[ Page 3627 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that the arrival of his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is imminent, so I would just ask members to stay in their seats for a moment.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1997

Correction Amendment Act, 1997

Offence Amendment Act, 1997

British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act

Food Donor Encouragement Act

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1997

Capital Region Water Supply and Sooke Hills Protection Act

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, Victoria is, of course, a very striking community, and coming to Victoria for the first time is a guest from Toronto, Ms. Deshmukh, together with her husband, who is in town attending a conference. Would all members welcome her as well as Dorothy and Jim Tighe, who are in the gallery today.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today, visiting one of our legislative interns, is Mr. Verne Macdonnell. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: Many of us were treated to a choir singing in the rotunda today over the noonhour. I must say that it is probably one of the most beautiful choirs I've heard in a long time, and of course, they're from Mission. The choir director is David Krueger, and that was the Mission Secondary choir, a mix of grades 8 to 12 students. I bid the House thank them for their serenade.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure to introduce today a woman who I've known for many years. I first became acquainted with her when she was moving to Thailand to work with the people there through CUSO. She moved on to work at the United Nations, and ended up, however, leaving Canada and living in Australia. I'd like the House to please welcome back to Canada Marjorie Janz and her daughter Estella.

B. McKinnon: I would like the House to welcome constituents of mine from Surrey, Jerry and Andrea Healey. Please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: Today I rise and ask you to share with me a very happy announcement, the birth of my second grandchild. This beautiful little girl was born to my son David and his wife Jocelyne on Sunday, May 25, at Lions Gate Hospital, weighing 7 pounds 13 ounces. She is a little sister for Darren. I invite the House to join with me in welcoming Courtney Gisele Whittred into this world.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature Ms. Josettie Li, who is a registered nurse by profession. She recently completed a tour of duty in the Northwest Territories and is enjoying some warm weather in Lotusland prior to returning to the north. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Dalton: Last Thursday evening the Premier, the opposition leader and I were honoured and fortunate to be among the audience at Rick Hansen's tenth anniversary of his Man in Motion World Tour. We all know Rick's accomplishments, and I don't need to go through those with the members. Could I ask you, hon. Speaker, on behalf of all members in the House, to write to Rick, thanking him for his past endeavours, wishing him well in his future endeavours and ensuring him of our ongoing support?

The Speaker: I thank the member for that, and I shall be delighted to do so on your behalf.

Hon. A. Petter: A usually reliable source in the press gallery has sent me a note saying it would be an appropriate day on which to wish Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province and Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun a happy birthday. I only hope that source is as reliable today, and I would ask the House, based on that assumption, to join in wishing those gentlemen a happy birthday.

The Speaker: I hope Hansard will record that that was unanimous.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD
(MURPHY CASE)

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, last Wednesday the Minister for Children and Families informed the House and admitted that all information with regard to the Murphy case had not been forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board at the outset of their review. We now have in our possession a letter dated January 23, 1997, from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services. It makes it clear that the people to whom the ministry wants to send the young girl in the Murphy case had already faced allegations of abuse. Children had been removed from the home because of "inappropriate discipline." One girl was removed from the home and refused to return.

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: can the minister tell the House whether or not the Saskatchewan ministry letter was forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board at the outset of the review process for the Murphy case?

Hon. P. Priddy: I cannot tell you the exact date, but all of the information that was submitted to us by Saskatchewan, 

[ Page 3628 ]

including from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services and Touchwood Child and Family Services, which is the aboriginal social services, was submitted to the review board.

G. Campbell: With respect to the minister, the date with regard to this letter is important. It's important to all of us. I've felt that as we've tried to ask questions in the House, it is like pulling teeth from the minister in terms of getting information.

This is a very important situation, hon. Speaker. Not only is it difficult to get complete information, but now questions of the ministry's standards have been raised. The director of child protection has said that in every family you assess, there are historical blemishes.

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: would the minister send her child to a family with a record of striking children . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

G. Campbell: . . . so hard that they are removed from the home, that one of the children is hospitalized? And if the minister wouldn't send one of her children, why would we consider sending the child involved in the Murphy case?

M. Coell: Tim and Dana Murphy have spent close to $15,000 on legal fees, trying to get custody of their foster daughter. When they were refused access to the home study conducted by the ministry, they hired private investigators to look into allegations of child abuse. Why is it necessary to the minister for a family to jump through these hoops to get basic questions answered surrounding safety of the home that their foster child was to be sent to in Saskatchewan?

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, the Murphys' lawyer had access to the home studies and, my understanding is, while not able to give a copy, was able to share information from that with them.

M. Coell: The Murphys simply want what is in the best interest of their foster daughter. I think we all can agree that we want to set the highest standards for care of children in this province.

Does the minister agree that any history of violence towards a child in a prospective foster home, or home, should disqualify that family from being considered an appropriate placement for any child?

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE
FOR FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN

In 1993 the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Ted Hughes. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! Please, let's hear the question before we adjudicate whether it is or isn't out of order.

R. Thorpe: In 1993 conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes issued a series of reports on constituency allowances. On page 19 of that interim report, he stated: "A member's constituency office may not be used for partisan political activities. The constituency office allowance is designed to encourage communication between the member and all of his or her constituents and must be operated on a strictly non-partisan basis." Is this another example of the NDP helping their friends and insiders? My question to the minister is: why is she flouting the Hughes recommendations by allowing the federal NDP campaign to run from her constituency office?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Despite the fact that the question has nothing whatsoever to do with my portfolio, I'll be happy to answer it.

Had the Liberal member opposite done his homework -- i.e., talked to Mr. Hughes -- he would have discovered that the arrangement in place today is precisely the same that was in place for the 1996 election. It's in place with the blessing of and in consultation with Mr. Hughes.

R. Thorpe: It is about representing all the constituents in British Columbia, especially those she was elected to represent in Ladysmith. The citizens of Ladysmith have lost the services of their constituency office for the month of May, for no other reason than partisan politics. Can the minister explain how closing down her office for the month of May helps her represent her constituents in Ladysmith?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. J. Pullinger: The only complaint I've heard is from the member opposite. I would remind members opposite that I have one constituency assistant, who works very hard on behalf of my constituents. She's well respected by my constituents. All of the actions that I've taken with respect to my constituency office have the explicit approval of Mr. Ted Hughes, who was the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

G. Farrell-Collins: This doesn't have to do with conflict of interest; this has to do with a member using her political office to help further the gain of a federal candidate during an election campaign. The constituency office belongs to the constituents, not to the New Democratic Party.

Can the minister tell us how she can, with all conscience, tell the constituents in her riding that it is okay for her to use her constituency office in a federal election campaign, for partisan purposes on behalf of the New Democratic Party, instead of for the constituents of her riding, who should be the ones being represented in that office?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member might be interested to know that my office in Ladysmith is staffed by volunteers most of the time, because in a rural riding one constituency assistant can't be in nine communities. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please. We must hear the answer.

[ Page 3629 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would simply reiterate that the arrangement that's in place is there with the blessing of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. There is not one nickel of public money going into it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us: when her constituents show up on the doorstep of her Ladysmith constituency office, how are they supposed to tell whether they're getting non-partisan representation from an MLA on their behalf or they're actually applying to the New Democratic Party for help?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's a big orange sign on the door that says "Elect Garth Mirau, Federal New Democrat Candidate," and my number in Duncan is well advertised.

B.C. TRANSIT EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

Hon. J. MacPhail: Absenteeism is a problem, and it's a top priority for resolving. In 1996, B.C. Transit requested the assistance of the office of the auditor general in analyzing the issue of operator efficiency. The office of the auditor general made several recommendations regarding attendance management. B.C. Transit agreed with those recommendations, and they are now implementing them. B.C. Transit established the attendance management program; they set long-term objectives regarding attendance. The underlying philosophy of the program is that if employees are well, they come to work; if they are not well, they stay at home.

D. Symons: During the 1995 estimates I asked the then chair of B.C. Transit, Derek Corrigan, about absenteeism. During that debate he said: "I personally associate many of the problems we have over absenteeism with a dysfunctional management-labour relationship."

Does the minister agree with her former chair that absenteeism is caused by the labour-management relationship at Transit? And if so, why hasn't this been fixed in the intervening two years? I might add that absenteeism today is roughly the same as it was two years ago.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It never ceases to amaze me how this member never listens to the first answer.

The auditor general made several recommendations. We listened to those recommendations, and we implemented them. I'll say it again: the attendance management program has been put in place as a result of the auditor general's recommendation. It provides a mechanism to manage employees who are absent from work, with a strong emphasis on a comprehensive rehabilitation process.

I will just add that the issue of absenteeism is equally important to the unions, as they pay 100 percent of the long-term disability costs of their members.

The program defines the supervisor's role and clearly defines the responsibilities of the various parties involved in attendance management. As part of the plan the B.C. Transit human resources department will be conducting an employee survey to make sure they identify attendance, productivity and other workplace-related issues, just as the auditor general recommended.

FOREST SECTOR JOBS
IN ALBERTA AND B.C.

C. Hansen: We have learned that Alberta has managed to attract 100 new companies to their secondary wood manufacturing sector, employing more than 12,000 Albertans. At the same time, we see investment fleeing B.C.'s forests. Will the Minister of Forests explain to this House why Alberta has had such success while British Columbians are losing jobs and investments?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. We can't function on this basis.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I suggest that there's been more fibre available in Alberta, that they have not had a fully developed forest industry, that B.C. has had its share of investment over the years gone by. We have had. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, clearly the opposition doesn't listen to the facts. There are 10,000 more jobs in British Columbia than there were five years ago, and there will be more. British Columbia's forest industry lacks. . . .

An Hon. Member: Leadership.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I was going to say that it lacks the support of the opposition, who are always running down one of the finest industries in the country.

I can go on and list many investments that are being made in British Columbia. This government is showing leadership in developing a jobs and timber accord, which will produce 21,000 new jobs in the next few years.

[2:30]

Hon. Speaker, the number of jobs in the Alberta forest industry has increased by 50 percent since 1990. During the same period of time, while this party has been in power in this House, we have seen no increase in forest jobs in this province. In fact, last year we saw a decline of 5,500 jobs in this province. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why the number of jobs in Alberta has been rising while the number in this province has been declining under this party's leadership?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've answered that question before. There has been an increase of over 1 percent this year over last year. We're in a pulp slump, and there are signs that we're coming out of that. Alberta had a large amount of uncommitted fibre resource that they allocated to the industry, so it's to be expected that the jobs numbers would increase there.

[ Page 3630 ]

Let me quote from the Price Waterhouse conference on March 26 of this year. It says:

"I think there are some great investment opportunities in the industry, and British Columbia may have far more than its share over the next few years. Despite my general misgivings about new investment, B.C. is still attracting a significant amount given the fact that much of the commercial forest has already been allocated."

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Motion without Notice

Leave granted.

NEW PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

Conservation of our Pacific salmon. . . . It's a symbol of our province's riches and of the need for strong environmental stewardship. It's a common value of all British Columbians. British Columbians are overwhelmingly of the view that foreign overfishing -- uncontrolled interception fishery as conducted by American fleets in the waters off Washington State and Alaska -- poses the single biggest threat to the survival of our fish.

On Friday our government announced action intended to deal with that threat, or to go some way toward putting the United States and Canada on notice that we take this issue very seriously. We gave Canada 90 days' notice of our intention to cancel the licence of occupation, allowing the use of the Strait of Georgia near Nanoose for U.S. Navy torpedo testing, in response to the Americans' inflexible and unacceptable refusal to negotiate a new Pacific Salmon Treaty.

A Pacific Salmon Treaty is our only guarantee that the fish produced by our rivers return to them to spawn. All members of the House know that for the last year the British Columbia government -- perhaps for the first time in British Columbia history -- has taken the issue of the salmon fishery in British Columbia seriously. We've taken a series of initiatives to deal with that resource.

First, we chose to debate with the federal government to wrest more control from the federal government to British Columbia on the salmon fishery. We signed a historic agreement with the federal government -- the first time in my memory, really, that British Columbia has managed to negotiate the transfer of significant jurisdiction to our province when it comes to the salmon resource.

Second, in the Legislature we've tabled Fisheries Renewal B.C. legislation, which was designed to reinvest back into this resource a mechanism that ensures that rather than changing from bureaucrats in Ottawa to bureaucrats in Victoria, we set up a process so that communities, fishermen, environmentalists and others concerned about the resource have a direct say and influence in the managing of that resource.

Thirdly, we recently brought in the Fish Protection Act. It's really the first time in Canada's history that a province has brought in this kind of tough habitat protection for fisheries. There are a number of initiatives in there which are before the House -- and I won't debate them today -- which provide the tools that have long been missing to protect the habitat that is so sorely needed to promote and protect the salmon resource -- indeed, the fishery resource -- in British Columbia.

But all of the initiatives we've taken over the last year -- whether it's more investment in watershed restoration, whether it's Fisheries Renewal B.C., whether it's the Fish Protection Act, whether it's fighting with the federal government for more control here in British Columbia. . . . All of it means nothing if we don't have a Pacific Salmon Treaty. Because if we don't have a Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Americans can catch fish raised in British Columbia in our waters, it means, in fact, the conservation is for nought; it means that those jobs are jeopardized; and it means that the investment we're making is not for our benefit but for the benefit of another country. The Pacific Salmon Treaty is really the only guarantee we have that fish produced by our rivers will return to them to spawn.

Today, with our salmon already entering Alaskan waters and only three weeks away from our northern rivers, we have no treaty. We don't even have fishing plans negotiated with the United States to ensure the conservation of our stocks. We have no mechanism to ensure that salmon produced in our rivers will be able to return to our rivers. This is unacceptable to British Columbians and, I think, to all Canadians. It demands action on the part of the national government; it demands action on the part of British Columbia. And it's action that we have taken.

In the last few days, since we've taken this unprecedented action on the part of British Columbia, I've heard support -- and I know many members have -- from all parts of our province. The government's decision was recently supported by the Coastal Community Network, which is a group of communities, some 30 of them. There are even members of the other party in this Coastal Communitiy Network. They met in Nanaimo on the weekend and passed a unanimous motion to support the British Columbia government. The mayor of Port Hardy said: "We all have to find a way to make the fishing industry viable again if we are going to survive." And he went on to say that the only thing the U.S. responds to is tough negotiating. In response to his motion, all 30 fishing communities in British Columbia endorsed the government's actions.

Within hours of making the announcement, the U.S. agreed to return to the table. The 40 days they said they needed to meet with stakeholders suddenly became four days. The negotiator, who had no mandate, suddenly was given a full mandate. American commentators, who may not have liked our decision, nonetheless agreed with our stand on the need for a treaty. The editorial in the Seattle Times Sunday edition said: "The U.S.-Canada salmon treaty has not lived up 

[ Page 3631 ]

to its promise to conserve regional salmon runs. This is not Canada's fault." The Times conceded that "U.S. interceptions of B.C. fish have been roughly twice the number of Canadian interceptions," and the Times said point-blank: "American negotiators must be prepared to make real concessions. That will mean catching fewer B.C. fish, including the prized Fraser sockeye run." I cannot remember a time when American editorial opinion in Seattle has sided with British Columbia, at least on the concept of conserving a resource, sharing equitably that resource and recognizing that it is the United States that is breaking the treaty. It is the United States fishermen who have not lived up to the spirit of the treaty.

I want talk a bit about the lessons of history. This resource goes to the soul of our province; it really goes to the spiritual values of our province and aboriginal people. Right from the beginning of time, this has been a resource which has become synonymous with a coastal people, with British Columbia. It wasn't until the 1930s that we got the first treaty between Canada and the United States to share this resource, and it happened only when the great Fraser River salmon fishery, the greatest economic fishery in the world, came very close to collapse. It came close to collapse for two reasons. The United States put fish traps in the San Juan Islands to catch our fish before they came back to the Fraser River to spawn. They were crude mechanisms, but an incredibly devastating and effective fishery. They did it for a few years, and then we had the great Hells Gate slide coincident with that. The combination of those two events almost led to the extinction of the great salmon fishery on the Fraser River. Those two facts brought the United States to realize that this common property resource, this resource which shares an ocean, this resource which does not know whether they're American fish or Canadian fish, needs a treaty between our two countries in order to preserve where they spawn and to conserve the resource. And we got the first Fraser River sockeye salmon treaty between Canada and the United States.

Then, in the 1950s, the pinks became more economically important. As everybody knows, the pink salmon is essentially the canning salmon, and the huge canneries that came about in the Second World War and after that resulted in another massive fishery on the Pacific coast. And in the 1950s, once again, the United States overfished our pink salmon. In the 1950s Canada said: "We must extend the treaty we have on sockeye to the pink salmon fishery in British Columbia." The Americans said no. And what happened? Then-Canadian Fisheries minister Sinclair sent the Canadian fleet out on the other side of the west coast of Vancouver Island -- for the first time in history beyond our traditional fishing grounds, past the three-mile limit -- and caught Pacific pink salmon before they came through American waters and before they came back to the Fraser. One year of fishing outside the traditional territories for British Columbia and Canada resulted in the economic devastation of the American fishing industry in Washington State and Oregon. We finally got a treaty after that, in the 1950s, adding the pink salmon to the sockeye salmon.

Then, in the early 1980s, with the growing importance of sport fishing in the chinook and coho runs and with the growing realization that American overfishing could again lead to the extermination of the coho and chinook fishery. . . . It wasn't until 1985 that, with consistent pressure from Canada, the United States agreed to add those two species to the treaties between our two countries.

The 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty should have solved the problem. It should have meant that for the first time all of the commercial salmon species in British Columbia were covered by a treaty between our two countries. It should have meant a rational sharing of the resource, with the first priority being conservation and the second priority being an equitable sharing of that resource between our two jurisdictions. It wasn't three years after that treaty was signed that the United States was violating the treaty and catching more than their share of the resource. Three years after it was signed, Americans were overcatching by some 90,000 salmon. Today 900,000 more salmon are caught by the United States than they are entitled to under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Just in economic terms, the Americans have been overfishing our resource by some $60 million a year every year since 1988.

And what's happened? In addition to the degradation of the environment, part of which was caused by the neglect of previous provincial governments. . . . I have no hesitation recognizing that. Part of it was by urban encroachment on the urban salmon streams -- the tremendous, bountiful salmon streams we've had in this province. Part of it was bad management by the federal government and DFO in terms of the way the fleet has been managed. Part of it was increasing capitalization of the resource and intensity of new technology in the resource, and part of it was overfishing by the United States. That has in some cases led us perilously close to the extinction of certain salmon runs in British Columbia, including the famous 12 hours for the Fraser River a few years ago -- 12 hours from disaster.

