[ Page 3815 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the benefit of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the benefit of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

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

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

S. Hawkins: Before we left, we were talking about the B.C. Cancer Agency. I know one of the members brought up a constituency issue. I just want to get back to the BCCA. I understand that the B.C. Cancer Agency now is running under the auspices of the Vancouver-Richmond health board. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're a cluster under the health board, yes.

S. Hawkins: I understand that an envelope of money will be going to the Vancouver-Richmond health board for the BCCA. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: I just want to get it clear in my mind. When this envelope of money passes to the Vancouver-Richmond health board, will it be passed directly to the BCCA to administer? Or does the Vancouver-Richmond health board have some say in how that money will be spent?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The funding is protected. It's through a performance contract with the Vancouver-Richmond health board. We hold the health board accountable for performance, but the funds are protected.

S. Hawkins: That's encouraging to hear. I know that cancer services are provided outside the B.C. Cancer Agency, as well. There are hospitals that operate, and certainly there are pediatric cancer services in acute care facilities.

I think there was a worry at one time that the funding would go to the Vancouver-Richmond health board and then be opened and distributed. So if the BCCA's funding will go directly to the board and be passed over as an envelope, that is encouraging to hear.

Getting back to hospital funding just for a moment, I want to get it clear in my mind, because I know -- and the minister pointed out -- that I mixed up the capital and operating costs. I understand that $72 million, then, was budgeted for capital costs in this budget year. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, we need more clarification.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For acute care capital?

S. Hawkins: Capital equipment.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, capital equipment. No -- $40 million.

S. Hawkins: Sorry, I did have that mixed up. Forty million dollars is going to acute care for capital equipment. Can we just have an inventory of where that $40 million is going? Does the minister have that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're just getting the information from staff, which will be here shortly. If you want to move on to another question, we'll get it.

S. Hawkins: That was the capital equipment funding.

Has the ministry given any thought -- I know that the regional health boards are probably talking about it; certainly acute care was talking about it -- to multi-year budget cycles for health care provider organizations? We know that municipalities plan that way, on a five-year budget plan. I'm wondering if the ministry is encouraging that or if there has been discussion around this so that there's better planning, so that needs are identified on a longer-term basis.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is four- and five-year planning for capital expenditure, but on operating expenditure we're still subject to the Legislature approving annual budgets. However, I have had discussions with health care organizations, both on the continuing-care side and the acute care side, who suggested that greater certainty. . .not even necessarily increases, but certainty and stability mean as much as increases. They have asked for a multi-year budgeting process. Certainly I'm open to it, as is the ministry. So we are discussing it with them, but it is always, in a way . . . not hamstrung, but the parameters are always set by annual budget passage in the Legislature.

S. Hawkins: Whenever I toured hospitals -- and I think I mentioned this before -- one of the major concerns was capital equipment and the disintegration of capital equipment. Does the ministry have a plan to permit hospitals to provide funding for ongoing capital equipment? I think the BCHA mentioned that something like 3 percent of operating costs go toward maintaining capital equipment. Is there a plan for that?

[6:45]

On the issue of funding capital equipment out of operating, if a hospital is running a surplus, they can spend up to 3 percent of their operating costs on capital equipment. We've also asked the funding methodology committee to look at this whole issue of capital equipment funding. They basically do the funding formulas for operating, but we have asked them to look at capital equipment funding issues and to make recommendations to us.

[ Page 3816 ]

S. Hawkins: There was also a lot of talk -- I know the Premier talks about this in other ministries -- about private-public partnerships. Is there dialogue going on in the ministry on any private-public partnership -- the three p's -- with respect to capital equipment funding for institutions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's not part of an announcement that arose out of the capital review, because the capital review is buildings -- bricks and mortar -- funding. We have asked the funding methodology committee that we initiated internally in our own ministry to examine that issue and make recommendations to us.

S. Hawkins: On that specific issue, I understand, and I know the minister is aware, that quite a significant endowment -- I believe it's up to $1 million or $800,000 -- is sitting in a bank account in Duncan from a benefactor there. I haven't asked yet what the wait-lists on the different machines are, but we know that they are quite high in Nanaimo, and we know that there was a CAT scanner funded for the North Island. Is there any dialogue going on with the hospital, then? They do have almost $1 million sitting in a bank account for a CAT scanner for that area. Is there any communication with respect to a public-private partnership for that money for that purpose?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we're well aware of this situation. The vendor has offered a private-public partnership for 48 months, but they want the $1.2 million that the hospital has available. The CT workload in the Cowichan Valley isn't sufficient enough to justify an investment of that magnitude. We've put a new CT scanner in Victoria and one in Nanaimo. It is expected that those CT scanners will fully pick up the excess workload of the Cowichan Valley. At the end of the day, the novel proposal by the Picker company really just defers the need to address the annual operating costs.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell us what the wait-list is now for CT scanners on the Island in the different scanner areas?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't have the wait-list information here, but we'll get it.

