an excellent calendar. It has all kinds of holidays -- not just the regular holidays that most of us know, like Christmas or Baisakhi, but less well-known faiths such as Jainism or Zoroastrianism or some of the Buddhist holidays. So I await the calendar with great anticipation.

V. Anderson: I will deliver it to you before this session is over. But I might just add that the Ministry of Agriculture in Ontario uses it as a presentation of all of their activities, and that is something you might consider. You can get it either through Multifaith or through AMSSA. So it's readily available. You might have to pay for those, but as it's partway through the year, you may get them cheaper. I think it's one of the best educational tools around, and it's used around the world, but it's not always used on its own doorstep like so many other things that are there. So I'll be happy to do that.

I'm happy that this was raised by my colleague, because one of the concerns we had in dealing with the Multicultural Act when it was brought forth by the government was that the tendency that that's the prerogative of the Multiculturalism ministry, whereas the act was actually brought forth to say that this is the prerogative of every minister of the church. . . . I mean of the community. I lose track; there's not much difference between the two places, just in terminology. But that's there. So I hope now that it's been raised and highlighted, it might become a more prominent part in what the ministry is doing. Because, in actual fact, what we're dealing with is relationships with people. The multicultural relationships of understanding each other and working together are fundamentally important. And it goes far beyond just ethnic equity -- although that's important. It goes beyond that to understanding the different cultures and the different ways of work, the different ways we think, the values that are different, and how we can learn from each other and have a more equitable community as we work together. So I appreciate the minister's responses, and I look forward to the material that he will provide. And I promise him the calendar very quickly.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just in response, the suggestion that the member raised a few moments ago, I think, is a good one and is one that we'll look at within the ministry. I recognize the importance of what he said, because multiculturalism does not, in my opinion, just deal with ethnic diversity but encourages a whole range of groups and individuals, and deals with all kinds of different things -- whether it's ethnic 

[ Page 3601 ]

communities, the role of women, or people of different sexual orientation. You name it; it's all covered. I think that the programs we need to put in place have to deal with that entire spectrum, so I thank the member for his comments.

V. Anderson: I'll bring in one illustration in that regard. Often we think of multicultural as being multiracial or multi-ethnic, and it is that. But it's far more than that. In my previous work as United Church minister, one of the reasons that came to fore is that when I had couples come to get married, one from the east side of Vancouver and one from the west side of Vancouver -- both of the same ethnic background, whatever that might be -- I asked them about their cultural differences, and they would look at me with a blank expression. I would say: "But if you've grown up east of Vancouver, you know about those terrible people on the west, and if you've grown up west of Vancouver, you know about those terrible people on the east side." They would just laugh, because all of their lives they knew there were great cultural differences between different parts of the city. And I think we have to be aware that, even within one ethnic group, we all have many cultural backgrounds and awareness as that we need to be aware of. And that, to me, is a fundamental part of that program that needs to be highlighted.

I. Chong: I hadn't planned on asking questions on this area, but hearing my two colleagues raised in my mind a question which actually came up when a constituent came to see me this past winter. The question I have to the minister has to do with the hiring or the appointment of, I guess, building inspectors, electrical inspectors, which I understand is under the mandate of his ministry. I'm wondering how often the minister looks at the staff composition of those inspectors to see whether he has achieved diversity in dealing with equity issues.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is an enormous cultural diversity within the ministry -- some areas more so than others. As I explained earlier on, we do have a lot of work to do in some of the non-traditional areas of employment, and we've got a plan in place that's currently taking place. But in answer to the member's question, "How often do you look. . . ?" In fact, I was looking just the other day and was commenting that we do seem to be making progress in other areas. And how come it's like this? And do we have programs? Yes, we do have programs. So I want the member to be assured that I am very much aware and very much cognizant, and I do keep my eye on the progress that's been made.

[5:15]

The reason I raised this question, as I mentioned, is that I had a constituent who came in to see me, who felt that at some point he had been denied an opportunity. There was a position that he was attempting to fill, and it had to do, I believe, with the electrical safety branch. He wanted to become an electrical inspector for the province, and he was concerned that he perhaps had been dealt an unfair hand. My question now to the minister is: if a constituent or an applicant feels this way, is there an appeal process available in that particular area?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, that would come under the Public Service Commission, as opposed to within the ministry itself -- unless the individual is a ministry employee, in which case my understanding is that there is an internal appeal process. But for an outside applicant, it would be through the Public Service Commission.