We've seen -- everybody in Canada has seen -- what has happened to the cod fishery in Newfoundland. And they know instinctively that without tough environmental standards, that without tough, conservative management of the resource, and that without a salmon treaty which leads to the sharing of the resource, that can happen here on the west coast. This year there are some runs, on Vancouver Island in particular, where the species is literally threatened without some kind of treaty between Canada and the United States. We're determined that we are not going to stand by -- and I don't think any legislator from any party wants to see us stand by -- and allow American overfishing to the point, possibly, of extinction of the resource without some action on the part of Canada and some action on the part of British Columbia. One of the reasons we brought this motion here today is to demonstrate the kind of resolve that we have on all sides of this House to support the survival of the salmon resource.

[2:45]

Our decision to end the seabed licence of occupation associated with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range at Nanoose in the Strait of Georgia is only one step that we are taking to try to get the attention of the United States. The torpedo-testing range is a range which has been in existence for 32 years. The United States military has indicated that it has saved them some $2 billion over that 32-year period. It has done so because of the unique nature of that range, which allows the retrieval of experimental torpedoes.

Many people have counselled that we should not link Nanoose to fish. Certainly our Canadian government has been loath to try to bring other pressure to bear on the 

[ Page 3632 ]

United States. We know that cancelling this lease will clearly provoke the United States; we know that this is a significant threat to the Americans; and we know that they don't take lightly threats to their military or the cost that this will impose on them. And we don't take it lightly; I don't think any member of this House takes it lightly. But we must put this issue on the radar screen -- excuse my pun -- of United States-Canada relations. We must elevate this issue so that it's taken seriously by Canada and by the United States.

While I've refrained from attacking the Canadian government, because the real enemy here is American overfishing and their inability to deal with this and their inability to get an agreement, clearly Canada has not taken this issue seriously. Clearly, while Canada-Cuba trade is $170 million a year and Canada has correctly, in my judgment, stood up to the United States in their interference with our decision to trade with Cuba, the salmon industry alone in British Columbia is some $500 million -- and it is threatened. Canada has not placed the same emphasis on getting a new Pacific Salmon Treaty as it has on dealing with other irritants between our two countries.

So while the linkage between Nanoose and the salmon is something which Canada has not supported traditionally and something which we do not take lightly, it is clearly a measure of the frustration and the resolve of British Columbians that they want their government to take any and all actions which they deem necessary to try to bring pressure on the United States to take this seriously -- and pressure on Canada, frankly, to take it seriously -- and bring a conclusion to these talks so that we can conserve this spectacular resource, not just for now but for future generations.

Canada and the United States are good neighbours; British Columbia and Washington State and Oregon and Alaska want to be good neighbours. We have no interest in provoking a major fight with the United States. Clearly this is not in our interest; clearly this is not in the interest of the United States. But good neighbours means working together to solve common problems. The conservation of the salmon resource is a common problem. If the United States is not going to be good neighbours with British Columbia and Canada to conserve the resource, then we have to look at our good-neighbour policy with respect to things like Nanoose.

Hon. Speaker, I'm hopeful that having gotten the Americans' attention, having gotten Canada's attention and having talks starting again on Friday in Vancouver, we can bring a timely resolution to this issue to preserve this resource for future generations in our common interest, and we can return to being the good neighbours that British Columbians want us to be.

G. Campbell: When we saw the motion this morning, it gave us very little time to have a chance to review it and to think about the ramifications of this motion coming before the House.

I want to start by concurring with the Premier. I don't believe there's one member of the 75 members in this House today that does not believe in the importance of preserving and protecting the British Columbia salmon fishery -- not just for today but for tomorrow and for future generations.

But, hon. Speaker, we've heard this story before from the government. I would like to simply start by pointing this out: as 75 members of this Legislature. . . . With an issue that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced to us last year was of critical importance, that the Premier has told us is of critical importance, that we have agreed on this side of the House is of critical importance to every single British Columbian, not once in the last year has this government bothered to call together the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries so we could work together to build a strategy for the future. If we are going to speak with one voice in this House, it is important. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I may have to start naming names if this persists. Leader of the Opposition, please continue.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

If we are going to speak with one voice, it is essential that all members of this House, from all sides of this House, have information provided to them on a timely basis and have an opportunity to work with the government to help sculpt policy that will work in the long term with regard to the protection of the fishery, with regard to educating the federal government about the things that British Columbia is concerned about. There can be no question about that. Surely, if we are going to build a consensus in British Columbia that goes beyond simply the statement that we are going to protect our salmon fishery -- which all of us agree with -- it is time that we start to work together with regard to these issues.

The issue of the salmon fishery in the province and protecting it is not new, as the Premier has pointed out. Since the beginning of this century we have had difficulties in coming to mutually beneficial arrangements between Canadians and Americans with regard to this. The Pacific Salmon Treaty, and the signing and concluding of it, is obviously of critical importance to all of us. But I can guarantee that if there is even a hint of this being motivated by political opportunism, it will not work on behalf of all British Columbians. It's critical that we remember that that is the goal that the Premier has set today, as I understand it -- and that we are ready and willing to embrace.

A year ago -- maybe it was more than a year ago now -- it was suggested that Nanoose might be one of the issues, one of the cards, that we would have to play to bring the Americans to the table, and to their senses in some regards, with regard to this particular resource. At that time, I said that if that were a necessary card for us to play, then we should play it. It was a tool that we had that was available to hopefully bring their attention to what is a critical issue. It's a critical issue in terms of the management of the resource; it's a critical issue in terms of the future. One of the goals, I think, that we have to share here is. . . . We have to understand that the goal here is to make sure that we do have a salmon fishery in the future and that we do have a fishery that is supportive -- not just of jobs but of communities up and down the coast.

The Premier and the government have acted totally within their rights under the agreement. Frankly, I don't have any particular problem with the Premier saying, "This is the time to play that card," if in fact that is what has been decided by the provincial government. However, having said that, I think we should remember that there are people involved in this who face some negative ramifications of this decision and who we should also be concerned about. The people of Nanoose are concerned. Obviously there are 90 to 100 people right now that are employed. They are worried about what 

[ Page 3633 ]

their jobs will be. I think we have to reach out to those people like we reach out to people in the fishery and say that we are equally concerned about them, about their futures, about their families and about their mortgages -- work together with them to make sure that they see a long-term future for themselves and their families in the province of British Columbia, as well.

I concur with many of the comments that the Premier made earlier. Obviously the issue of protecting our salmon fishery and making sure that we have a secure and thriving fishery in the future involves far more than simply the resolution of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We are glad to see the initiation of some strategies to improve fish habitat, because there is no question that the destruction of fish habitat in British Columbia has been damaging to the fishery. There is also no question that Canadians generally and British Columbians specifically have done a far, far better job of fish conservation and of improving habitat than the Americans have done. It's important for us to put that obligation back on the table for Americans to consider, as well.

I have not been specifically involved in these negotiations, obviously, but my understanding is that the jurisdictions of Washington and Oregon share British Columbia's concern with regard to this fishery. I believe the Canadian government shares our concern with regard to this fishery. And if it is important for us to speak with one voice so that we get the Canadian government's attention, then surely we have to do that as well. But the issue for me is to bring those federal allies into this so that they are speaking with us with one voice.

I believe it is critical that not just the Prime Minister but other leaders of federal parties speak out in support of the action that has been taken -- speak out in support of bringing the Americans back to the table to negotiate a final solution with a negotiator who can actually come to an agreement. I have written to the Prime Minister, and I have encouraged him to do that directly with the President, and I have encouraged the other federal leaders to support the Prime Minister in that endeavour. If we're going to be successful in gathering together all the voices of Canadians and all the voices of British Columbians, it cannot be seen to be an issue that involves one political party or another. It is an issue that involves all British Columbians and all Canadians, and it is critical that we speak with one voice with regard to that.

There is no question -- and I don't believe there should be any question -- that this decision that the provincial government made is very significant. I will be blunt about this: I am not comfortable with the unilateral action of the decision. However, having said that, I believe that now that the decision is made, it is critical for us to bring to the table all of the voices and all of the strength of Canada and the province of British Columbia, to ensure that we are successful in the conclusion of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

It is clear, I believe, to all of us in this House that over the last number of years Americans have clearly overfished the Canadian fishery. It is also clear that there are major, major issues, beyond even the Pacific Salmon Treaty, that we are going to have to deal with if we are going to secure for the next generations of British Columbians the kind of salmon fishery that they deserve.

The technological changes that have taken place in the fishery are having a huge and devastating impact. There is no question that they have added to the productivity of the fishing fleet. There is also no question that they have added to the devastation of the fishery. One of the things that we are all going to have to work together on is how we can bring that technological change to heel so that we are be certain that we can protect the fishery. And we can't do that if we are allowing the technology constantly to outrace our regulations and, more important than our regulations, our purposes in securing the fishery in the long term.

[3:00]

The problem that I think we face today is that too many British Columbians have been left out of this process, and therefore some of the ramifications and the negative impacts of this decision have not likely been fully canvassed. I am concerned about families who have been left out and about communities that have been left out. Hon. Speaker, I would say to you and I would say to the government that I encourage them to think about the areas where we do have mutual agreement, where there is common cause, where there is common purpose amongst all political parties -- and, indeed, amongst British Columbians, who really couldn't care less about politics. What they care about is the standard of life that they have in this province, and they care about the natural bounty that we have inherited in this province.

All of us have an obligation to try and improve that bounty for the next generation of British Columbians. All of us have an obligation to be able to say with pride that we have improved the salmon fishery -- that we have not just preserved the salmon fishery but have improved the salmon fishery for British Columbians. All of us have an obligation to secure the future not just of coastal communities but of coastal families, to make sure that they have a sense of security and stability as they look to the future in their communities in British Columbia, just as other communities in British Columbia would like to be able to do.

Today, as we look at this motion which has been brought before us, I am perfectly willing to support the motion, which says that we agree with the government's actions with regard to Nanoose. I do that in the context, however, of saying that I do believe it's time for opening up these discussions, opening up this debate and bringing the people of British Columbia to the Legislature; or, more importantly, taking the Legislature to the people of British Columbia and asking them for their solutions -- what they would do -- and how we can ensure that they have the long-term, stable and secure future that they all deserve.

G. Wilson: I rise in support of today's motion. In my comments I would like to congratulate the Premier for taking what has to be a somewhat risky but, I think, necessary step.

I think there are four issues that come to mind when we look at what this motion speaks to and what the actions of the provincial government will mean not only with respect to their intention, which is to get the Americans back to the table, but more importantly, in terms of a historical precedent with respect to this province's ability to force the federal govern-

[ Page 3634 ]

ment to undertake the obligations and responsibilities that it has on behalf of British Columbians when we're dealing with international agreements.

The first question that I think comes to mind is: is the government within its right to undertake to provide this notice? And under what conditions under the agreement can it do so? I refer to article 6 of the agreement, subsection (a), which suggests quite clearly that if the owner -- I would stress the word "owner," and I'll come back to that in a moment -- considers that it is in the public interest to cancel the rights herein granted, the owner may do so. So clearly, with the prerequisite 90-day notice period, the government is fully within its right under this agreement to serve notice. The question, however, is: to whom is it serving notice? There has been much written in the newspaper that this is a shot at the Americans. That is not true. This agreement that we have -- the document that we have the ability to serve notice under -- is an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government in Ottawa, the federal Crown. Because this will be a precedent that will be set in future negotiations, whether they be with respect to fish or to aboriginal land claim and title, it is important to note that the ownership of lands -- both the lands that are submaritime, under the ocean, and the lands that are deeded to the provincial Crown -- rests with this Crown, the provincial Crown, and is the jurisdiction of this assembly, with supremacy resting in this province.

That's an extremely important point in this debate, because what the Premier, the first minister of this government, has suggested to Ottawa is that for the first time, certainly in my memory, since perhaps the late 1950s or early 1960s, when W.A.C. Bennett took a similar stand with respect to an international agreement on our rivers, we are seeing the Premier exercising a jurisdictional right over territory and serving notice to the federal government that he intends to exercise that right with respect to agreements -- federal and provincial. That becomes important, because the intransigence that we have -- the lack of ability to sign an agreement -- rests with the lack of ability of the federal government to get the federal government in the United States to sign onto and to agree on what is necessary to protect the salmon stocks here for all partners who are involved in their catch.

Hon. Speaker, this is not an agreement -- and I think it's important that we emphasize this -- between British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. The states cannot come together and decide by unilateral action what they intend to do with the resources that we have within our boundaries -- in this case, salmon. What we are reliant and dependent upon is the federal government negotiating on behalf of the provinces with the federal government in the United States and being able to come up with a firm agreement.

For those people who suggest that this action today is an action that is directed against the United States military, I would suggest that that's not true. I would also suggest that, quite frankly, the United States military will pay little attention to this motion, because their agreement is with the Department of National Defence. If there is an internal conflict between the federal government and the provincial governments, their response to our federal government will be: "Get your internal house in order, guys, because we have an agreement which is a renewed, signed agreement with respect to the use of that."

I could go back through the readings of Bill C-44 and the recent consolidated statutes, and how these agreements were put together with respect to the Americans' access to and use of this site, notwithstanding the agreement itself -- that is, the letter of understanding that was signed back on January 13, 1976, and brought forward again with respect to the renewal arrangements, which were made back in 1989, to take it to 1999. All of those agreements, and all of the documentation of those agreements, rest between the federal government and the government of the United States of America.

Therefore it seems to me that in the first instance, what we have to understand is that this motion is an extraordinary move for the province to have taken, with respect to sending notice to Ottawa that it no longer trusts Ottawa with respect to that negotiating process and that it has to undertake this motion to move Ottawa along. It clearly reflects what the Premier was saying in his remarks when he said that this reflects the utter frustration that we have in the province with respect to getting federal priorities focused for once on what we need in British Columbia.

The second issue that is important is whether or not this is a sensible move to move these negotiations along. The federal government would have us believe that notwithstanding the action of the province, they were ready in fact to get the Americans back to the table anyway and that the Americans were coming back. Clearly the commentary from the federal minister responsible was that these negotiations were going to be undertaken. Notwithstanding whether that is true or not -- and it's impossible for me to determine whether that is correct or not -- clearly the evidence points to the fact that by the province having taken this action, we have seen movement by Ottawa; therefore this action has had some effect. The intention of the government with respect to the serving of this motion to withdraw would have had the desired effect. . . .

That leads us to the third issue, and that is: are we going to get a sound agreement? And to what extent can the province now start to determine what that agreement will be? We have had a history of bad negotiations on salmon. Notwithstanding the comments from the Premier, who suggested that the 1985 salmon treaty agreement should have solved our problems, the fact is that the agreement was full of loopholes which the Americans could and did simply sail their vessels through to catch an additional number of salmon returning into our streams.

The Alaskans have never adhered fully to our agreements, even when we go back to the days of the INPFC -- the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission -- when we were dealing with the larger international context of that agreement within larger international agreements. The Kamchatkan run has always been an issue that the Alaskans felt they simply had no reason to deal with in any extent or detail. So I have no confidence that when the negotiations come back, we're going to see fair play of a fair game from the Alaskans on this question.

So perhaps while the Fraser run, the largest and most important of the runs, is important, we cannot lose sight -- nor should we lose sight -- of the fact that British Columbia now needs to start to talk to Alaska directly to try to get some kind of interplay with respect to the protection of northern runs which are equally, if not more, important in some senses, because of the fragileness of the numbers that are returning over the last number of years.

I could suggest that while we are back at the table, we are not clear. . . . I'm certainly not clear, and I hope the Premier, through his minister responsible -- and I'm assuming we're going to hear from the minister in this debate -- is going to tell us that there is something being done that is going to ensure that these negotiations will be successful.

Lastly, hon. Speaker, let me ask: what happens in the event that it doesn't work? The fact that we get them back to 

[ Page 3635 ]

the table. . . . The Premier has told us that if there isn't an agreement, the lease is going to be gone and that essentially that test range will no longer exist. If the U.S. determined that, fair enough, that's fine. The question is: if that's the way it's going to be, we're not going to use it and they withdraw, what's the next card? How do you then escalate one beyond that? What is the next step the Premier is going to take in that regard?

The difficulty and the danger -- and I said in my opening remarks that this is risky -- is that the province has a limited opportunity and limited jurisdiction with respect to how it can escalate its role with respect to this negotiating process. So I would be curious to hear from the opposite side in this debate -- and I hope I'll have a chance to today -- as to what the next step is if this doesn't work, because while this has got them to the table, we do not have an agreement. I'd be curious to know where we go from here. Hon. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to the rest of this debate, where those questions may be answered.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to make a few comments on the motion before the House. Given that the announcement has already been made, I speak in support of the action taken. There are lots of opinions pro and con on this issue, and I think a lot of these opinions are on the basis of limited information and limited knowledge -- and I say that including myself personally.

But what we do know for sure and what we all agree on is that the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks have failed to produce an agreement since 1992. There have been a lot of meetings and a lot of talk. Earlier this year there was a series of meetings, including a meeting in Seattle, which attempted to involve more direct stakeholders such as fishermen. And that in itself didn't resolve the issue, either. The U.S. rejected an independent arbitrator's report and declined mediation. There is general agreement that Alaska has engaged in unilateral action to take more fish than it was entitled to and that this was grossly unfair to Canadian fishermen who engage in responsible conservation measures.

It was especially disturbing to me recently to find that the American negotiator did not have the authority to make a deal. This is especially disappointing at this stage, this long-drawn-out stage in the talks. This being the case, I also wonder how much effort has been made by the U.S. government to encourage and persuade Alaska to negotiate in good faith.

[3:15]

We have seen, in the past year, a number of occasions where the Premier has threatened more serious action. Given the number of times those comments were made, I think the Premier really didn't have a lot of options but to act on those threats.

There are risks involved, which the Premier has acknowledged. I am hopeful, however, that this action will not result in an escalating war of words with the Americans or a more serious retaliation that could hurt a number of different people in British Columbia or in Canada.

I am pleased that the action appears to have resulted in the U.S. negotiators coming back to the table. I am hopeful that this decision will finally bring resolution to the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, which is so vital to the future of our fishing industry.

J. Smallwood: Let me start by saying how proud I am to serve with a Premier who clearly understands that he's on the side of British Columbians.

Let me also say that our record in the last year has set the pace of provincial advocacy across Canada. I feel that it's a legacy we can all be proud of: the Fish Protection Act, Fisheries Renewal B.C. and the agreement with the federal government on the management of Pacific fisheries.

I've been listening to the previous speakers, and, quite frankly, I'm finding it very difficult to understand their lack of urgency. We had the Leader of the Opposition get up and talk about the need to consult further, when in the last year we as a government have undergone consultations and networking and building community consensus throughout the west coast.

I myself, representing a riding that abuts the Fraser River, have been struck by the understanding in my own constituency of the need for conservation. The city of Surrey has led the way in designing drainage for storm sewers. It has led the way in organizing and supporting volunteer groups. It has led the way in its hatchery programs and has become the model for many constituencies and cities throughout the province.

To have the opposition, in a debate of such historic proportions, have nothing more to say than "We weren't involved, we don't understand, and we haven't had the information to take the kind of leadership role necessary," is a very sad comment on this opposition.

For this House to be debating this motion at this time is important for us. As the Premier said, the only way we can resolve this issue is by putting our good-neighbour policy in the forefront and by ensuring that we can work together with Canada and the United States to preserve habitat, to preserve this stock and to work with the B.C. Coastal Community Network, aboriginal peoples and the fisheries.

I think of the number of times that I have had the opportunity to meet with the stakeholders, not only in my own constituency but provincially. I think in particular of a meeting I had with people on the north coast who work in the canneries. That meeting was in order to understand its importance to their communities and to their families -- that proud history of fisheries that has been the legacy of the north coast.

I was shocked to hear the Leader of the Opposition's lack of understanding of the importance of that partnership on the north coast with the fisheries. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think the fisheries only pertain to the south coast and the states to the south of us.

Thank goodness we have a Premier that is prepared to stand up and be counted. Thank goodness we have done the homework. We have the communities onside. We understand the importance of this resource not only to the economy of this province but also to communities, to history and indeed to the culture of west coast communities themselves.

I'm proud to have the opportunity to stand and enter into this debate and to congratulate the Premier on taking such a strong leadership role.

R. Neufeld: I rise on behalf of my colleague from Peace River South and myself to, first off, congratulate the government and the Premier for this stand on the salmon fishery in

[ Page 3636 ]

British Columbia. I think all of us know -- even those that live in areas like my constituency, where the salmon fishery does not touch -- how important this industry is to the province as a whole, to everyone, to our history and to what the Premier talked about: our spiritual values -- and they go back many, many years into the aboriginal communities. So it is a very, very important step, I think, that the Premier made.

But it is one of brinkmanship -- there's no doubt about it -- and I guess the Premier of the day is quite well known for those kinds of actions. I hope the action the Premier has taken will actually result in what he hopes will come about from this kind of action.

This is more of an issue of working together across political lines. Something as important as the fishery in British Columbia should be apolitical -- for all of us. I don't think any one of us, regardless of government or opposition, needs to stand in the House and try to slam one another on this issue. Rather, we should be working together as a team of 75 people, trying to resolve an issue that's very important to British Columbians.

The issue about getting the attention of the Americans is very difficult and always has been for Canada. British Columbia is just a small part of Canada. It's almost like trying to tickle an elephant: it gets very difficult. This tickle obviously had an effect. The day after the tickle was made, the talks were back on again, with the Americans having the ability to actually negotiate specific fishing quotas instead of merely listening to our concerns.

The issue I have and the only issue I have is not a critical one, but it's one more issue that was mentioned by one of the earlier speakers. That is: what happens if this doesn't work? What happens if we go the 90 days and we don't have an agreement-in-principle or we're not even close to an agreement-in-principle? I'm not saying that's going to happen; this may just hurry the process on enough that we will get there. But there's obviously got to be a plan B.

Taking it as far as we have, we say that until we get an agreement-in-principle, we will not rescind the notice given to the federal government. And that, again, is a good move. I think it obviously is one that gets attention, but it's one where we have to look seriously at its ramifications, that being quotas and the resumption of talks about our lumber shipments to the U.S. and the effect that will have. That's a huge effect on the province. I wouldn't want to say it's larger than the salmon issue, but it is a huge issue.

I think those kinds of things -- even the possible sailings of ferries around U.S. waters. . . . If we take into consideration that it's, I'm told, half an hour each way, it gives a whole new meaning to what happens with schedules for B.C. Ferries through the summer. So those are serious issues, which I think we have to take seriously and think about their ramifications.

I would just like to say that we concur with the Premier's move. I hope that in the end, it works out well for British Columbians and for the salmon industry, and that we finally get a Pacific Salmon Treaty that will conserve our stocks not just for now, for monetary value, but for ages to come, for the people to come.

We would like to thank the Premier for the move he made. We hope there is a good plan B. We hope he will be able to initiate it if things don't go the way he believes they should. So with that, we'd like to again say that we give our support to the government of the day. We hope that we work together and that this doesn't become a debate between political parties to try and put down one or the other -- to grandstand on this kind of thing. We should be working collectively together, all as one force, to try and resolve this very serious issue about a Pacific Salmon Treaty.

P. Reitsma: In support of the motion, certainly in my area of Parksville-Qualicum, which is very well known for the fishing -- catching the best ones -- people are happy there. But there's also a great deal of concern. I would like to pass on to the Premier some concern that was expressed. I had about half a dozen calls over the weekend from people clearly concerned with the uncertainty about the future, about their livelihood, about 90 to 100 jobs in my riding, about $8 million to $10 million in economic benefit and about long-lasting jobs -- the schools involved, the careers involved, the children involved and the mortgages involved. Community input is involved. They're clearly concerned about not being held hostage again. They're genuinely afraid of retaliatory actions. My riding is also a bedroom community to the forest industry in Port Alberni. In Nanaimo people are extremely concerned about the uncertainty of their future.

As I mentioned, speaking in support of the motion, I think this transcends any political parties. This is good for all of us. And when it is good for all of us, we speak up as one voice because it is good for us. I wish to express some of the concerns by concerned people, phone calls I've had over the weekend. In my area of Vancouver Island, we are very dependent on the fisheries -- it's a coastal community -- and on forestry. Thousands of people directly and indirectly make their living on those two commodities. We'd like to see them keep on going.

There's some concern expressed about what an international dispute might trigger in terms of compensation. Often in international disputes there is a mechanism, and compensatory actions are taken for people that have been displaced, losing their jobs or losing their livelihoods. I think that is something to consider, as well.

No one wants to see day No. 90 expire -- the deadline. We don't know what is going to happen; we don't wish to know what's going to happen. Of course, it can only escalate. Grave actions could be enacted after the 90 days have expired.

Before I conclude my comments, I hope that this government would put in about a tenth of the effort in resolving and finding solutions to stop the destaffing of the lighthouses, which, of course, is indirectly related to the good of the fisheries and of coastal communities, as well. Once again, let's get it resolved once and for all. For the benefit of all of us, let us get a treaty that we can all be proud of and that will serve us for many generations to come.

[3:30]

I've been kind of appalled and saddened in recent weeks by the cynicism of the Ottawa press, sometimes of the Vancouver Sun and of people who have said that the provincial government's interest in the fishery is driven by politics. I hope that what's happening in this room today -- where members of the third party, the independents, the opposition and the government are all going to vote on the same side -- will forever put an end to that cynical analysis.

[ Page 3637 ]

I want to talk a little bit about what this job looked like year ago, when I became the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Hon. members will remember that a year ago, coastal communities were looking at a whole series of attacks at once.

1. Record low prices -- prices so low that people hadn't seen them in decades.

2. Talk of threatened stocks every day in the newspaper, runs that were in danger of ceasing to exist forever.

3. Perhaps the largest of all, a totally astounding reversal by the country Canada and Fisheries minister Admiral Mifflin, taking what had been a public resource -- the fish belonging to all the people -- and proposing to privatize that resource and completely change the way people get licences to go fishing.

4. A year ago, at exactly this time, we were facing the breakdown of the treaty -- once again the absence of a fishing plan, a proposal that the Americans go fishing without any agreement with Canada.

5. All up and down the coast in recent years, the closing of the processing facilities in the mid-coast and north coast communities, in the Charlottes and on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and basically the concentration of jobs in Vancouver and Prince Rupert and the abandonment of the rural communities.

6. What eventually turned out to be 5,700 jobs lost in one year as a result of all those attacks on the fishing way of life.

I would submit that where the fishing industry was one year ago in British Columbia is analogous to where the prairie towns were in the 1930s, with the smallest of them being threatened with ceasing to exist altogether, and record low prices and radical social change creating a fatalism, a loss of heart and abandonment by working people of a way of life, and a feeling that people in this room and in our senior level of government in Ottawa couldn't actually care less.

Just about a year ago, Glen Clark became Premier of British Columbia on the eve of an election and stunned all of you and all the folks at home, and certainly the people in the press gallery, by actually standing up and saying that for the first time ever a government in British Columbia was going to run for office and talk about fish. I remember the amazement in the newspapers: what is fish? It isn't even your jurisdiction. And from that day, writing the issue large, we proceeded rapidly to win that election -- in almost all the coastal communities where people fish for a living, with some singular exceptions.

As soon as this government took office, it appointed the job protection commissioner to go out and say to all those people: "We actually care, and now we're going to assess the damages." Next we signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government to suggest that 5,700 jobs was too much, and they ought to do something about it. A three-person panel was appointed to tour the coast and do the work that the federal government should have done before it ever invented their fleet restructuring plan. While that three-person panel was trying to figure out what mistakes the federal government had made in the Mifflin plan, we sat down with the federal government, renegotiated groundfish allocation and came up with the first federal-provincial agreement ever in British Columbia, which is the groundfish authority.

Fifth, when the three-person panel finished and submitted their report, the Premier of British Columbia went to Ottawa and demanded the Prime Minister circumvent his own bureaucrats and make an agreement -- a historic agreement, tabled in this House a month or two ago -- putting the province and the federal government in a position of comanagement of the fishery for the first time ever in Canada. I hope everybody here -- all the people listening to us, the people at home, the people who work in this room, members of all parties and yourself, hon. Speaker -- is hugely proud of that turnaround in a 12-month period of time.

But we didn't stop there. Once we had achieved a place at the table in the management of the fishery, it became imperative that we then earn that place by literally changing the culture of how the province of British Columbia does its job. In rapid order, we first tabled a provincial strategy for the management of the fishery, printed 10,000 copies and gave it to all the folks opposite -- including those who have complained here today that they haven't been involved -- laying out everywhere we'd been and everywhere we intend to go over the next few years. Then we came into this room, and I tabled a bill, the Fisheries Renewal Act, talking about taking $22 million of the people's money and investing it in the fishery over the next three years. The Minister of Environment walked in here four days later, tabled the Fish Protection Act and took the first step to making it against the law to dam the Fraser River, the Skeena River, the Nass River -- any of the undammed rivers in British Columbia -- for all time. We moved in one year from despair and abandonment of the communities to a place where all the people working in this room, all the people seeing us at home and the people in the communities have a sense of hope, I think, for the first time in decades.

As an example, one year ago the Coastal Community Network that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition had a meeting. They could have had it in a phone booth; six people went. Last weekend, because of the turnaround of points of view and the efforts of the Premier and the government of the day, 100-and-some people met in Nanaimo and talked about the future as an opportunity rather than a travail.

That brings me to the imperative for the things that we're doing today. When I was out fighting for the Mifflin plan, I visited lots of your communities, lots and lots of them. I visited so many of your communities that the editorial writers where I live started to write, "Corky, come home," because it had been so long since I'd been there. What they said, from the lower mainland to the Charlottes, the Skeena and the midcoast, was: "If you think you're going to take our money and invest it in making more fish to go into the United States and never come back, you've got another think coming. If you, the government of British Columbia, want to stand up in the House and say we can raise fish, we'll do all this conservation, we'll pass new laws and invest tax money, and then you don't have the wherewithal to actually get a treaty with the United States of America, you folks are crazy."

Actually, although it's a brand-new issue to most of the people sitting here, it's not a new issue to those people who fish. As the Premier talked about earlier, they've been struggling with this issue for two decades, and the treaties for four decades before that. The fishing communities of B.C. understand that either we deal with this treaty or all that other stuff -- the Mifflin plan, Fisheries Renewal -- is wasting words, wasting political capital and wasting their money.

Over the course of the last few months. . . . I just want to talk a little bit about how we actually got to this room. As you know, a year ago the Premier asked the Prime Minister to intervene and ask the United States to actually get a treaty, and it didn't happen. A couple of months ago the Premier 

[ Page 3638 ]

asked the Prime Minister to intervene in his discussions with Clinton. He asked the President of the United States to intervene and actually provide the political will for their negotiators to get a treaty -- and again, it didn't happen.

What the Americans proposed was something called a "stakeholder process." They said: "Well, lawyers haven't managed to make a deal; negotiators haven't managed to make a deal; politicians haven't managed to make a deal. So let's get stakeholders from the two countries together in a room -- that would be first nations people, sport fishers, commercial fishers, the biologists of two nations -- and try to do what lawyers have failed to do." They met in the United States, in the south. Then they travelled to Alaska, came back to B.C. and then went to Seattle. Those groups of people attempted to negotiate a deal, and the truth of it is that it pretty much worked.

Between the two sides, the Canadian side actually gave up a whole bunch more than I think we as politicians might have mandated them to give up. The fishing people want the treaty more than they want this year's share of fish. They want stability, they want hope and they want a future. They gave up way more at the table than the Americans gave up, all in order to achieve conservation and equity in this year's fishing season.

They came to the evening when it was all on paper. There were the two sides and the deal was done. The American negotiator said: "Well, actually, you guys might have made a deal, and I might sign it, but my name doesn't mean anything because I don't represent a government. I have no mandate to do this deal with your country -- Canada. Maybe Canada can sign the deal, but I can't sign the deal. I've got to go home now and ask my country what they think, and that will take 40 or 50 or 60 days. By that time everybody will be fishing already, so maybe we'll see you after the end of the season -- sorry." At which point, the Canadian negotiator did the only thing anybody could do in such negotiations, because it's absolutely no fun talking to the wall. He said: "Well then, we'll go home."

Now everybody in this room today stands up and says: "Good on you, Mr. Premier; that's leadership. You've done a good thing, and our side is gonna vote for you." I wonder what everybody would have said five days ago, when the negotiations broke down and we had to actually decide whether or not to take this step. Members opposite have said: "Yes, we've heard you make this threat before." We had to actually decide whether or not to pull the pin, write the letter or cut the lease and do the deal now, or do what the Americans wanted us to do, which is fish now and talk later.

The member for Surrey-Whalley said she is proud to serve in a government where the leadership is actually there to make the decision. I think those are my sentiments precisely. We all feel good about voting for this motion today -- because, what happened? The Premier said: "We're cancelling the lease." The Minister of Environment wrote the letter, we did the deal, we announced it, and 24 hours later Canada and the United States are going back to the table. The people in this room today are on the eve of what I think many of us expect to be victory, and it's easy to vote for victory.

In closing, I just want to say that it wasn't so easy five days ago to decide what the appropriate response would be. As members opposite point out, there's a whole lot of dangers in deciding to actually take the step, stop talking the talk and go walk the walk, measure the dangers against the deed, try to decide whether to actually write the letter, cancel the lease and go to the next step or not.

For me, as a member of those discussions, the deciding factor was all that other stuff about despair a year ago, hope now, the possibility of fish renewal, why people should go along with the Fish Protection Act and whether the people of British Columbia should actually believe that we can change the future. If we can't change the treaty, if we can't put the treaty in place, then we have no way to ask you to ask your citizens to make sacrifices for the returns of fish in future.

[3:45]

I move the previous motion.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Orders of the Day

B. Goodacre: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a group of students from St. Joseph's school in Smithers, down here to visit with some parents and their principal Mr. Lankester. I'd also like to share with the House that I was a student at St. Joseph's when it first opened in 1959, to 1966. So I'm really happy to have some students visit us as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

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

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

G. Wilson: I have a number of questions that are very specific in their relationship to the unrelated bone marrow donor registry and the extent to which we are moving more into a provincial registry.

It would seem there is growing concern from a number of charitable organizations in British Columbia, which have been involved in provincial fundraising and also in the attempt to try and assist people who need to access this registry for bone 

[ Page 3639 ]

marrow transplants, that the move that is currently underway with respect to the development -- more provincialization, if I can put it that way -- of this service, particularly in relation to blood, is potentially going to have a negative impact on people who are currently in line and waiting for this service. I wonder if the minister might outline what the government has in mind with respect to this and if there is an opportunity to allay the fears of those who are involved in the charitable organizations who are directly connected to this registry.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for raising this important issue. Ministry staff have met with the unrelated bone marrow donor program organizers. As the future of the blood supply is in question and changes occur, they have concerns around this very valuable program named after Bruce Denniston, the RCMP officer responsible for the foundation of the program.

We have met with the program directors. We are totally committed to the future of the program. It's being discussed at two levels, one at the national level, the National Forum. Then, we are also making sure that we have a business plan in place in British Columbia. We're working with the program on that to ensure its future.

G. Wilson: I know that the members of the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society will be pleased to hear that there is action being taken with respect to some of their concerns.

The issue that I think is causing the Red Cross some concern, from my understanding, is that there seems to be, because of the. . . . If I can just read from some material that has been sent to me by way of background information on this, it suggests that the national unrelated bone marrow donor registry, which is administered by the Red Cross under the blood services now, has reached such a large number -- and they're pointing out over 152,000 cases -- that with "increasing demands on its services by transplant physicians nationally and internationally, available resources are strained to the extent where donor safety and patient outcome are compromised."

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our government, of course, is committed to a national blood agency, a national blood system. In fact, my deputy minister is absent today because he's representing me at the meeting of provincial ministers of health in the east on this matter. A national blood agency strategy is being discussed there. It is moving very slowly, but we are pushing hard for the strategy to be in place in September. It flows from that that we're therefore committed to a national strategy on the unrelated bone marrow donor registry, as well.

British Columbia really is in a leadership position in this area with the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society, and we will continue to provide that leadership on the national front. It requires not only national cooperation but also international cooperation because there is sharing of material internationally, as well.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to hear that. I would echo that British Columbia is very much in a leadership role, and I think that's to the credit of many people in many communities who have come together to make this work. But in a related issue, it would seem that there is a possible amalgamation of bone marrow transplant with the organ transplant systems.

The difficulty that I think the people within the bone marrow transplant service have -- and by no means am I an expert on this, but certainly I have been well briefed over the last number of days. . . . The difficulty with that amalgamation is that there is a distinct difference between bone marrow transplant and organ transplant. As the minister I'm sure will know, bone marrow is living, the patient who donates it is living and it is a renewable resource, whereas an organ donation tends to come, by and large -- not always, but certainly in the vast majority of cases -- from people who have deceased.

There is a real concern that in the attempt to pull together the administration of this program and to make it more cost-effective -- and I think that's the motivation; I don't think anybody's trying to do anything other than that -- the amalgamation of those two services may in fact have a detrimental effect on the ability of people to continue to have a registry that will allow bone marrow transplant. I wonder if the minister's staff is aware of that and whether the minister has thoughts as to how we might protect against that kind of problem, which will likely occur if the amalgamation continues.

Hon. J. MacPhail: An amalgamation of the two was proposed as one of three options. It's the least preferred, and it probably won't happen. And that's my preference.

G. Wilson: I think that all would certainly be pleased to hear that. With respect to the series of questions I had, then, the last has to do primarily with the compilation of DNA testing and the information with respect to proper matching of antigens and so on. Does the ministry foresee a role the province may have with respect to the establishment of a DNA database that would be able to provide for proper coding of this particular issue of DNA, so that people who are involved in the transplant process can be provided with maximum safety with respect to how this would work?