I. Chong: I'll provide a little bit more detail. Perhaps this will shed some light on this, and maybe as a result the minister will be able to look at this particular instance. I know that very rarely do we allow a particular instance of a constituent to be dealt with, but having sat through the Ministry of Health estimates, the odd time something does get right to the minister. If this is an opportunity, certainly I'm going to take advantage of that.

This particular applicant, I do believe, was from outside the ministry and was applying for this position. I believe he did lay a complaint or make it known that he was concerned that his application did not proceed successfully. What he was told, as I understand it, was that he would be permitted to rewrite an exam or to be retested for this, because there was an exam process in place.

Consequently what occurred, I believe -- and I don't have the exact details -- was that one of the supervisors had made a comment that perhaps if his last name were somewhat different he would have stood a better chance and that he scored very well on his exams. However, they were looking for a particular placement to fulfil their agenda and their mandate for diversity or multiculturalism or whatever it is.

Being a person not of a visible minority but of a different ethnic origin, I would say, he felt somewhat slighted because he was not your traditional Canadian with a westernized, Anglo-Saxon name. He thought he stood a much better chance, but in fact was told that had he borrowed a more Anglo-Saxon name, he would have been dealt a more fair hand.

Barring taking this to a human rights tribunal, he wanted to talk to me about this, to understand the process a little bit better. He was very well spoken and very well read, and as I say, he certainly scored well on his exams, when he spoke to the people who were in charge of that.

So that was the reason I raised this question of whether the minister or someone in his ministry was looking at the frequency and reviewing the staff composition from time to time, perhaps, in this particular area. As I understand it, just to conclude, there had not been an appointment. There was a sudden freeze, anyway, so that's why he did not pursue it. But I understand he is still wanting to pursue this, and as I say, the questions from my colleagues brought this concern to my mind at this particular time. If the minister has any comments, hon. Chair, I would certainly be delighted to hear them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the facts as the member has laid out were in fact the case, then the behaviour of someone in the ministry would be clearly unacceptable. Actually, what I would ask is for the member to make available to me the details of the constituent's complaint. I'll ensure that it gets investigated and looked into, and we'll report back to her.

[ Page 3602 ]

I. Chong: I guess it does take a worthwhile effort to bring those concerns in. I'm sure my constituent will be very pleased to know that the minister is prepared to look at his case first hand.

V. Anderson: I just wanted to make this offer, hon. Chair. I promised I would give the minister the calendar. So I would like to have the calendar presented to him so he may have it and be able to use it in the calendar that he's presenting. He'll be up to date and not feel neglected.

G. Abbott: I do my best, actually, to ensure that this minister doesn't feel neglected. Actually, I gave him our community charter this morning, and now he's been given a calendar. Soon he's going to start to feel that he's an important and vital member of this government. I hope that it doesn't go to his head, with all the gifts he's been getting. We've tried in our way to influence this minister politically in the past. Obviously the effort continues.

Before we leave multiculturalism, I want to briefly canvass the area of aboriginal affairs. I presume that there is still in place -- and I'm not sure if I've got the terminology exactly right here -- an aboriginal liaison officer who continues to be employed by the ministry.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct -- a manager of aboriginal affairs.

G. Abbott: Does that officer continue to be effectively a department of one in that area?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Abbott: Could the minister outline the dominant activities and objectives of that position over the past year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: His primary activities have been to advise municipalities on aboriginal service contracts, on taxation issues and on aboriginal groups and bands in areas where they overlap with the municipalities. That's been the primary focus.

G. Abbott: I'll leave the issue of local services contracts among bands, municipalities and regional districts for the broader area of aboriginal-municipal issues, which will be coming relatively shortly in the flow of things. I'll invite my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson to present his questions.

K. Krueger: Of course, it's no secret that my primary focus during these estimates debates is the effect on various ministries, and on the people of British Columbia in general, of the government's gambling expansion plans. Certainly there are effects that municipalities anticipate and are working with, and I'd appreciate an update from the minister about some of those aspects.

Before I get into that, I'd just like to ask what studies the minister might have commissioned, or the ministry might have received or reviewed, prior to the gambling expansion announcement with regard to the cost to municipalities, the effects on municipalities and the questions that would arise as a result of gambling expansion bearing on municipalities in their relationships to one another.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The ministry has commissioned no studies in regards to gambling. We have discussed the issue at the joint council, which is the appropriate forum, I believe, to deal with issues around gambling, municipalities and the provincial government.