I'm aware that this can be an expensive and very difficult process. It really is an issue that both the Red Cross and those people in the societies -- and my guess is the people in the health ministries across the country -- have to have some concern for. If this program progresses, the costs will tend to escalate fairly substantially, and somebody has to know who's going to pick up the bill. We would not want to see cutbacks in this area, because if that data is not accurate and is not easily obtained, it will seriously jeopardize the ability for this program to be used effectively.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm informed that the unrelated bone marrow donor registry is at the hub of the DNA registry. We certainly see it as the important part of the program, and there is planning proceeding on how best to secure the privacy around that registry and also to enhance its value. The planning for that is going on right now.

[ Page 3640 ]

G. Wilson: My last question to the minister, and it's more general in nature, is to ask whether the minister has some thoughts with respect to a stand-alone national non-profit bone marrow donor registry and whether that would in fact be a better way to proceed.

In light of that question, I would also suggest that the high-resolution DNA CANTYPE kit, which is essentially a nationally developed test kit, would generate significant profits in order to be able to make that kind of national registry run. It's an issue that is being fairly heavily promoted by the societies involved. It does run counter to the trend, which is to move toward provincial blood registries and blood services. So I ask whether the minister has any thoughts with respect to a stand-alone national not-for-profit donor registry and whether the minister would be prepared to put some of her good offices and members of her staff out there promoting that as a national alternative so that we can have that national standard maintained.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I referred to the fact that there were three options presented, of which the least preferred was to combine with the organ donor program. The other two options are to stay with the national blood agency -- that will be the Red Cross or some other agency -- and the second option is the stand-alone national society. By eliminating the third, the amalgamation, the first two are still on the books. But we really are committed to a national blood agency and therefore probably to a program attached to the national blood agency. Again, the two options are still being explored.

With respect to the DNA kits, it's an excellent suggestion and will be pursued in either of those two options.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to have in the gallery today the delegation from the Bureau of National Health Insurance of Taiwan led by Dr. Liu. Steve Kenny, from the Ministry of Health, is with them as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Sanders: With the minister's permission, I'd like to canvass a few issues that we had touched on last week, just for clarification. Then I'd like to move on to some questioning on mental health, briefly, and then on to some HIV strategy.

What I'd specifically like to address first of all is the eating disorder facility that is being planned for the west side of Okanagan Lake, between Vernon and Kelowna. This is a private 100-bed facility. A well-known psychiatrist from England, Dr. Bryan Lask, was over in Vernon this weekend looking at sites for a potential facility such as this. My understanding, based on Bill 71, which the government on this side of the House introduced. . . . It would state that anyone from British Columbia would be unable to attain private services -- if those services exist in British Columbia -- if they are provided simultaneously by a public facility. The example that we have at this point is the Cambie Street facility, which is available to do orthopedic procedures for foreigners but not for Canadians or even British Columbians.

I'm interested, on behalf of this group, in understanding how a facility such as this could run in British Columbia and if the minister has any more information on this for me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The general rule underlying section 17 of the Medicare Protection Act is: no charges to beneficiaries for insured medical services. Thus B.C. residents covered under the Medical Services Plan cannot be extra-billed or make private payment for medically necessary services received from a physician enrolled with MSP. This prohibition extends to Canadians covered under any other provincial plan.

The Medicare Protection Act contains no prohibitions on the establishment or operation of private freestanding medical or surgical clinics. It only prohibits clinic operators and physicians from direct or extra-billing for insured services. There are a number of circumstances under which private facilities can legally operate in B.C.: providing uninsured services, providing services to people from outside Canada and non-enrolled physicians practising privately outside B.C.

There are also cases, in a totally private clinic, where there has been a physician identified as a local GP who provided a fee-for-service to a clinic and who billed for that in just the same way as one would bill to make house calls to somewhere. They can bill on that basis.

MSP does not require physicians to provide information on the location of services provided, so it is not possible to monitor the volume of insured services provided in clinics such as the Montreux clinic, which would be an equivalent example.

[4:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just as I said last week, I have outlined the rules under the Medicare Protection Act. I would be more than happy to have the founders of such a clinic, which I've read about in the paper, come and talk to us about what rules apply and what don't. It's not a useful discussion to engage in hypotheticals now, but we're more than willing to sit down and discuss with them how the Medicare Protection Act applies and where there is no prohibition, as well.

A. Sanders: I don't disagree with the minister that it would be most appropriate for anyone setting up a clinic in British Columbia to discuss that with the ministry. In fact, that's a necessity. The important thing for people to recognize is that in British Columbia, a British Columbian cannot, under any circumstances, find private medical care on a quickly accessible basis that may be available, for example, through a clinic for eating disorders. That is not allowed under our legislation, if that service is being provided by enrolled physicians or is insured. Therefore it's important to recognize that you can open up a private clinic but you certainly cannot treat British Columbians there if you are providing services such as for eating disorders, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, ophthalmology -- any of those things that many of us wait one year to 18 months for.

Another issue that I want to canvass the minister on is the issue of the Vernon lab. I had delineated for the minister a lab in Vernon where there was some confusion over the MSC 

[ Page 3641 ]

laboratory payments to the lab -- physicians being on a list of those who could use the lab and those who couldn't. I wonder if the minister has had any update on that issue.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. I canvassed that thoroughly last week.

A. Sanders: Will there be a final decision on this laboratory issue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll go back and read my own Hansard remarks to see. The whole process was outlined in the Hansard remarks last week.

A. Sanders: We did outline the process, but we did not arrive at a decision. For the patients who are there, that is the most important. Quite frankly, they don't really care what our process is here. They're much more interested in whether they can use the lab that is one minute away from their doctor's office or whether they have to go three blocks away.

The third issue that I wish to discuss is the actual date for the final report on the Pharmacare use of risperidone and olanzapine. Could the minister tell me when that will be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the next few weeks.

A. Sanders: My understanding is that there's no exact date for me to inform societies, such as the Schizophrenia Society, to expect this report.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are meetings ongoing, and those meetings will be concluded and an announcement will be made within the next few weeks. But it is consultation, and the consultation isn't finished yet.

A. Sanders: I'd like to turn to another topic within the mental health realm of medicine, and that is postpartum depression. Specifically, postpartum depression is a condition that exists in women postnatally and can occur anywhere from two days to many months after the birth of a child. This is not an uncommon occurrence; in fact, statistics show the frequency of blues to be in 50 to 80 percent of women. Unfortunately, the postpartum equivalents -- the more serious psychiatric equivalents of postpartum depression -- occur in one in ten of those who develop these symptoms. Of even more concern is the postpartum psychosis which occurs in about one or two per thousand deliveries. I have had some experience with both of these conditions, and I am very well aware from two specific cases, which I saw personally, of infanticide with postpartum psychosis and one with postpartum depression. . . .

Often these problems are not picked up very easily. One of the concerns I have about our modern obstetrical care is that it is common practice, because of dwindling numbers of hospital beds and tremendous pressure on those open beds, for us to discharge postnatal patients sometimes one or, very commonly, two days after the birth of their babies. Most of the time, manifestations of postpartum depression are first seen on about day three. I wonder if the minister has any comments on the fact that we are speeding up our discharge basis for postnatal patients and may be missing postpartum depression.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's very interesting and a little bit. . . . The hon. member must have a sixth sense or something, because I met with -- I hope I pronounce her name right -- Dr. Shalla Misri just this past Friday to discuss this very topic. I had met Dr. Misri at a BCMA function and had quite a discussion in a non-ministerial capacity about this whole issue, and I was astounded when she provided me with the same statistics as you did. Dr. Misri is a psychiatrist who was in an obstetrical practice and then moved over to psychiatry. She now has two postpartum depression programs -- one at Children's and one at St. Paul's -- and they were done really from the ground up in a very informal way or, I should say, a non-bureaucratic way. She, with her colleagues, have what appears to me to be a very successful program on postpartum depression.

She raised at least three issues with me. I had asked to meet with her to see where we should go next on this very important matter. When I left the meeting, I asked her to put together a proposal for the ministries in my consideration about expanding her program. One issue is that if you're a woman outside of the lower mainland, it's very hard to get quick and effective treatment for postpartum depression up to and including the psychosis that arises from this. She told me also that from the time a woman has her baby to her getting the first treatment, it's often seven months -- the woman goes untreated during that period. This is on average. So we had a discussion at length on those two issues, and Dr. Misri is about to work with me and some of my colleagues on this side of the House about how we can move forward on this issue.

She did raise in a very informal way -- and please, I don't want in any way to put her on the spot -- that one of the issues we have to look at is the discharge time for moms. She said more work needs to be done in that area. I was very impressed and very interested and hope to move forward. It's certainly an issue that I would be more than happy to share with the expertise on the other side of the House.

A. Sanders: That's very heartening to hear. I'm very well aware of Dr. Misri, who is one of the North American experts on this topic, and she is a British Columbian.

What is important in this area is that if you live in the lower mainland, you may have treatment for this condition, if you are lucky. But I can guarantee that you do not have any tertiary care anywhere outside of the Vancouver area, because of the inaccessibility of services. One of the things that is really important for the ministry to recognize in terms of almost all of the concerns that occur in the postpartum period is that most of them do not show up until day three, and that includes things such as jaundice in term newborns. So because of bed pressure, we're in a situation where we are discharging women 24 hours before we can find most of the sequelae that would cause problems down the road either for the newborn or for the mother. We're missing that because these people are not in hospital. They're in the community, and very commonly, especially if it's on a Friday, they're in the community for maybe three or four days prior to any contact from anyone -- be it a home care nurse, a public health nurse or anyone else. So these are most definitely very large concerns.

Another couple of questions in the area of mental health that I want to finish off with are on the issue of ECT. I want to find out from the minister if ECT, which is a very good. . . . I know that for some, ECT has got a very negative picture from some of the movies they may have seen or from the use of it in the past, but it is a very effective treatment for significant and severe refractory depression. What I would like to know from the minister is: is ECT offered in most communities in British Columbia?

[ Page 3642 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a protocol in place for ECT, but we would have to get you a list of the places where it may be available outside of the lower mainland, through the acute care hospital system. And we will do that.

A. Sanders: I would appreciate that list for many reasons. One of the problems with ECT is that patients who are on a surgery list to have anaesthesia for it are often bumped -- sometimes for the whole day -- while surgery patients come in. So these people are left psychotic, depressed, not fed, not hydrated, sometimes for eight or ten hours before they get their procedure. I'd be interested to know whether most communities do offer this service at regional hospitals at least.

S. Hawkins: I just want to backtrack a little bit. The minister was talking about the meeting with Dr. Misri. We met with her as well and were quite impressed with the program that she has. Apparently there are, on average, about 7,000 deliveries at British Columbia's Women's Hospital and another 2,000 or 3,000 at St. Paul's. There's a team of five psychiatrists with basically no core funding that looks after these women. Dr. Misri was very much in favour of developing some kind of strategy on a provincial basis. Certainly she recognizes this as a public health issue for women who have babies.

Actually, it's not just for after delivery; it's predelivery care, as well. A lot of these women suffer all kinds of symptoms. There is a long waiting list to get in to see a psychiatrist to help them. As the minister mentioned, one of the main reasons, I understand, that there is such a waiting list to see somebody with Dr. Misri's qualifications for looking after this kind of stuff is that there just aren't any kinds of resources, there isn't any kind of strategy. It's run loosely between five physicians who are trying to do what they can with the resources they have.

Certainly the early discharge policy is a factor. I'm wondering if the minister is looking at that one as a priority -- because Dr. Misri seemed to highlight that one as a priority -- and if there is some political will on that side of the House to help Dr. Misri put together a proposal and look at this as a mental health strategy for women across the province.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The reason why I met with Dr. Misri again about three weeks after I had met her the first time was because there is a great deal of personal will and political will. I asked Dr. Misri to put forward a proposal to me. I would prefer it not to be a bureaucratic proposal, so we could get on with it. She is committed to doing that with her colleagues.

I was quite overwhelmed, actually, in reading her book, Shouldn't I Be Happy. On the one hand, you can take pride in the fact that it's B.C. research, but this is a universal problem that many cultures deal with in a different way. Dr. Misri and her team have experience in that as well.

So, yes, we are. . . . I've asked her to bring forward a proposal that deals with how we can assemble a program and move forward on it. I was very interested in Dr. Misri's approach to do outreach beyond the lower mainland, and she is going to talk with her colleagues about how we may be able to achieve that.

On the early-discharge program, it is not by ministry edict that that has come about but by hospital policy. Certainly one of the performance measures that we've put in place as a result of regionalization will examine the early-discharge policy in the context of patient satisfaction and readmission.

[4:30]

I understand from what the minister has just said that the bed policies come out of hospitals. But what will you do to perhaps encourage hospitals when they see or recognize problems like this? I understand that sometimes it takes two or three days in an emergency before Dr. Misri can get a patient who's pregnant and has mental illness problems into a bed. Is there some direction you will give that will ensure that these patients get immediate attention? It appears that they obviously need it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think I'm going to have to let my previous comments stand until I receive greater expert advice, and then we can discuss it further.

S. Hawkins: I'd be interested in following up on that at a later date, then.

The second issue, again, is related to something the member for Okanagan-Vernon was talking about, and that is the case of Brandon Werry, which was very well publicized in the paper this weekend. It's something that we've been following since last fall, I guess. Brandon is a constituent of a member from this side of the House, and I think it's to the credit, actually, of the staff of the Minister for Children and Families that this child is getting the kind of help that he needs right now. He's in a private clinic in England, and it's thanks to the ministry staff who have worked very closely with the family and have brought his case to the point where it is. Hopefully, this child will recover. He's very seriously ill; anorexia nervosa is very unusual in a little boy, so I'm sure we all hope for the best for him.

But something that comes out of this case is the need for a facility for children who are ill with this kind of disease in British Columbia. The experts who we have spoken to, pediatricians, say that the need for a residential facility, funding and a strategy for this kind of disease in children is lacking. I'm wondering where the ministry is in discussions or an action plan to get something like this off the ground here in B.C. for these children.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes -- and my heartfelt wishes go out to Brandon's family, as well -- we have a plan. We've been following a plan. The day-treatment program was the first priority at Children's Hospital -- and also to put in the residential treatment program for young adults, and that was done: the Vista House program. The next step is the residential component. The proposal has come from B.C.'s Children's Hospital on the residential proposal; it's for six patient beds and an additional two rooms for the families to stay in. The annual operating costs are estimated at approximately $900,000, and that is part of. . . . We have the money for that program.

What the hospital is working on as we speak is a suitable accommodation for the residential program. Of course, there 

[ Page 3643 ]

are in-patient services at Children's dedicated to children, with round-the-clock care, but the next part of the program is non-institutional but residential care. So Children's Hospital is being very diligent in finding the proper location. The funding is in place, the proposal is ready, and both the hospital and the ministry expect that to be up and running by the year's end.

S. Hawkins: That's very heartening to hear. How much funding is actually designated to that project? I missed that, if you said it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's estimated that the annual operating cost will be approximately $900,000. That money is in place.

S. Hawkins: Those were my questions around that. I'll defer again to the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about HIV, specifically HIV strategy in British Columbia. I'd like to put it into some framework. My colleague the Health critic from Okanagan West asked me to say a few words on HIV before I start my questions.

Twelve years ago I was a St. Paul's intern. I was first introduced to AIDS in the hospital there. St. Paul's is well-known for its clinical expertise in this area of medicine, and this was a new and little-understood disease. The hospital was very quick, because there were people interested there, to become a referral centre for AIDS and for HIV-related illnesses.

In 1985 at St. Paul's, the AIDS condition did not hold very much interest for me. I was a relatively young intern; it was my intention to practise in a small town, not in a tertiary hospital. Because of these things, I thought HIV knowledge would be unnecessary. St. Paul's and AIDS had quite a bit more in store for me, in terms of my plans and what I thought was necessary or important to learn, than I had first imagined.

At St. Paul's I observed how medicine, culture, ethics and politics all became inextricably intertwined in a skein, and the skein was called AIDS. I would spend the rest of my professional life trying to unravel that skein. At that time, I desperately wanted to see AIDS only as a doctor -- not as a parent, not as a taxpayer. But a disease was here that would mock my understanding and the simplicity of what I wanted something to be. It was not about to be that.

In 1985, AIDS was little known. It was, we believed, a disease of homosexuals, Haitians, hemophiliacs and heroin addicts. At that time, those were the four categories that people who had acquired HIV generally fell into. It was a rare, fascinating, frightening and controversial condition, and I spent one-third of my entire internship caring for AIDS patients. I was disappointed, because I felt the knowledge I had gleaned about HIV would be far too excessive for a small town in British Columbia.

Today I thank St. Paul's and its patients for my total-immersion training in HIV. It was an experience that profoundly changed my outlook. AIDS has refused to allow me to see the world from one solitary point of view and feel justified and safe. In 12 years, I have seen this insignificant disease reach epidemic proportions. I have delivered newborns with HIV-positive moms and mourned their future. I've seen post-coronary artery bypass pensioners filled with hope, only to find themselves HIV-positive from interoperative blood transfusion. I've told an 18-year-old she may be HIV-positive from heterosexual contact. I've seen IV drug abusers get clean, only to find themselves with AIDS a few years later, and I've known of medical colleagues who are now HIV-positive husbands and fathers because of accidental needle pricks, usually in emergency rooms. I've mourned them all. HIV has no respect for our boundaries. It will enter the lives of us all and will continue to do so, regardless of our social class, gender, religion or politics. My biggest fear for my children has not been violence or disaster, but the tragedy of HIV in their young lives.

Here in British Columbia last summer we had an opportunity to host the eleventh International Conference on AIDS. I took great pride in this event, in the knowledge that many of the doctors from St. Paul's and Vancouver General are Canadian pioneers in AIDS, and these were people who, in many cases, many of us know personally. They represented us here in Vancouver for all the world to see.

The public often sees AIDS as the scourge of the century. Others see it as a byproduct of the sins of modern man. Although a tragic condition, I prefer to recognize the opportunity it may have brought to all of us. You see, AIDS is the lowest common denominator. It alone strips away the trappings of nationality, ethnicity, class, beliefs and politics, and makes us all the same. With AIDS, we are forced to acknowledge what unites us and that that must be greater than what divides us. We must have a collective will to eradicate HIV and AIDS. Solidarity will result from the knowledge that many of our questions about preventing, managing and curing HIV lies in our ability to get along, to unite and to work together. It depends on the commitment of people and their nations to one another, and, specifically for us, it depends on cooperation on both sides of the House. AIDS is a metaphor to remind the House that over the next three years the need for good health research and proper medication, no matter how expensive, and good health care must be sustained.

Our goal as politicians in government and in the role of the official opposition must be to never forget that funding health care for medications, for treatments and for new programs and pioneering programs is our most important responsibility.

I'd like to ask the minister for a bit of a dissertation on her view of where we stand in our HIV strategy in British Columbia and what she looks forward to in the future with this strategy from government.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the hon. member for her comments on the ravage of HIV and AIDS and for her invaluable personal experience.

I must say that my experience with HIV and AIDS comes not from a medical point of view but from a community point of view, because my riding is the home of many HIV/AIDS patients. While I may have agreed that this was a disease that crossed all classes up until the nineties, I would say that's taking a shift now, and it is increasingly becoming a disease of the poor.

The study that we're engaged in now, along with the national organization -- the VIDUS study -- is concentrating on the study around intravenous drug users, and the biggest increase in HIV infection is amongst intravenous drug users. So while we are continuing to fund our AIDS strategy to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year, we are increasingly putting our efforts into the area of harm-reduction strategy around intravenous drug users. To that extent, in March I announced the funding of $3 million to deal exactly with the issue of the increase in HIV amongst intravenous drug users, and I'd be happy to again provide the members of the House 

[ Page 3644 ]

with the information on that strategy. But it is a strategy very much to deal with the horrendous statistic that IDUs represent 55 percent of those with a new HIV infection during 1996.

[4:45]

I would say that there is no opportunity for us to stand still, because we have some world-renowned researchers, one of whom co-chaired the eleventh international AIDS conference last year. We are also -- and I say this with the greatest of compassion -- the mecca for people from across Canada suffering from AIDS or who are HIV-infected, because of our centre for excellence, because of our drug program and because of the community support we have in place. We have hired Moffatt Clarke, a well-respected federal employee who we managed to have come on board with us to ensure that our HIV/AIDS strategy moves forward. We did release our provincial AIDS strategy consultation documents much earlier this year, and we are in the process of receiving feedback from across the community now.

In the meantime, we're not standing still. The provincial AIDS strategy was first done several years ago, and many of the programs they recommended have now been put in place. So it was time to update that strategy and get further feedback from the community on where we go next. I am very disturbed by the intrusion into our society of this 100 percent preventable disease. I think there is a huge issue and overlap with illegal drug use, and the social reasons behind our drug problem in Canada are manifesting themselves in the increase in HIV/AIDS infection. So we are trying to move forward, and it is not with ease that we move forward to deal with the social problems as well as the health problems.

A. Sanders: Just for this member's information, does the ministry provide all retroviral therapy and all of the protease inhibitors under Pharmacare -- paid for?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We do provide them, yes, through the centre for excellence.

A. Sanders: You know, now that we understand the pathophysiology of HIV as a virus, one of the areas that I think is very important in terms of hospital management is the management of accidental exposure to HIV. To me, these are some of the most depressing cases of HIV, where people have inadvertently been the recipients of the virus through caring for those they look after, be it on the ward or in the home. I would like to know: in terms of the hospitals, do hospitals have a protocol in place which is mandatory for primary prevention of exposure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they all do.

A. Sanders: For anyone who has been exposed, is there any prophylaxis given free of charge?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The treatment is provided free, and it's as prescribed by a physician.

A. Sanders: For babies born to HIV-positive mothers, do we provide zidovudine for those babies in B.C.?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We were actually one of the first provinces to adopt a policy for pregnant women, to provide AZT free.

A. Sanders: Again, for this member's information, I'd be interested to know if all victims of sexual assault are treated for HIV within hospital protocols.

Hon. J. MacPhail: All victims of sexual assault are tested for HIV. Then the treatment, as a result of that, is as prescribed by the guidelines arising out of the centre for excellence.

The other issue is that there is a sexual assault program run at B.C. Women's Hospital. They primarily serve, of course, the women in the lower mainland, but they set the guidelines for the rest of the province, as well.

A. Sanders: Just along that same line, because of the cross-incidence, do all hospital workers now, especially those working in renal dialysis and emergency -- ward nurses, for example -- receive immunization for hepatitis B?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going from memory now. In a document that I read, where I. . . . Hepatitis B, you said, right? I'm sure I saw where it was provided through the employer. We'll get that information for you -- high-risk job categories, yeah.

A. Sanders: As the minister has said, I'm not sure whether that's the case, but it would certainly be a recommendation I would make that all staff in hospitals be required to have hepatitis B immunoblock prophylaxis prior to working in high-risk areas.

In terms of the issue of HIV -- and a little bit obliquely, because of the implications of living in rural areas and the lack of facilities for treating conditions such as this -- and the rural obstetrical program, there was a conference not very long ago which the minister spoke at, here in Victoria, on rural obstetrical care. At that conference, I was interested in whether HIV initiatives were talked about in terms of the obstetrical patients.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've got the conference agenda here. It doesn't appear that it was.

A. Sanders: This conference, I feel, is probably one of the more important medical conferences that's been put on in British Columbia. It's also the first rural obstetrical conference of this magnitude that we've had here, as far back as I can remember. I would be interested in knowing if the ministry will be receiving a synopsis or a briefing from this particular conference, with respect to implementation of initiatives having to do with obstetrical care in rural communities.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Two things: we -- the staff of the Health ministry -- participated; and secondly, yes, we are 

[ Page 3645 ]

awaiting the final remarks, the final report from the conference. Then we'll work with the committee toward implementation.

A. Sanders: I request from the minister a copy of that synopsis from the conference.

S. Hawkins: You'll have to excuse me; I'm running back and forth between two Houses here trying to get my questions in, so I may have missed some of the discussion around AIDS.

One thing that's very scary -- and one thing that came to light certainly from a Health Canada study that was made public last week and from information that we've received from AIDS Vancouver -- is that one in four people is affected with AIDS in Vancouver compared to one in five IV drug abusers in Montreal. So it seems to be rather a serious problem.

Part of it has to do with, I believe, perhaps not having some kind of a coordinated provincial strategy for AIDS. I know this was promised a few years ago, and I know that it was being worked on. The community and resource groups were brought together. I'm just wondering where we are with bringing this strategy along. We have met with different groups around the province. It's a huge public health issue, and it's not going away. I'm just wondering if the minister can bring us up to date with what's happening with that provincewide strategy that was promised.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I appreciate the difficulty of having to run between two Houses. We did just have a discussion on that, particularly my focusing. . . . The statistic is correct: one in four intravenous drug users is converting to HIV/AIDS. So we are concentrating our future efforts. We're maintaining all of our programs now. Our growth in treatment is in the area of IDUs.

In fact, that's why we did participate. We set up the Vancouver injection drug user study, which forms part of the national report out of Health Canada. We did announce funding of $3 million for a coordinated strategy in one community so far, the downtown east side. We actually did have a good discussion about this previously.

S. Hawkins: With respect to provincial AIDS strategy, I understand that the AIDS program was going to be regionalized, with regionalization. Apparently there's some discussion now that the funding hasn't followed through with the regionalization of the AIDS strategy. In fact, we're told that if there is an AIDS strategy, it isn't being shared with the groups that are supposed to be implementing it. Is there an AIDS strategy? When are the groups going to become aware of it, and is there funding that's going to flow from that?

[5:00]

This year will be a transition year of moving from a provincial program into a regionally based program, but rest assured that there will be standards, caveats and monitoring in place. That will be part of Moffatt Clarke's job, working in conjunction with the community as we move forward to implement this strategy.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate that it's a transition year, but we can't let people fall through the cracks. It seems like we've got more of an epidemic -- if I can use that word -- than a bigger city like Montreal. I'm wondering -- after that report came out and was made public last week, the one that Dr. Catherine Hankins sat on -- if we are looking at Montreal to see what they're doing. Because they are a bigger city, they are obviously doing a little better job than we are. Are we looking at cities like that to see what they're doing and hopefully applying it to our city and our province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, Quebec has been working with us, through our B.C. Centre for Excellence, for the strategies that they've put in place. I think the difference in the success rate between their. . . . Using our model, why is it more successful, or less unsuccessful, in Quebec than it is here? Frankly, it is the horrendous drug problem we have here in British Columbia, particularly in Vancouver, where we have a much higher incidence of intravenous drug users in the population.

There have now been reports too, in my lifetime as a politician, anyway -- the Cain report and now this national health study report -- commenting on the decriminalization of drug use. In the meantime, we can only deal with it as a health issue in the context of the current law. What we can do and what we have done is to move our strategy to a harm-reduction strategy, not an abstinence strategy. That is assuming that the only way to cure HIV/AIDS-infected people is to get them to stop using drugs. It simply won't work, and so now we're moving toward a harm-reduction strategy, but I think the difference is the level of the population who are drug users.

S. Hawkins: I'm glad the minister mentioned the decriminalization recommendation of the task force that looked at HIV and drug use. I'm wondering if the ministry has a position on decriminalizing cocaine and heroin use.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the only position I have is that I really think we need to have a national debate on this issue. I would be more than happy to engage in it, and our Attorney General has offered to participate fully in such a debate. It has to be a national debate. It's a national Criminal Code, and certainly one section of the country cannot be treated any differently than any other section of the country. That's why we have to have a national debate on it. I personally know the ravage of families and individuals in the communities as a result of not only drug use but the criminal activity that surrounds it, too.

S. Hawkins: I was just looking at the cost of treating people with HIV as opposed to, perhaps, educating them before they ever got that way. I believe it's an average cost of $100,000 for medical care per patient. To treat someone like that, I understand that a bed at St. Paul's Hospital is $1,500 a night.

[ Page 3646 ]

I'm wondering, then, what kind of money is being put into place for education. I understand that young gay men are at the greatest risk right now. That group is rising quite fast in contracting HIV. Is there a coordinated educational strategy that the ministry is involved in, and involved in implementing, at this time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is a coordinated strategy, and that's what the document I showed you is all about. And, of course, I said earlier today, in response to a question from the member for Okanagan-Vernon, just how much of our funding goes into AIDS, into education and prevention. But the member is quite right in that the vast majority of the $46 million -- $34 million of the $46 million -- goes into treatment and care, and the rest goes into prevention and education.

So yes, there is a coordinated strategy amongst. . . . We've got dozens of groups here that offer the community programs. The hiring of Moffat Clarke is to make sure that we expand the programs that work and that where programs are not successful or the population has taken the education role upon themselves, we move the money around.

S. Hawkins: Just for information purposes. . . . From the information we've received from groups that care for HIV and AIDS people in Vancouver, I understand that there are five AIDS Vancouver caseworkers that work with HIV-infected people and that they have a 1-to-400 ratio for their cases. That's an awfully high number of clients to be managing. They find that the majority of their clients are marginalized people with the fewest resources. They're often people that need help with housing, food, health and income security. And one out of two clients that they care for are IV drug users.

So it will be important. . . . I'll be very interested to see the document the minister is referring to as far as a strategy, and in certainly keeping an eye on how this evolves in the next year or so under regionalization -- if the needs actually are met or if there are going to be gaps in regionalization. I appreciate the answers from the minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've met with AIDS Vancouver and B.C. Persons with AIDS, as well, and I understand their concerns. But we have alleviated their concerns in some areas with the $3 million injection into the downtown east side for the harm-reduction strategy; it is targeted directly at intravenous drug users. That should assist in the casework. Also, there are 14 FTEs, so there are more bodies -- more people than just 14 -- who work for the B.C. Centre for Excellence -- on-the-street nurses, etc., that assist with the increasing caseload. But it is an issue to be watched very carefully; there's no question about it.

S. Hawkins: I just was wondering if the minister is aware of any caseworkers or groups that do provide that kind of service outside the lower mainland -- if there's any funding for any outside the lower mainland.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have to correct the record, too. I said the B.C. Centre for Excellence provided 14 FTEs; it's the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. They actually do outreach into communities such as Kelowna and Prince George, training people in those communities -- the street nurses, etc. We do have needle exchanges throughout the province: Sunshine Coast, Kelowna, Nanaimo, North Island, Prince George, Quesnel, Tillicum, Surrey, upper Fraser Valley and Victoria. So we have needle exchange programs, but they also have nurses there that do education and prevention education, as well.

S. Hawkins: I was aware of the needle exchange program. In fact, my understanding is that HIV and AIDS have gone up 18 percent even with the inception of the needle exchange program. I hope there is something in that AIDS strategy that is going to work more on the prevention, education and awareness type of activities, as well as helping to just contain the spread of AIDS. I'll defer now to one of my colleagues.

L. Stephens: When I left the Health estimates, we were talking about aboriginal issues, and that's where I would like to begin the discussion today. Perhaps we could start with HIV in the aboriginal community and whether or not the provincial AIDS strategy that the minister has spoken about has a focused component for the aboriginal population around programs for HIV, and whether the strategy is confined to the lower mainland or whether there is a rural and a northern component to an aboriginal strategy specifically targeted around HIV.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We do have targeted programs for the aboriginal, first nations community. Of course, the two fastest-rising categories of intravenous drug users who are becoming infected are women and people from aboriginal communities. So it is of great concern not only to us but also to the aboriginal communities as well. Much of the $3 million that we're putting in for harm reduction in the downtown east side will be targeted, by virtue of the community, to aboriginal people. But we also spend about a million dollars in direct aboriginal programs on AIDS prevention and education. The overall budget is $7 million for AIDS prevention and education, 15 percent of which goes to direct aboriginal programs. There are also several aboriginal AIDS prevention programs funded through the Centre for Disease Control. The aboriginal health policy branch of my ministry provides an additional $2 million that's administered through the aboriginal health councils.

[5:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, they're delivered in a variety of ways, all coordinated through the Aboriginal Health Council. But you'll see that many of the street nurse programs that exist outside the lower mainland are targeted in communities with aboriginal populations. There's also the native AIDS awareness program that delivers services throughout the province. Our aboriginal health program works with the medical services branch of Health Canada for on-reserve AIDS prevention in aboriginal communities. There are also dozens of other projects across B.C. I have the list of those projects. I just read a lot of them into the record.

L. Stephens: One of the questions I want to ask is about federal involvement in on-reserve health care delivery. How is that breaking down now? Who's responsible for what on the 

[ Page 3647 ]

reserves? I know there's some reorganization happening. But could the minister perhaps fill us in on what is happening with the delivery of health care services there, and whose jurisdiction. . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it is on-reserve. It's totally a federal responsibility under the Indian Act. However, this is a matter of dispute between the federal government and the provincial governments across Canada. There are two issues that come up at every single provincial Health ministers' meeting. One is the blood supply and the other is off-loading by the federal government for aboriginal health programs. Certainly we work with our colleagues in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on this issue. The greatest effect in terms of the off-loading is in the western provinces. We view it as an unfunded liability of almost $50 million now, where we provide health services to people on reserve, when indeed it is the responsibility of the federal government.

The federal government is taking an interesting approach. In some provinces they're taking an approach of doing health funding directly with first nations now, bypassing the provincial governments completely. And in other provinces -- ours -- they're trying to work more closely with us, because, of course, it's all tied up in the land claims treaty negotiations, as well.

The Deputy Minister of Health in British Columbia wrote to the Deputy Minister of Health Canada last year outlining our position on the shortfall, this unfunded liability. Oh, it's gone up. It's not $50 million; it's $59 million that is owed to British Columbia. No, I'm sorry. They paid us $59 million and they owe us another $50 million -- my apologies. So I was right the first time. They wrote to them telling about the shortfall and saying that we've got to discuss changes. We've written letters; the other provinces have written letters. And to date, we have not been successful getting this on the agenda of a federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting. But, I expect, after we are settled down from the federal election, we will engage in that discussion.

I do know that in some areas of the province, some regional health boards have just moved forward and said -- and certainly this is the approach that aboriginal communities take to us: "Let's just get on with providing the services. Let's not worry about where the funding comes from." That's one that I certainly agree with from a public health policy point of view. But it's real hard to keep coming up with the dollars.

Some regional health boards have put in place some wonderful pilot projects for offering services on reserve and services linked back to the community hospitals, etc. Just some information about our health expenditures on aboriginal people: we spend $90 million for on-reserve health care, and we spend $81 million for off-reserve health care. These are provincial tax dollars, as well. And then we spend quite a bit more. . . . Those are just status Indians, so those are really the ones that are supposed to be funded totally by the federal government. But then we provide another $169 million to non-status Indians both on reserve and off reserve, as well. A total of $340 million of our health care budget goes toward aboriginal people, and of that $340 million we recover $59 million from the federal government.

L. Stephens: Perhaps this is asking an unfair question of the minister, but down the road, when we look at the resolution of some of the land claims and some of the issues that surround that, is there an expectation that health delivery for the first nations communities will be the responsibility of the first nations communities or totally a responsibility of the provincial government -- I should probably say that it will be the regional health boards -- to determine the services that go to aboriginal communities? Or will the aboriginal communities retain some kind of authority and autonomy around the kinds of health services that are in fact delivered to aboriginal land, if I can put it in that context?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll certainly just make some general comments on this. Yes, most treaty negotiations, if not all, have aboriginal control of the health programs on the agenda. Certainly that was the result of the Nisga'a AIP. The federal government's position is that they will transfer all of their federally funded health programs to aboriginal communities.

L. Stephens: I'm sure part of the strategy around the aboriginal health program is to increase education and prevention awareness around diseases and illnesses. Could the minister outline what components are included with the strategy in those two areas -- education and prevention awareness?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are six regional aboriginal health councils and then a provincial body, the Aboriginal Health Association of B.C. They have funding for aboriginal addictions, mental health and family violence services -- which are outreach programs -- and for education and prevention programs as well. The aboriginal health councils are comprised of aboriginal people, and they consult with local communities to establish priorities before soliciting proposals and then making funding allocation decisions.

Also, through the Women's Hospital, there is an aboriginal health program that is focused on aboriginal women's health. It basically encourages community development initiatives and teaches health care providers about aboriginal women's health needs. They also offer breast and cervical cancer screening clinics on reserve when requested, and the staff work in partnership with health and aboriginal agencies such as the B.C. Cancer Agency and the Association of First Nations Women. There are several sexually transmitted disease programs and AIDS control branch programs that do outreach to first nations communities. We also talked about the AIDS program and outreach to aboriginals. Then there are several programs offered through friendship centres across the province. They're mostly friendship centres, but there are also family services centres and the Vancouver Native Health Society, which offer not only illness care but prevention and education care as well.

L. Stephens: With the aboriginal health councils, are there any mechanisms in place to monitor whether the services that are being provided are in fact accountable? Can you measure results? Is there a baseline or a benchmark that the ministry may have on aboriginal health issues that these initiatives can be measured against to see whether we're reaching the individuals who need the health care, whether the education is in fact being helpful and whether we're able to bring down the level of illness and disease? Are there programs in place to measure the performance of these initiatives?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The aboriginal health councils contract for services through our aboriginal health programs branch, which to date is still provincial, located in the ministry. Each service contract has performance outcomes and an evaluation mechanism in place. The provincial health officer, through his 

[ Page 3648 ]

annual report, determines, comments on and monitors aboriginal health status, and the news is never good. It is improving slightly, but I know that the annual report that's imminent from the provincial health officer will not bring good news once again. Because of that, we are in a working group with the aboriginal health communities to develop an aboriginal health plan for people all across British Columbia. It's a multipartite committee, with the leadership from all aboriginal communities working with us on putting an aboriginal health plan in place.