K. Krueger: The UBCM put out a sort of summary document dated March 18, 1997, on the effects of the gambling expansion announcement on their membership. I wonder if the minister has had a chance to read and review that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not familiar with the specific document the member is talking about. I do know that we have discussed the issue at the joint council. I've been in regular communication with many municipalities prior to the House sitting and have discussed the issues with them directly. The municipalities are participating with the lottery advisory commission currently being done by Peter Clark. So in terms of whether there are discussions taking place, there are. I'm constantly being made aware of municipal concerns as they relate to gambling. But I'm not familiar with the specific document.

K. Krueger: I won't take up a lot of time here, but I'll quickly read into the record some points that the municipalities consider key. It's under the subheading "Local Government and the Approval Process," dealing with what input municipalities will have as gambling expansion projects are brought forward.

"Government has announced that destination and new charitable casinos will proceed only when three criteria are met. [First,] they must have demonstrable government support. Local governments will design their own appropriate approval mechanism. [Second,] adjacent communities will have input into the decision-making process and will have the opportunity to demonstrate whether the presence of a new casino or bingo hall will have a demonstrable effect upon them. [Third,] destination casinos, before being approved, will need a viable business plan. This plan must take into account infrastructure needs -- that is, water, sewer, extra policing, parking."

Hon. M. Farnworth: Given the document that the member is reading, I've got a feeling that it probably arises out of my comments to the municipalities at the last joint council, in which I said that unless there is support from the local government level for a particular new casino or destination casino in their community, then it will not be going ahead.

K. Krueger: My thanks to the minister. It's good to have a forthright statement of that nature.

The second area, then. The Minister of Employment and Investment pretty much put the ball in the court of the site municipality to determine what community support levels are for individual projects. There are costs to that -- costs of public hearings, potentially of zoning changes, processing applications and even holding referenda in the potential site municipalities. Has any consideration been given or any decision taken to provide some funding to municipalities that would deal with these issues to offset those costs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not from within this ministry. There is no funding available for the cost of public hearings or things like that.

[ Page 3603 ]

[5:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: At the last meeting of the joint council, some of these issues did in fact come up. At that time I told them that the government was more than willing to sit down with the UBCM to discuss these issues, particularly looking at an apportionment in terms of revenues around the issue of policing costs in casinos. That's an issue that I expect to be coming up at future joint council meetings. I expect that you will see some sort of policy put in place to deal with those issues.

K. Krueger: With regard to the infrastructure costs that municipalities will face -- parking, changes to roadways and so on -- my understanding of the government's intentions is that the casino expansion project would have to pay those costs rather than having the municipal taxpayers shoulder them.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would be treated just like any other developer. Those are the decisions that a municipality would take into account during a public hearing process. What are the impacts? What servicing requirements are there? What traffic studies need to be done? What parking needs to be done? All those things are within the jurisdiction of local government.

I would expect local government to use due diligence and to look at a casino development in the same way that it would look at any other development, and decide on the basis of the proposal and the merits before it and on the basis of community support, whether in fact they feel this is something that they want in their community. That's what local government does best, and I expect them to make their decisions accordingly on what's in the best interest of their community.

K. Krueger: Again, my thanks to the minister.

The input of municipalities bordering on one which does potentially accept a gambling expansion venue is a question that many are concerned about for a lot of reasons, of course -- one being that there would be pressures on that municipality's infrastructure that might not be compensated by the investors who promote and develop the project. Another would be that there might be a potential for local economies to be pirated away, from the point of view of those who would surround the municipality where the venue opened. That is, if a substantial flow of people from the neighbouring municipalities used the venue, or even people who would otherwise have visited those municipalities, they may well spend their money at small businesses in the host municipality rather than at the surrounding municipalities. So there's a concern about that, of course, and it will doubtless cause some jostling between municipalities -- a lot of watching over their shoulders. Generally, it's a process that will obviously have to be managed.

The UBCM summary says:

"With respect to [that point], input from surrounding local governments must be sought by the proponents. In our discussion with Mr. Clark" -- this is Peter Clark -- "we discussed that 'surrounding' does not necessarily mean adjacent, but could mean that the community is 'impacted.' UBCM has been asked to advise on the appropriate mechanism to seek this input. Mr. Clark has said the selection process will certainly take into consideration the views of neighbouring communities, just as it now does for charity casinos. Obviously it is unlikely that a destination casino would be recommended by the [lottery advisory committee] in an area in which, for example, all neighbouring communities are opposed."

Hon. M. Farnworth: As far as I know, there is no veto. The member raises a good point, and I think there are a couple of things that we should consider. The report has suggested that the maximum you could have in this province is five to six destination casinos.