I must say that at the most recent meeting of the First Nations Summit, which is one of the two major policy tables for discussion on aboriginal issues, the first issue that the leadership brought up with our government was to get moving on an aboriginal health plan that doesn't get bogged down in jurisdictional disputes and actually brings about real change to the health and well-being of our aboriginal communities. We are doing that, but there are indicators of health among the aboriginal health community that are horrifying, the most recent one of which is that of the newest HIV-positive tests last year, 32 percent were aboriginals. That's a frightening statistic. Therefore that's why we're concentrating our efforts on harm reduction to aboriginals.

[5:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have had this issue brought to my attention by aboriginal communities, and it's very interesting. There are some models of success, of change, where the aboriginal communities on reserves are working with the community health institutions to make change.

We have a model through the Saanich Peninsula General Hospital and the local band, whose residents use the Saanich hospital. It's a wonderful pilot project that incorporates home care and also renewed agreements on treatment in the hospital that's sensitive to the needs of aboriginal elders, in particular. It is meeting with a great deal of success. The capital regional health board has just confirmed the continuation of that program.

When I brought it to the attention of the First Nations Summit, they were very interested in this program. It was the one that I was really most familiar with; I'm sure there are others in the province. But we're actually going to try to replicate this pilot project -- that's now permanent -- in other areas of the province as well.

L. Stephens: If I heard the minister correctly, she said "on-reserve aboriginals." There are many in the province who don't live on reserve and attend their local clinic or hospital or whatever.

I wonder: is there a protocol or a policy that has been formulated around this particular issue for hospitals to use -- their emergency room or laboratory staff or whoever it might be? I know the acute care hospitals have -- at least my hospital has -- a protocol around domestic violence. There's a particular focus in the emergency room that is aware of domestic violence and is alerted to those kinds of things. I wonder if the same sort of policy or whatever has been developed for distribution to local health care providers to be sensitive to these kinds of issues, with some suggested guidelines around racism and insensitivity of health care providers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, each hospital does have a protocol around providing culturally sensitive services. In many areas in the province we've been successful in moving the protocol from paper into action, and in others, not so successful. It is something that we have to continue to work on very carefully. This is an investment in our future. The amount of health care dollars that disproportionately go to aboriginal people because of their low socioeconomic and health status is. . . . We need to reverse that, so we're investing in good health and not in poor health that's culturally based. So there are protocols.

The other thing that we've done is appointed aboriginal representation to each regional health board and community health council. There will be at least one appointment to each RHB, but where there is a greater proportion of aboriginal first nations population in a community, they will be given greater representation, as well. Then it is up to each regional health board to develop a health plan for aboriginal people.

The member for Okanagan West was asking me about health plans, so I asked for the health plan for my own community. This is the Vancouver-Richmond health plan: very substantive, very interesting. They actually have an aboriginal advisory committee and have set goals; there are seven health goals around aboriginal health needs. I would hope that each and every community's health plan would have such a section.

L. Stephens: Another area that is of concern to the aboriginal community is travel, being able to go from up north down to the lower mainland or wherever it is that they need to get treatment. This is around travel services for medical situations, like making funding arrangements and travel vouchers. Many of the aboriginals have said they've had to beg for travel vouchers to get down to the lower mainland for treatment. I wonder if the minister is aware of that, and whether or not there has been anything done interministerially. If that's the case, it needs to happen to address this issue for people who are not able to get medical care in the community they are living in, and who have to go outside it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The federal government does provide for travel for people who live on reserve. For those who are off reserve, the travel assistance program provisions apply.

L. Stephens: The people living off reserve -- who regulates or administers the travel vouchers? Is this Human Resources or is it Health? Is it the Health ministry that determines travel services -- the funding arrangements for medical care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The travel expense program is run by the Ministry of Health through the Medical Services Plan. It's a detailed program.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could look into that particular part of the ministry. There have been some significant concerns and some significant problems around that particular part of the Health ministry.

[ Page 3649 ]

I'd like to move on to the reproductive care program. The member for Okanagan West was talking about this a little bit earlier on. I do have the consensus of the participants at the rural obstetrics conference that was held in Victoria on May 9. The number one recommendation that came forward was that there needed to be a provincial task force on rural obstetrics, to go into all of these issues that we're going to go through today.

The one area they seemed to talk about a lot was that rural medicine and nursing is a distinct discipline, and that obstetrics should be provided in small communities. I wonder if the minister would talk a little bit about whether or not the representatives of the ministry that I know were at the conference came away with the same impression that I did: that there does seem to be some significant looking-into of rural obstetrics. The fact was that a lot of doctors raised some concerns, nurses raised some concerns, and certainly a number of other health care providers raised concerns around rural obstetrics, as well.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was an excellent conference. We provided funding so that two representatives from each hospital providing less than 500 births a year could attend the conference. It proved to be very worthwhile. We're waiting for the finalization of the recommendations from the conference. We know it will include a recommendation to form a rural obstetrics task force. I actually very much look forward to receiving that recommendation and moving forward on it.

L. Stephens: The issue about maternity discharge seemed to generate a lot of discussion, too -- the fact, I believe, that most women who deliver are discharged within 2.3 days for a normal delivery and about 3.3 days for caesarean delivery. There have been a number of very modern maternity wards developed around the province. My hospital has one, and it's really a state-of-the-art suite, if you like, for maternity care.

The fact still remains that a lot of women who are going home don't have the skills of new mothers, or they don't have individuals at home who can assist them. There's some concern that a lot of these children who are discharged within 24 or 48 hours need to have either community support or family support. I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about the services in the community for these discharged mothers and their babies, and whether the kinds of follow-up that are needed in the communities are in fact there. What does the minister foresee developing further in the future?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We did have a good discussion about this at the beginning of today's session around meetings both the opposition and I had with Dr. Misri, who is the leading psychiatrist in the area of postpartum follow-up. The discharge of a mom is really a clinical decision, and part of the clinical decision has to be based on the discharge plan for the mom and the baby -- and that means what services are in the community. Our public health nurses are putting increasing emphasis on well-baby follow-up, not only for the baby but also for the mom now. In previous days, as I bet the hon. member remembers from experience, the focus was all on the baby and there was maybe a passing glance at the mom. Now that's changing, so there's community health that needs to be put in place. There is also agreement that among a segment of our population who are mentally ill or have a mental illness as a result of pregnancy, we need to do even more in that area.

L. Stephens: When we talk about Better Teamwork, Better Care and moving some of these services out of the tertiary hospitals and into the communities, I think this is a perfect example of the kind of care that can be delivered in the communities. My concern is that the capability of that community service is something we need to take a good look at. Twenty-four hour access is one concern, and whether there need to be public health nurses who are available 24 hours -- accessible, anyway. Also, I wonder if quality reviews of community services are something that would be a ministerial responsibility. Would that be a responsibility of the regional health board? Who would determine the quality standards of community care -- public health nurses, for instance -- around moms and babies?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As we said at the beginning, there will be performance standards put in place for all programs of the government delivered through the regional health boards and the community health councils, and those would be based on principles -- one of which is patient satisfaction, etc. We'll also be working with the Minister for Children and Families, who will be responsible for delivery of public health programs to children and families. Those protocols are being put in place, and the evaluation mechanisms are being put in place right now.

The British Columbia reproductive care program also has a mandate to develop guidelines for patient care and facilities planning as we move to a regionalized health care system. They're also charged with promotion of perinatal care networks in the province and assisting in identification of appropriate perinatal care rules.

L. Stephens: I guess one of the questions that I'd like to ask, because of the interministerial cooperation and integration of some of these programs that are going to be delivering services to families and children, is: who is accountable? If the service isn't being delivered or isn't being delivered appropriately, is it the Ministry of Health that is accountable or is it the Ministry for Children and Families that will be accountable?

[5:45]

The standards for public health and the policies for public health are set by the Ministry of Health. But again, it's a very interesting model being developed, and in setting those standards we're working in very close cooperation with the Ministry for Children and Families -- which, of course, was why the government set up the ministry in the first place.

L. Stephens: The question of accountability, monitoring of standards and looking at measurements of performance and whether, in fact, what the programs are doing and whether the money being spent on them is showing some results. . . . I think that's what we need to really develop those standards and accountability mechanisms around -- what we're doing: is it working, and is it in fact reducing the level of illness and disease? Or is what we're doing really educating and helping families and children? Those are the issues.

[ Page 3650 ]

Now, what it looks like to me is that we've got a Ministry for Children and Families and a regional health board, and then we have the ministry. I'm concerned that the ability to monitor the performance of contracted services will be diluted or lost -- or call it what you will.

I would like to know what the line of authority is, if you like, from the minister to the individual who is receiving the service or is entitled to the service. If that person on the street or in their home is not receiving the service, how many people are they going to have to get through to get to the minister or to make something happen? The bureaucracy is something that I'm greatly concerned about.

So I'd like the minister to perhaps try and give me some comfort -- that what the minister has directed to happen does in fact happen on the street and in the homes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, our public and preventive health division certainly does recognize the importance of accountability and has seized the opportunity, as we move to our regionalized health care system, to put in place all of the accountability measures needed. Program auditing, objectives and indicators, management information systems, risk assessment, program prioritization and utilization management are just some of the tools that they will be working with to enhance accountability.

Program auditing is to make programs accountable for their actions. It is all in the context of regionalization that we're doing this. There's been a program audit pilot initiative for the community care facilities licensing program. We've got that in place now. The evaluation of that pilot for auditing is just taking place as we speak. We're looking at adopting that in other program areas within the public and preventive health division.

Objectives and indicators had been developed for programs within the public and preventive health division. There's a whole series of those, and the objectives are, for instance, promoting a healthier society free of significant health and safety hazards, protecting the well-being of individuals in care. Then the status of these objectives in comparison to a target is measured, using data collected in the field in the performance of their duties. Management information systems have been developed for various programs. They include providing information from the field on service delivery levels, the number of inspections, investigations and licences issued. From that, we'll assess the level of service delivery throughout the province. Then those will be measured against the legislation, the regulations, the policies and the standards to make sure that the health authorities are held accountable for the effective delivery of public health services.

Risk assessment is being put in place, outlining the basic categories of service encompassed by the division of public and preventive health. We've established a process to determine the level of service required through a risk assessment, risk management approach. Public health programs are, and will continue to be, challenged to focus resources on higher-risk entities.

Program prioritization is an initiative that will set priorities amongst public health protection programs. We developed this because we recognized that there was a need for a systematic approach to setting priorities. That's an essential part of the health planning process, because it allows efforts to be focused on health problems that are the most critical and practical to address.

Lastly, utilization management. For instance, our food safety program is an example of the use of utilization management techniques. The vision of utilization management is to support the health system through appropriate use of resources for the best outcomes. It's a best-use measure. For instance, in the food safety program, inspections have traditionally focused on the compliance of equipment and program structure with regulations, but better utilization of resources can be achieved by using a risk management approach that pinpoints the risks in the chain of food production -- slaughtering, packing and processing, distribution, preparation and consumption. Whereas historically their emphasis used to be placed on the production and processing levels, the utilization management tools show that the resources should be redirected toward controlling risk points closer to the consumer in order to achieve the greatest risk reduction possible. That's just one example. But these are all of the tools that are in place to hold us and the programs accountable to the patients and clients in the community.

L. Stephens: I'm going to keep this from Hansard handy, and as events unfold and as the new ministry and regionalization take shape, we'll be watching to make sure that those kinds of initiatives are in place and that they are working. We will make sure that this is done.

I have a few other questions here, but seeing the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 3:57 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
(continued)

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, today I'd like to deal with some issues related to local governance, forms of local government and that kind of thing. But seeing that Mr. Harkness is here, I 

[ Page 3651 ]

wonder whether, after my having had an opportunity to review the document over the weekend, a few minor, lingering questions that I have with respect to the document might be addressed now.

[4:00]

The first question I have is of a factual nature more than anything else. I'm on page 2, and the third paragraph makes reference to the fact that some local governments deliver electrical and gas inspection services in their communities or regions, or both -- I'm not sure which it is. Could the minister advise, first of all: how widespread are those local governments that are delivering electrical or gas inspection services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are about eight or nine municipalities that deliver gas, about eight or nine municipalities that deliver electricity, and about four of them overlap and deliver both.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise further as to whether those municipalities that deliver those services on behalf of, I presume, the provincial government do it on a fee-for-service basis with the province? Or is it something that they have simply chosen of their own volition to take on as an additional function and expect no compensation for?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They've taken it on with the authorization of the province, and they in fact bill the user of the service. So they do not bill the province, they don't bill the local taxpayer; they bill the person who is receiving the service.

G. Abbott: So I conclude from that that these functions -- just as building inspection is -- are largely or entirely self-perpetuating in terms of the fee-for-service covering the cost of those. The minister doesn't need to get up and confirm that -- unless I'm wrong, in which case I certainly would welcome that.

The same paragraph makes reference to. . . . I will just quote here: "Operationally, this stage" -- and this is Horizon 1 -- "would see the creation of an enhanced provincial organization operating within a government ministry but with a measure of administrative and resource management autonomy from broad government policy." Could the minister advise how that might work? There seem to be sort of two directions they're pulling in here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This gets back to what we were talking about earlier, in that this is an idea of how to deliver a service. But in actual fact there are probably 200 or 300 different opinions as to exactly how it should be done. They agree on the concept, but not exactly on the delivery mechanism, and that's one of those things that we need to flesh out over the coming months, do some more work on and get some consensus around what final form the delivery would take.

G. Abbott: In the passage I just mentioned, there was reference to an enhanced provincial organization, and in the next paragraph, in Horizon 2, we go on to talk about a new safety authority. Are those two things one and the same, or is the safety authority some more advanced stage of the first body?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is a more advanced concept, if you like. You're sort of looking at Horizon 1, then Horizon 2 is slightly more evolved, and Horizon 3 is more evolved still. So at the beginning of the report, when it talks about this being a evolutionary process, this fits very much within that theme. So it is sort of like one step beyond.

G. Abbott: I think I understand from the minister's response that we are talking about one body here that evolves over time, as opposed to one being created and then replaced by another at some future point when the second and third horizons come into being. . . . The minister is nodding, so I assume that that is in fact the case.

There are other points I wanted to briefly confirm in my mind, to make sure that I have an appropriate understanding of it. It would appear -- I think this is what the document says -- that in the future, in these third and fourth horizons, when all of the inspection authorities, be they local, provincial, professional or private sector, are brought up to a stage or level which is going to be set by the province, municipalities and regional districts will have the option of taking on a broader range of inspection functions than they have in the past; or alternatively, they may choose to delegate all of those inspection functions to the provincial safety authority. Is that a correct summary of where the document is going?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is in fact the recommendation. That is what is being proposed.

G. Abbott: Again, just for my clarification -- and this is under Horizon 3, the second to last sentence. . . . It says: "The province would assume a general leadership and general policy development role, while the private sector would be accredited to fill specific gaps in safety service delivery." The question I have is: when we have a model where municipalities are opting into or out of a package of functions, what gaps are seen in that model where the private sector might step in?

Hon. M. Farnworth: An example could be something like an owner-built home. That's one example I could cite. You might also be looking at geographical gaps, for example. It may be, you know, easier or more convenient to do something on a geographical basis, or something like that.

G. Abbott: My other questions, I guess, relate to areas of the province which are currently without building and plumbing inspection services. I don't know whether it's good or bad, but the regional district that I was formerly associated with had some electoral areas where, for a variety of reasons, historically residents had been downright hostile to the notion of. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Revenuers.

G. Abbott: Yes, rather like revenuers -- treated with probably rather less respect than revenuers, if that's possible. But for a variety of reasons, they had not embraced the notion of building and plumbing inspections.

[ Page 3652 ]

Would this report, if the horizons are implemented over time, provide -- I'm not sure what the right word would be here -- some coverage or some authority with respect to those functions in the future?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the code itself, yes. In fact, that is something that doesn't exist in some of the areas today. And I guess in extending, if you like, the long arm of government building-inspection authority, that is probably something which would be addressed down the road by the policy section of building standards.

I think right now, in terms of this report, it envisions the code being extended. But in terms of enforcement, I think it's going to be a little more gradual.

G. Abbott: I suspected that that was the case from the points on page 48. Perhaps the minister can explain whether this is in fact correct. In paragraph 8.2 it lists a number of ways in which enforcement or regulation might be delivered in some circumstances -- for example, accepting declarations of the homeowner and builder that it had been done to code, accepting declarations of contractors, contracting inspections to the private sector, that kind of thing. There's a list of seven ways there. Am I correct in assuming that that is directed at those kinds of areas where building inspection hadn't been embraced or where there were some practical difficulties in delivering a function because of the remoteness of it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct.

G. Abbott: I think that pretty well covers it off. If you don't mind me taking a quick cruise here. . . . I've got little notes.

I think that covers off the safety systems review document. Again, as I read it, I think what's been done here is a very constructive step forward. The committee and the authors of this are to be complimented on putting a very difficult and complex matter into, I think, quite a readable and effective format. I don't think any of my colleagues have questions on the safety systems review. So I thank Mr. Harkness for the assistance on that.

What I'd like to do now, unless there's any. . . . Did you want to have any parting words on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I was just going to say that I thank the hon. member for his comments, because I do think that this has been a very substantive report. It is going to have a big influence in the years to come. It is a report that the ministry has put a lot of work into, and I think that deserves to be commended. The fact is that it is not just a ministry report; it was a joint effort between business, the private sector and government. So I think there's a lot there for the province, and it's going to play a strong role in providing a better safety system for many years to come.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn now to models of local governance. I don't expect this requires any change of personnel; obviously we will take the time if it does, but I don't expect that it will.

What I'd like to do here, in relatively brief terms, is canvass some of the current models of local governance in British Columbia and where the minister sees changes coming or where changes are currently anticipated in those models. As I understand it -- and the minister, I hope, will correct me if I've missed any here -- the major forms or models of local government currently are, of course, municipalities; regional districts; the Islands Trust, which in the last set of estimates I think we canvassed quite thoroughly -- I'm not aware of any of my colleagues looking for questions there; the kind of unique circumstance we have with the University Endowment Lands and UBC -- my colleague from Quilchena would like to ask a few questions on that; local communities, an idea which in large measure still exists just in concept -- I gather there are two or three, perhaps, as of the last estimates, at least, local communities around the province; and, of course, that remnant from the past, the improvement/water/irrigation districts -- I'm not even sure how many of them are left around the province, but I'll look forward to talking about that and where the ministry proposes to go with respect to local governance in that area.

Let me begin by asking: are there any substantial changes anticipated by the ministry with respect to the way in which municipalities and regional districts are structured in this province?

[4:15]

G. Abbott: I appreciate the response. I think it's always important to get on the record whether those kinds of things are being contemplated.

Could the minister advise whether any further communities in British Columbia have examined and in some cases taken on the local communities format for local governance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. Not for about the last five or six years. It's an experiment that really hasn't sort of taken root. I think the last one was Bear Lake, up in the Fraser-Fort George area.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise how many local communities there currently are and where they are?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are only about two or three. I know Bear Lake is one; I'll get you the other two communities.

G. Abbott: I'd like at this time to have our discussion of the rather unique governance model that's in place for the University Endowment Lands and UBC. I will yield to my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena at this point.

C. Hansen: I was quite surprised to recently learn the extent to which the deputy minister has to be involved in affairs in electoral area A. I was wondering if you could give us a summary of the number of times the deputy minister has to actually attend to issues on the endowment lands, and what kinds of issues have to be personally dealt with by your deputy.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the last year, the deputy has been required to attend one appeal.

[ Page 3653 ]

C. Hansen: It was probably the one I heard about. I was surprised to learn that it was necessary for the deputy to physically get involved in those kinds of issues. I was hoping there wasn't more than one, because it didn't seem to be a very efficient use of her time.

But that does lead us to the whole issue of the governance. I was wondering if the minister could tell us what the status is of the governance study that's underway.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently there's considerable work underway in terms of the official community plan. There's another governance study underway, which I think will be the third one in six years, and it will look at a variety of options. So that's what I can tell you there. The ultimate decision, as always, will be up to the electorate.

C. Hansen: I'm quite aware of the official community plan process that has been underway and have read as much of that documentation as I've been able to absorb. I was about to say "as much as I could get my hands on," but there's an awful lot more that I could get my hands on.

There does not seem to be a lot of public information about the whole issue of the governance study itself that has been undertaken by the ministry. I'm wondering if the minister could explain how that study is being undertaken. What is the time line that is hoped for? And who is undertaking the study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right now it's basically at the terms-of-reference stage, in terms of determining how big the study should be and how far it should encompass, and dealing with such questions as the status of UBC and the other electoral areas in the GVRD. That probably explains why it's not at any sort of substantive public input stage.

C. Hansen: In other words, the study hasn't actually started. We're still putting terms of reference together. And from there, it will go to an outside contractor. Or will this be done internally? Could you give us some indication as to how this will proceed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of whether it'll go to an outside consultant, it's still too early to say. It'll depend on the scope of the project. Where they decide to end up going will depend on the scope of the study. And I guess the key question will be, in terms of the status of UBC and around the village. . . . If the idea -- if you end up going with this particular study at the end of the day -- is to go to a vote, then it's likely that an outside consultant will be brought in. But at this stage, it's a little too early to say.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us what kind of time line we're looking at for this study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of an exact time, I'll get back to the hon. member on that. There are a whole series of studies, not just dealing with UBC, but incorporations in different parts of the province. They're not all at the same priority level. So I'll get the information for the hon. member.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that.

One thing that I don't have at my fingertips is the date this governance study was announced. I'm quite sure it was announced at least a year ago, if my memory serves me right. I'm just wondering: aside from incomplete terms of reference, has been no other progress made towards this governance study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the best answer I can say is that at any one time, there's a whole series of studies underway in the province looking at issues around incorporation, whether they deal with electoral areas or whether they're looking at municipalities that are considering amalgamation. It comes down to a series of priorities within the ministry. I guess, in terms of this particular area, this would be the third study -- or the third kick at the can -- in six years. I think, in terms of how the ministry looks at its priorities, if there seems to be a great deal of community support for an incorporation, that is going to get a higher priority rating as opposed to one where there doesn't seem to be support or where, I guess, everything is not complete.

So it does seem like a long time. I've given the commitment to the hon. member. I'll find out what the exact time lines are -- where it stands in relation to everything else -- and try and give the member a better understanding of either a completion date or where it fits in terms of priorities as compared to other studies.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could advise us what types of development and programs within electoral area A are being held up, pending the completion of this governance study.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There shouldn't be any holdup on any programs, in terms of regular governance, in terms of infrastructure or anything of that nature. A study certainly wouldn't hold any of that up. That should continue as per normal.

C. Hansen: One of the things that is part of this mix is the official community plan. A lot of people are trying to develop an official community plan that is sensitive to neighbouring communities, and the neighbouring communities are apoplectic -- to put it mildly -- about the implications of what that official community plan might involve. But those communities are quite anxious for this governance study to proceed because they are waiting for a process whereby the residents of these areas can deal with these very important issues that affect their future.

So you've got the official community plan being held up pending the governance study. You've got issues regarding transportation through my riding, both along Southwest Marine Drive and 16th Avenue, which are becoming extremely critical problems. In Southwest Marine Drive alone, you've got 27,000 cars a day travelling along a two-lane road that was basically built like a country road, and it exists like that today. Needless to say, the residents in those areas would like to keep it as a quieter street than it is today. So certainly, the whole issue of governance is something that a lot of people are watching very anxiously, and I believe those individuals would be quite concerned to learn today at this stage that this governance study is not as far along as I think they perceive it is.

I'm wondering if the minister can at least give us some time line as to when the terms of reference might be available.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the OCP and the work that's being done on that, the fact that the governance study is not as advanced as some people might like does not have an 

[ Page 3654 ]

impact. Standard practice in the province has been that if the OCP is in place, until such time as a new governance structure comes in and they have a chance to sit down and look at it, the OCP isn't going to change. So that shouldn't be too much of a barrier.

In terms of time lines, I've given my commitment to the member, and I'll arrange to get that information to him as quickly as I can.

[4:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Ministry of Transportation and Highways look after the roads in the same way that they do in the other rural parts of the province.

C. Hansen: So I gather from that that the ministry has no direct involvement. I was wondering if at this point the ministry has done any studies looking at some of the traffic flow issues vis-�-vis the university and electoral area A.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the ministry having done any studies, the ministry has not. In terms of work having been done through the OCP and having been paid for by, say, planning grants given to the electoral area and the GVRD doing the OCP, that's a distinct possibility. But that's sort of arm's length, if you like, from the ministry. So nothing has been done directly by the ministry, though in point of fact the ministry may have funded it indirectly.

C. Hansen: One last issue regarding electoral area A, and that's with regard to the payment of services to the city of Vancouver. In recent years there has been a recognition that. . . . This may involve just UBC, and this is the point of my question: is this just the university or is it electoral area A as a whole? Could the minister advise us on the arrangements for payment for services to the city of Vancouver?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We pay for the fire services for the electoral area and the university, and the ratepayers of the UEL pay us back their share. That amounts to about 8 percent of the bill.

C. Hansen: Has the ministry been involved in trying to assist in payment of services from the university itself to the city of Vancouver?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't pay for anything else. Everything else is paid 100 percent by the ratepayers.

G. Abbott: On the University Endowment Lands restructuring or governance study. . . . Typically in these kinds of things there is a sponsoring organization, a sponsoring body or a local initiating body that asked for the study to be done. Is that the case here, or is this a provincially initiated governance study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is no single specific group, but there are a variety of organizations. This is in part a continuation of a rationalization of electoral areas that has been taking place within the GVRD over the last number of years. This has seen the incorporation of a number of electoral areas into neighbouring municipalities or has encouraged some of them to form municipalities of their own. I'm thinking of electoral areas B and C: Barnston Island is one; the areas north of Anmore, Buntzen Lake, Ioco are others; Bowen Island is also another; and this is also part of that rationalization. Basically, it's a governance issue that's been of concern to a lot of the regional authorities in the area as opposed to having been specifically driven by any one community group.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the role to date of the University Endowment Lands Ratepayers Association has been in terms of the structuring or the discussion of the governance study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In that, as I said earlier, it's very much at a developmental stage, I would say that they don't have a specific role to play as of yet. If any past incorporation studies and votes are any indication, they will be playing an active role either for or against any potential incorporation down the road.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me of what role, if any, there has been to date for the director of electoral area A and the greater Vancouver regional district in terms of the development and structure of the government study?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess there are a number of things. First, most of the discussions are still taking place at the staff level. There is some awareness of the GVRD at the political level, and I would expect that would include the electoral area director. Basically, there's also the continuation of the policy -- which was debated at the GVRD and had input from the province -- to look at the rationalization of electoral areas, to either encourage them to incorporate or to amalgamate with other jurisdictions.

G. Abbott: I have one last question just before we move to other areas of local governance. The way in which services and, I guess, authority is delivered to the University Endowment Lands is a never-ending source of fascination to me. Could the minister briefly lay out those services or areas of authority that flow from the province and those that come from the greater Vancouver regional district -- for example, planning and other services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's fire, police and roads.

G. Abbott: That's the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. And then also ministry participation, from a statutory perspective, in terms of the OCP. But the rest of the services are either supplied by or contracted through the GVRD. For example, parks would probably be the most notable.

G. Abbott: Again, just so I'm sure I've got it right, the minister made a reference to the OCP, and I guess the statutory authority to enact the OCP came through the province. In terms of actual day-to-day planning services, if someone wants to get a rezoning or whatever -- I don't know if they do that out on the University Endowment Lands, but if they did -- would the GVRD provide it or the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the zoning bylaw, that's administered by the province. That would be a function that we would do, as well.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn, now, to one of the, at times, more obscure parts of our local governance in British Colum-

[ Page 3655 ]

bia. I've described them as improvement/water/irrigation districts across British Columbia. I think I have a pretty good handle on the number of municipalities we have in the province and the number of regional districts, but I have no idea how many improvement districts -- and we'll call them that for convenience -- remain in the province. Could the minister advise me of their number and status and so on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are 286.

G. Abbott: My hon. friends suggest that I should get you to give a rundown on each of them, but not even I am that cruel.

Actually, I'm quite amazed at the number of them. I had no idea that there were that many remaining in the province. Of these 286 -- and again, I'll just reveal my ignorance, here, for a minute -- is there a distinction drawn between an improvement district, a waterworks district and an irrigation district, or are these really just essentially different titles for the one single model?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They are actually variations on a theme. They are all governed by the same piece of legislation. It's just a question of which of the services they supply that come from the particular piece of legislation.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me of what the appropriate sections of the act. . . ? What authority, what powers, are conferred upon improvement districts by the act with respect to these bodies?

[4:45]

Perhaps I could take this opportunity to answer one of his previous questions, which was on the number of local communities. I mentioned Bear Lake. The others are Coal Harbour, in 1984, and Charlie Lake, which was created in 1990.

The relevant section is part 25 of the Municipal Act, from section 822 through section 860.

G. Abbott: Would the minister advise me of what the current thinking of his ministry is with respect to the existence of 286 improvement districts? Would he like to see more, or does he consider 286 to be an adequate amount?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me put it this way. . . .

S. Hawkins: More is better.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That may be your position, hon. member. You may think there's a need in this province for more than 286 jurisdictions. But I can tell you that since becoming minister and learning about these rather interesting forms of governance, which before becoming minister I was not aware of, I have a number of concerns.

I think it's time we did a study of them, in some form, to look at specific roles, locations, and find out how many are active, if any are inactive and who they serve. Perhaps it's time to look at whether there is a better way of supplying the services they provide. I think a discussion paper of some sort may be appropriate, or perhaps some other mechanism -- a public inquiry of some sort.

They are very much on my mind. I certainly do think that 286, if you ask me off the top of my head, does seem to be a rather large number of governance structures. The time is right, I think, to look at perhaps more appropriate forms.

G. Abbott: It's my understanding that it is or was the Ministry of Municipal Affairs position that they would not contemplate the creation of any additional improvement districts. In fact, where possible, existing improvement districts would be encouraged to disincorporate, if you like, and become parts of regional districts on a functional basis. Is that correct? Perhaps the minister can refine that as required.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, what the hon. member states is true. However, I think it's been proceeding very slowly; in the last several years, only six have actually disappeared. I think that gives some indication that while the policy may be to encourage, I don't necessarily think that it's reducing the number by a great deal. What we need to do is have a really thorough look, because I think it's been some time since that's been done.

I think the structure may have been fine when they were set up in the twenties and thirties, when a lot of them were set up. But it's probably time to go back and have a thorough, in-depth look at things like the number of services, the degree of urbanization, the degree of growth, how many of them require major investments, and what sort of problem areas are either existing today or likely to exist in the near future. So I can certainly see that the policy needs to be changed and updated.

G. Abbott: My hon. colleague the Health critic has been able to take a few moments out of Health estimates to come here. She has a question with respect to the Westbank water district, so I'd like to yield the floor to her.

S. Hawkins: I think the minister is quite aware of the concern that residents of Westbank have had with their irrigation district. About a thousand ratepayers signed a petition and sent it over to the ministry regarding a survey that was done in 1995 with respect to a dam that needed to be built to improve water quality to the ratepayers in the Westbank district. Apparently there was only a 50 percent response to this survey, and the rate of water was increased $6 a month as a result.

There is a group that's very much in favour of reversing this decision. I've had discussions with the minister's office since last year, when I got elected, and my understanding is it's a duly elected board -- this is the information I'm getting from the minister's office -- and there is nothing that can be done. We have a group of very, very concerned citizens that are saying: "Do something." Can the minister tell me what their remedy is?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd just like to point out for the record that I think the member has been very diligent in trying to make me aware of this problem. She's explained it to me thoroughly, and I think she has worked very hard on her constituents' problem. But at the end of the day, it's a duly elected body with a mandated authority to carry out. . . . When we give an authority, a mandate, to do that, the ministry is not in a position to come in and reverse a decision.

Basically, they have one option and one option only: at the next election for the authority, go out and campaign and say: "You raised our water rates unnecessarily, and we think 

[ Page 3656 ]

that you should be turfed out of office." Or if there's another group that thinks what has taken place is fine, say: "No, it's fine, and these people should be re-elected."

There is no more that the hon. member can do, and there is no more that I and the ministry can do. This is a local decision, and the local board has to be accountable to the local people. The bottom line is: if there are people out there who don't like the decision, then they've got to vote at the next election and turf the rascals out.

S. Hawkins: That is the message I've been getting from the Municipal Affairs ministry for the last year, and that's the message I will take back to this group.

G. Abbott: The minister indicated that this whole area of improvement/water/irrigation districts, etc., needs a good long look, and I very much concur with that view. The first public office I ever held was back in 1979, as a member of the Sicamous waterworks district. It was a body that had kind of grown with the town. It became a kind of semi-council, I guess. In the absence of incorporation, it took on more and more functions, and apart from not having the planning function, which the regional district had, became very much like a local council.

I think there needs to be some thought given to how the local community concept might grow or evolve in a way that could capture not only some of the real, mundane functional elements in the water districts, but also pull in some other things from the local community concept. It deserves lots of thought. Obviously, when and if this study proceeds, the minister is likely to find that there are people in the province who very seriously and jealously defend what authority they have in those local districts. But I think that if it proceeds in a fair and judicious manner, it would hopefully have some prospect of being successful. I hope, in some way, other members of the House -- through our committee structure, or whatever -- might participate in that, as well. It is a specialized kind of thing, and I hope the minister is successful in moving ahead in that area.

As I mentioned, the one function that the Sicamous waterworks district never had -- because the Columbia-Shuswap regional district had it -- was the planning function. Is it even theoretically possible now that an improvement/water/irrigation district would have some kind of control or power in relation to the planning function in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: My initial reaction to that would be no. I think you would run into a real problem if potentially you could have up to 286 more planning authorities or planning functions in the province. I think that would lead to a real problem.

I think what we need to do is to go back to what I was talking about earlier on and say: "What is the role of the improvement district? What is the nature of the services they deliver? Whom are they serving? What problems are anticipated?" Have a thorough discussion over a broad spectrum so that everybody feels that their point of view is being listened to -- similar to what the member's comments were a few moments ago -- and ensure that we take our time and do it right.

There will be people who jealously guard. . .and feel that the current system works well. But clearly there are going to be those who say, "No, it doesn't," who say that it isn't adequate for the environment in which we operate today, that changes need to be made, and who want to see that take place under as broad terms as possible -- involvement from regional districts, from local communities, from local government -- a really thorough examination. Until that's done, to say that we should be extending or looking at extending planning authority to them. . . . I would be reluctant to do that.

G. Abbott: My hon. colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head has some questions with respect to Victoria.

I. Chong: The questions I want to ask do relate to the greater Victoria water district and the changeover. I know we recently had a bill presented that received royal assent today. I'm wondering if perhaps the precedent has been set for other districts. Given that a water district is a local government corporation created by provincial statutes. . . . In this particular case, there were some questions before the Perry commission actually took shape.

I was wondering whether I could ask the minister if what has now occurred with the greater Victoria water district is going to be occurring in similar instances throughout the province. If that is the case, how many other water districts or improvement districts might we be looking at?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The greater Victoria water district doesn't fall under the improvement districts and what we've been talking about; it's a special case. The reorganization that it has undergone with the creation of a new act would not apply to other areas of the province, other improvement districts. It's a special case for Victoria.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. I want it to be clear. I wasn't aware whether there were other water districts around, and I just wanted to have that clarification for myself and for those who may be reading the proceedings subsequent to this.

In regard to the greater Victoria water district and the idea of a local election, can the minister advise. . . ? To be fair, I haven't gone through the act. My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands did read through that. Can you confirm that the election of those serving on that will be taking place at the next municipal election, or will it be subsumed within the capital regional district and just be a committee within the capital regional district?

[5:00]

I. Chong: I do thank the minister for that. I will take that opportunity, because I know I will probably get questions once this rolls into place -- particularly in light of the questions I raised last week regarding potential changes to the Municipal Act. A number of the suggestions coming forth from the municipality of Saanich, for example, were looking at people being elected to the capital regional district. At one point, there were discussions as to people being elected to the greater Victoria water district as well. So a change to the Municipal Act, if that were contemplated, would certainly take into consideration those particular roles.

I suppose the other question I have for the minister is in regard to the transfer of the assets that were held by the 

[ Page 3657 ]

greater Victoria water district. As the minister probably is aware -- he probably received some correspondence -- the four municipalities that owned it were not happy with the transfer of assets. Although this is a done deal, I still would like the minister to give us some of his thoughts as to whether or not he feels that this was the fairest way to go and whether or not the municipalities have an opportunity within their own rights to request additional funding from the minister for what they perceive as the expropriation of their assets.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are no plans within the ministry to look at compensation. That issue was dealt with with the passage of the act. I had some correspondence initially, and the explanation at the time was that this is a public policy decision -- that basically it's a public asset that serves the entire region and that what, in a sense, was changed was the governance structure. It was not an asset that would have sat on the books, so to speak. I think the best thing right now is that the act has been passed and there seems to be general acceptance to let this work and see how it unfolds. And that's what I want to do at the present time.