I think that with the criteria that have been laid down, particularly around the area of strong community support, there must be community support, consultation with neighbouring municipalities. I think you can see that that starts to whittle down the number of locations that would be acceptable. I accept the member's comments in terms of there being impacts on communities outside one particular community. That's something that exists today and a whole host of things. . . . I appreciate his views about casinos and the effect they can have in drawing trade away from other areas. It's ultimately a decision for that local community.

It's the same thing that exists today with the Saanich Peninsula -- the huge Costco that came in and the concern of the smaller communities about the total draining of their local downtown business cores. Ultimately, though, the decision was still made by the local community where the development is to take place. That to me is still the key in terms of local government. On either a destination casino or a new charity casino, it is the local community that makes the decision in terms of support through the public hearing process, through a rezoning process if one is required, through things such as what servicing arrangements are required. All those things have to be taken into account.

I would expect that a community would take into account the views of neighbouring communities, but clearly there is no veto in place for other developments. I would be very surprised if you were to put in a veto in this case, because that gets into a whole different area about the roles and responsibilities of local government. I think the fact that there will be so few destination casino licences issued -- if and when they're issued. . . . As a matter of course, the best proposals will be the ones that have the widest level of support and the widest level of community buy-in.

K. Krueger: Although I've heard that as well -- that there would probably be a maximum of about that number of 

[ Page 3604 ]

destination resort casinos in British Columbia -- there are already 17 charitable casinos. And as I understand it, any of those that want to expand up to the maximum -- 300 slot machines and 30 tables -- that the Minister of Employment and Investment has set out can do that. There are also 25 casino management companies that have been approved -- out of 34 applicants, with more applicants expected to come on all the time -- to establish new venues in the province. So whether they're called destination resort casinos or they're called charitable casinos, we apparently have at least 25 approved management companies scouting for sites.

So I think there's going to be a massive amount of activity around all of this over the next while. And every municipality will probably be considering whether or not it should allow these activities and whether or not it's going to lose out badly to its neighbours if it doesn't. It's made for an awful lot of concern and activity within the province.

Presently there is no sharing of revenue from gambling with municipal and local governments. Being that they will be so drastically affected, they can be expected. . . . I'm already hearing from them that they want to be considered in the revenue-sharing plans. I know those things are currently in negotiation -- at least I haven't heard about it if the negotiation has been resolved. I assume that it will be resolved fairly soon, because requests for proposals are going to these management companies. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts about sharing the government portion of the negotiated revenues directly with municipalities, rather than all of it flowing into provincial coffers and municipalities having to look for unconditional grants and the traditional funding arrangements.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the question regarding the sharing of provincial moneys or a provincial share of gaming revenue, negotiations on all aspects of that are currently underway, as you just commented. That is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, so it would be inappropriate for me to answer on that part of things.

However, having said that, the issue has come up at the joint council. I have told the hon. member that I expect that issues, particularly around policing costs and those sorts of things, will have to be addressed. I fully expect them to be discussed at the joint council. I've made it clear publicly -- I made it clear at the joint council meeting -- that in terms of where new charitable casinos or destination casinos go, the policy is that there must be community support. In fact, the UBCM received that very positively when the government's gaming decisions were announced. That was taken straight out of the resolution that was passed by the UBCM, so I think there is a clear recognition by the government and by this ministry in particular of the importance of local government in the approval process for new casinos and new destination casinos. I expect those issues will be thoroughly canvassed at future joint council meetings.

K. Krueger: I'll wrap up my questions with regard to gaming at that, at least for the time being. I'm going to reserve for another day my opportunity to ask some questions specific to municipalities within my constituency -- except for one, because this is sort of a late-breaking development. These nasty bugs that have appeared in British Columbia in recent years -- what people call beaver fever, giardia and Cryptosporidium. . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Yeah. They are something that everyone is worried about, and so there has been testing done by the local health unit in Kamloops. Apparently that testing just stopped six weeks ago because the health unit didn't feel it had any more budget for it. It cost $350 per week to do that testing, and the health officials have told city council that the city will have to foot the bill from here on out if they want to have the testing done. Apparently there was no communication until people realized that they hadn't had tests for six weeks. I wonder if this is news to the minister, as it is to me, and what might be done about it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a late-breaking bug to me too, but the minister has my assurance that I will raise the issue with my colleague the Minister of Health. I would encourage him to do the same in the estimates process, or privately if he so chooses.

K. Krueger: I thank you for the promotion; it adds to the general fraternal feeling that I have with you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Noting the hour and my internal clock telling me it's suppertime, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

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