G. Abbott: Returning to the improvement district model that we've been discussing: is it clearer to me, then? Maybe that's the wrong way to pose it; it probably invites some disparaging comments on the minister's part. Is it clearer to British Columbians that that authority for planning in non-incorporated areas is vested and should be vested with regional districts as opposed to any other authority? And I think we can exclude the Islands Trust from our discussions here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what the Municipal Act says right now, and I think that's sort of the generally accepted view throughout the province. I think that if there's to be any change to that, then clearly there has to be a great deal of discussion with and a lot of input from the UBCM. And that's why I come back to your question from before: do you see this transfer of planning to these irrigation districts or to improvement districts? I don't see that happening right now.

G. Abbott: For the record, that's not something I'm trying to promote. I don't think it would be a good idea for that authority to be dispersed to 286 different improvement districts across the province. I think regional districts are the appropriate body for dealing with planning questions in unincorporated areas, and I think it might, in fact, be a prospect for some concern if that authority was dispersed that widely across the province.

All of this -- and I suspect the minister knows where we're going here. . . . One thing that has puzzled me about the unfortunate situation in Naramata is how a local irrigation district -- I guess it was -- came to make some decisions in what appears to be an area of planning where they didn't, in fact, have the function. Is it because the Municipal Act has been changed in more recent years to deal with situations like that, or is it some sort of anomaly that has come into play here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the best way and, in a sense, the simplest way of looking at it is from the point of view that the role of the improvement district is to extend the service, and in a sense, that's like planning. You decide to extend a service to this particular area or you decide to extend it to that particular area but not to this particular area. You decide which service it is you're going to extend and which one you're not going to extend. So I think the crossover there becomes quite easy and in some ways blurred. But even though they are two distinct, different things, one is essentially a version of the other.

G. Abbott: I think I understand that point. And I want to assure the minister that the questions we have here today are not intended to make his life any more difficult than it already is. This is a tough situation and will, I think, require a great deal of wisdom to sort out. It's a very difficult one. What we hope is that if we can understand the situation a little bit better, perhaps we can be in a position of not making some of the mistakes again that have been made in the past. I try to make mistakes only once; regrettably, almost every day I slip up on that and make the same mistakes over and over again. Something like Groundhog Day, I guess, in some respects. Some of these things just keep coming back again and again.

Did Naramata, at the time the initial problems occurred, have an OCP or a land use plan in place which suggested that developments should or should not proceed in accordance with that? I understand the minister's point about the extension of the water system as being a way in which growth could be regulated, but was there planning through RDOS -- the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen -- at the time that that decision was made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the improvement district, no, they would not have nor would they have had the authority to. In terms of RDOS, that is a question of fact that we'll have to get exact information on for the hon. member, and we will do so.

G. Abbott: Perhaps the minister doesn't have all the facts at his disposal, but could the minister advise briefly from the ministry's perspective how the unfortunate situation in Naramata developed and where it sits today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer I'm going to give may not be the one the member's looking for. The comments he alluded to before are the exact reason why I'm going to say what I'm going to say. There is a history, and that history is a part of the court case and in particular the arbitration which is currently ongoing. That's where things are today. There has been an adjournment in the arbitration process until June 13, I think -- somewhere around June 9 to 13. So I would prefer at this time not to comment on either the details or the specifics of the history or the background until that's done, other than to say I'm very much aware of what's going on and I know the member for Okanagan-Penticton is also. I've been in communication with him. That's probably the point that I think I would like to leave it at.

R. Thorpe: I just want to have the minister clarify for me. . . . I must say to the minister that we have been working on this delicate issue fairly closely, and I look forward to continuing to work together with the minister on this issue. The real issue here is that the ratepayers -- the pensioners, the seniors, the orchardists in Naramata -- are the people that eventually have to pay all the bills. Could the minister advise if there's anything in the interim that the ministry is contemplating doing, or are we going to wait until the arbitration award is made public?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of initiatives that the regional district has asked us to look at. I think the one that has been out for public discussion has included legisla-

[ Page 3658 ]

tion that might spread the cost of legal fees or settlement out over a number of years. Work on that is going on within the ministry. There have been some other issues that they've asked us to examine. All those things are being looked at. They won't be proceeded with until there's been a thorough discussion with the regional district in terms of their impact and timing -- those sorts of things. I guess the answer that I'd like to impart to the member is: this is an extremely high priority within the ministry and will continue to be until this whole issue is resolved. Of any issues, pieces of legislation or work that needs to be done, this takes top priority at this time.

R. Thorpe: Yes, that's always been my understanding. I believe that the minister did make that commitment on Monday, March 10, in Naramata in front of about 800 residents. I think the minister also said that this was probably a case or a situation that would be studied for years to come and therefore would receive a great amount of attention, not only from him but all of his staff.

I guess one of the things that does concern me, though, is the feedback I get from the community. I know everyone's intentions are admirable, but many of the residents feel left out. They know they're going to be, for the most part, the people that get to pay the bills. As their elected representative here in Victoria, I guess I'd just like to have on the record some assurance to these folks that if and when negotiations take place, or arrangements or deals are contemplated, that we're doing it in some kind of an open process; that the people of Naramata -- the taxpayers, the ratepayers -- do feel part of what the final solution is; and that they're going to have the opportunity to give some input before whatever arrangements are finalized become final. Because I think the minister could agree, from his visit to Naramata on March 10 -- it was a very worthwhile visit and appreciated by the residents, and appreciated by the member -- that he did feel the stress and the tension in the community, and that we should all be working together to try to resolve that.

So I'd just like some comments from the minister on that.

[5:15]

I've said that clearly this is a priority for the ministry, it's a priority for myself and for the government, and that I am willing to do everything I can to try and help, to assist in things that need help, in giving perhaps a push where things need a push, but in doing everything I can. I said up there that I had some ideas, some views and some opinions. I said I would be extremely careful in what I said publicly because of the arbitration process going on. I intend to continue that. I said that I would work with the hon. member and try to keep him informed as much as I can. That is taking place.

If I could say anything to the residents of Naramata it is: you have not been forgotten. This is of extreme importance to me. I said at the time that I would be up there at the end if people wanted me to come up. If they want more information on what's taking place and why it's taking place, I will do that. I make that commitment again today.

I think that at the end of day things will be done in a very public and open way. And at the end of the day, whatever happens and whatever unfolds, I think that, insofar as a resolution is brought to something, the ability to find out why things happened the way they did, how things happened and why results came out the way they did will be public.

I think we are both working for a common goal, and I think that's going to continue. I don't think I've seen anything in my term as minister quite so challenging not only from a legal perspective and from the point of view of this having attained national recognition -- which it has done -- but also from that of the issues raised in terms of local communities, in terms of planning, in terms of local control over decision-making.

When I said up there that this case will be studied, I have no doubt that they will do courses on this. In fact, it relates directly to the questions the hon. member for Shuswap was raising about the function of these 286 improvement districts, because this is one particular case. Whatever happens in the outcome of this, there are bound to be some very important lessons. The member talked about not wanting to make the same mistake twice. I don't think either the government or a community can afford what happened here to happen again. That brings me back to one of the things we were talking about earlier, which is that I think we need to have a very thorough and open examination of the role of improvement districts throughout the province and see where these were going.

So that's probably a little more expansive answer than the member anticipated, but hopefully he will draw some satisfaction from that.

R. Thorpe: No, I didn't conclude that your answer was more than I was expecting, because, quite frankly, this is probably the most troubling issue that most people in Naramata have had to face in their lives. Therefore I don't believe that the answers can be long enough. I think what the people of Naramata would want out of this is to be dealt with fairly and equitably, and that's all they want. But they want to make sure. . . . I think one of the things that's come out of this is that they do want to be part of the final solution, whatever form that may take.

The minister was very good in coming on March 10, and I would hope, as the minister said, that they'll be doing no work between now and when the arbitration is concluded on this issue because of the legalities of it. Once that does happen, we can have meetings up in the area, up in Naramata, where we can put faces to the concerns, because that's when all the people, no matter who they represent, start to understand the sensitivities, instead of being down here in Victoria or in a lawyer's office in Vancouver, where there are no sensitivities -- or very few sensitivities.

I would hope that that's what we would do. I hope we would do it in a spirit of cooperation and partnership, and take the partisan stuff and put it over on the shelf and look after the people of Naramata. But I also think what the people of Naramata would want out of this is: how are you going to take this and put it into an action plan so that this mismanagement doesn't, through this comedy of errors and with the tremendous cost on this community and its citizens, happen in so many other areas? I think they'd want an action plan and 

[ Page 3659 ]

not just another study that's put on a shelf: we really didn't learn something from the Naramata experience. So I think they'd want that. I would appreciate some comment from the minister on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I totally agree with the hon. member's comments. To me, the key in this whole issue is, at the end of the day, that a very bad thing happened up in Naramata. It caused great heartache, anguish and uncertainty to the whole community. It has driven in a wedge, and it has ripped it apart in a way that I don't think I've seen another community in this province undergo.

I think part of what is required is for people to feel, at the end of the day, that they have been treated equitably and fairly, that they have been heard and that the solution, whatever it is, is a fair one.

Having said that, in cases like this, whether it is a human tragedy or a community tragedy, there is this question: how can we make sure this doesn't happen again, that another community does not go through what they have gone through? I think that is extremely important. One of things I want to see happen at the end of this is that we are almost immediately in a position that we are able to do that.

I want to assure the member that I don't envisage that what happens afterward -- particularly in terms of looking at these 286 improvement districts and at what happened at Naramata and how it applies to these other improvement districts -- is a study that sits on a shelf and gathers dust. Rather, we must do something that ensures (a) that it never happens again, and (b) that it results in a better way of delivering service, of bringing these particular improvement districts up to the standards that are required in the 1990s and beyond -- really going in and looking at what happened, how it happened and ensuring that it doesn't happen again.

If we do that, then, while it certainly doesn't compensate people for what they've gone through, I do think it does help to bring -- and I don't like the word -- closure. It does bring finality to something to know that it's not going to happen again, that changes have been made, and that you're in a position to go forward.

I'm committed to doing that. It's going to be a big undertaking but an extremely worthwhile one, and it's one that will get this ministry's and the government's full attention.

R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister for that comment. As we know and we've said earlier, this thing is before arbitration. The hearings will resume, I think, on June 9. It may be June 13, but it's in that range.

All I want is to make sure and once again put on the record that as we move forward and build a fair and equitable solution, the people of Naramata -- not the regional district but the people -- have confidence that you and I, the member who was elected for them and the minister who is responsible overall, can work together. You've given me that commitment privately, and I think it would be really appropriate for the people of Naramata to have the commitment that we're going to work together to build an equitable solution. For those that have to accept part of the blame, that's going to be part of the equitable solution, and that's part of fairness.

If I can get that commitment from the minister, I'm sure we can move on.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have no trouble making that commitment. We've been -- and I said it up in Naramata -- working well together, and I don't expect that to change. We've been working well down here. I'll be as forthcoming with information with the member as I can, and I think the people of Naramata are looking for cooperation and for government to be working well, from both a government and an opposition point of view. I think that has been happening and will continue to happen; I don't see that changing.

G. Abbott: The rest of my questions or comments in this area of improvement districts are not related to the situation in Naramata specifically but rather to some more broadly based issues.

When problems occur with respect to some function of an improvement district -- and, of course, it could be irrigation or water or whatever the heck it happens to be, depending on the basic function of that body -- is a MEVA a workable tool to set those things right, as it might be for a municipality or a regional district? Is a MEVA an option there, as it would be in more typical municipal situations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Notionally, the answer would be yes. The question then becomes: is the problem that's being addressed by a particular MEVA a common enough problem throughout a whole series. . . ? There are 286 of these things. If the problem is common to the 286, then a MEVA clearly is not appropriate. Maybe what's required is a sort of general legislative change that would apply to all 286 as they exist right now. It is a tool, but it's not the long-term solution.

[5:30]

Where we have a situation. . . . I don't want to relate it directly to Naramata, because I don't know what you're doing there. But where you have a situation where a grievous legal problem emerges because of the actions of an improvement district, could a MEVA be used, hypothetically at least, in that instance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it could. In fact, some of the requests that we've had would require MEVAs. So the answer would be yes.

G. Abbott: In terms of the process of sorting out where the government should go in its review of the statutory authority of improvement districts, one possibility is reference of this issue to the joint council. The one reason why one might not do that is that -- at least as I recall, and I think this is pretty clear -- the UBCM has no representation from those 286 improvement districts. As a consequence, they are not represented on the joint council, and perhaps it's not an appropriate way, at least in part, to have it included in the process of review. Is that a suggestion that has some merit, notwithstanding that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I certainly think there would be a role for the joint council. Clearly, the problems that the member has identified are valid ones. I would see the joint council playing a role on two fronts. One would be in an advisory capacity -- in terms of some of the issues that should be taken into account in doing a study or an inquiry or what have you, 

[ Page 3660 ]

in terms of looking at the overall picture. And then, certainly, any report that came back with recommendations or policy changes that would affect them or that might impact on local government. . . . Clearly, I would see a role there.

I think the main body of any change or of any work that needs to take place is clearly at this point in time a function of the ministry itself because of the very point that you raised, which is that they're not members of the UBCM. I mean, there's a significant sort of interlinking there, but they're also a step outside. If you're to get buy-in or solutions, you've got to recognize that. If you don't, you'd be getting off on the wrong foot.

G. Abbott: I don't often give advice to the minister on political issues, because, of course. . . . That's why he's on that side of the House, and I'm on this one. We're thrust into somewhat different roles in this particular business. It would seem to me, though -- and here we go; I'm providing it -- that in large measure, the eventual solution to the problem of the proliferation of improvement districts over time is to see many of them, at least, folded in under the authority of regional districts in some way. In terms of preparing the ground for the future resolution of this problem and perhaps as a way of getting a whole range of ideas about how to deal with this problem, it might be very much appropriate for the minister to throw this out as a challenge at UBCM: how can we deal with this situation?

I think there are two sides to the thing. There are improvement districts that very jealously guard their authority vis-�-vis regional districts. But there are also regional districts that are not particularly enamoured of the prospect of either being forced or otherwise to take on improvement districts. So in terms of the resolution of this thing, it might be wise politically to generate discussion around this question, particularly at UBCM and perhaps particularly on the electoral area day or portion of the UBCM discussion.

I think this is a very important issue and one that's probably not going to be resolved quickly. But in the interests of avoiding Naramata-like situations, it's one that should get underway probably as soon as possible, at least in terms of gathering some of the ideas that might prove fruitful down the line. I'd welcome the minister's comments as to whether my gratuitous political advice here has any merit.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It has a great deal of merit. Clearly any solution is going to have to have input from the UBCM and its members. I think the member has raised some excellent points that will certainly be taken into account in how we tackle this problem.

G. Abbott: There was -- at least, the last time I looked -- a section of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that was pretty much devoted to the affairs of improvement/water/irrigation districts across the province. Could the minister refresh my memory as to whether the role of that particular section of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is devoted largely or exclusively to the financial arrangements of that portion of the ministry? Or is there a broader monitoring role of that section of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is a general bylaw advice component, a specific financial component, as well as an engineering function.

G. Abbott: That having been said, that those are the three aspects of the improvement district section of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the improvement districts are by and large free to make their own decisions about essentially local matters -- whether a water system is going to be extended to take in a new development or not, that kind of thing; I guess this really goes back to the question asked by the member for Okanagan West. These are local bodies elected to make local decisions. And rightly, they are making them -- correctly, I think, probably most of the time. On occasion we may hear of where the decisions have been ill-advised. But nevertheless, elections exist for the purpose of putting people in place to do that. So I don't think we need to go into that any further.

The one area where it strikes me that the ministry may have a role, though. . . . This may be part of the eventual solution with respect to improvement districts. Or it may be something which, just in the interim, is a way in which we try to avoid Naramata-like situations. That's the question of how we ensure that the regional district's official community plan or land use plan or zoning is in conformity -- or relative conformity -- with a local water district's or improvement district's assessment of its ability to provide those services to that area.

Again, to go back to the Naramata situation, we have a situation where. . . . We don't know yet. Staff's not clear on whether OSRD had a planning program in place for that area when the decision about the provision of water was made. But I can certainly imagine that in many of the 286 instances we're talking about there probably are, on the one side, regional district land use plans and, on the other side, perhaps rather different assessments of the ability to provide services. Is there any way that those two levels of government can be encouraged to ensure that those two things are working in harmony, rather than creating these kinds of situations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the key word the hon. member has used is the word "encourage," because with 286 -- or 285. . . . It's kind of hard to police it all. That comes back to. . . . There's a couple of points I want to make. The first is local authorities making local decisions. That's what happens most of the time. Sometimes they don't make the right decision, and that's what we talked about the other day. It means government does make mistakes from time to time.

Having said that, I think the problems we're discussing here in terms of growth, official community plans and the capacity for one area to handle something or to plan for something, and an improvement district. . . . Either it's beyond their scope or it's outside what they envision as happening in their local area in terms of provision of service. I think those are the types of questions that we need to get answered. What is the role of improvement districts? How do they fit in the overall picture today as the regional districts take on greater functions in terms of growth management? We're seeing tremendous growth in areas where there are a high number of improvement districts, particularly in the Okanagan and the interior. Those types of questions are key in terms of where we go from here. It seems to me that you're only going to get more conflicts or more problems as time goes on, as opposed to fewer. There are pressures there now that weren't there 20 or 30 or 50 years ago when these forms of local government were set up.

G. Abbott: I agree; that's precisely why I'm making the suggestion. I don't see it, hon. Chair, as a matter of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs saying: "Thou shalt do this." I think that perhaps one of the useful things that can come out of our painfully learned lessons about Naramata is that regional 

[ Page 3661 ]

districts and improvement districts should be encouraged to ensure that there is a good match between where both of them are going and that they should be talking about where each is going relative to their areas of authority. There is increasing pressure for land use development, particularly in the Okanagan and the Shuswap, and many other areas of the province are seeing this. In many of those areas we see one or more of those 286 bodies that we've been talking about. I want to leave it at that.

[5:45]

At any rate, I'm happy enough to leave the waterworks district. I'm certainly satisfied -- obviously, I have to be satisfied -- that you're well aware of problems surrounding the continued existence of these, and I hope the ministry is successful in achieving the herculean task of finding a solution to Naramata in the short term that will satisfy the parties there.

I also hope the ministry is successful, in the probably somewhat longer term, in finding alternative models that might take the place of the 286 improvement districts. In many cases I suspect they are other accidents that are waiting to happen. There is a problem that exists there in terms of the relative authority of these bodies, and it needs to be addressed. I'm satisfied that the ministry is proceeding in a responsible fashion to do that.

Given the hour, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and beg leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

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