S. Hawkins: When will the CT scanner for the North Island be operational? Perhaps it is already. What is the area that it will cover?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The hospital just submitted today their plans for renovation, so that is proceeding on course. We expect that within the next few months it will actually be fully operational. Both hospitals that were under selection needed to renovate, and they're proceeding with that now.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the hospital in Campbell River has been selected. I know the communities aren't that far apart. Can we just get an explanation from the minister of how that decision was made and what factors Campbell River had over St. Joseph's in Comox?

Hon. J. MacPhail: A consultation committee of two reps from each community was appointed: Comox; Waddington, the north part; and Campbell River. They had a report done, and based on the report, the review committee made the decision that they would put the CT scanner in Campbell River. The consultants' report was neutral in terms of the cost and the access. What was taken into account were the future considerations, the catchment area for future demographics and also travel times for the people who are the least accessible in terms of the northern Island.

S. Hawkins: In terms of the types of work both hospitals do, were they comparable as far as the number of specialists that were going to be using the machine? Will there be new staff hired for Campbell River, or are there existing staff there who know how to operate the CT scanner?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The report indicated that speciality services in both communities were equal. Both hospitals now have undertaken a commitment to making the training available across the board in both hospitals, although Campbell River has a radiologist who can use the machine now. But the other staff of both hospitals have made a commitment to do the training for staff beyond the Campbell River specialist who can use it now.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the other community, the one that got left out, is still advocating for a scanner for their hospital. Has the ministry been in communication with them? And what are the results? Are there any plans in the future for that hospital to get a CT scanner as well?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm told that the community, Comox, has said they're going to make a submission for a scanner. We have not received it. Certainly the CT scanner that will be in place in Campbell River will be used only at 50 percent capacity for the entire community catchment area. So it is unlikely that a submission would be acceptable that would incorporate another scanner in a community where the current one will only be used at 50 percent capacity. But that's not to preclude the submission, although we have not received one yet.

S. Hawkins: For patients who need scans, who will have to transfer back and forth from hospital to hospital, I understand, before they come all the way down here. . . . Have those costs been taken into account, as far as ambulance transfers and costs of transferring patients from hospital to hospital for this test?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The inter-hospital costs that are for ambulance transfer have not been. . . . They are part of the ambulance budget, but almost 90 percent of patient work is through. . . . They get themselves there. It's out-patient work.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister has that breakdown of the capital equipment budget yet.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a total of $40,061,884 for acute care hospital equipment grants. Over $10 million is for a global equipment grant. We are initiating group purchase initiatives with hospitals that we'll spend $25 million on. We've been very successful in getting significant discounts in group purchase initiatives. And then there's $5 million in capital equipment for provincial initiatives.

As I said earlier, we have received the proposals from the hospitals, and now the funding methodology committee will look at how. . . . The first step is the starting base -- the base operating contributions. Then they'll look at prorating according to the available funding. That's the $10,061,000.

That global equipment grant represents 60 percent of the gross cost of the equipment, and it is intended to replace 

[ Page 3817 ]

equipment only for those programs which are approved and which are supported by the regional health boards or community health councils, or by acute and continuing-care initiatives.

The group purchase initiatives. . . . The hospitals were asked and have submitted their updated five-year equipment plans for equipment costing over $100,000, and we are now reviewing those to identify where the group purchase opportunities are across the individual hospitals' five-year equipment proposals.

The provincial initiatives are equipment that supports provincial referral programs, and that's funded 100 percent by the Ministry of Health.

S. Hawkins: There was also a CAT scanner that was bought for Dawson Creek, and I'm wondering when that one will be up and operational.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's on the same time line, but the renovation is more substantial in Dawson Creek. They've submitted it and they're starting that. But I expect that may take until the fall.

S. Hawkins: I believe there were seven CAT scanners purchased at the same time. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: I believe GE was the successful candidate. Is that correct -- General Electric?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[7:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ministry issued a request for proposal to all manufacturers of CT scanners. They all replied, and then their proposals were judged against a specific list of criteria. A shortlist was created, and then, literally after that, negotiations proceeded on the best price.

S. Hawkins: Was it a closed tendering process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the RFP -- the request for proposal -- went out to every single manufacturer of CT scanners. So no, it wasn't closed; it was available to everyone.

S. Hawkins: Just so I don't forget to ask this, I'm wondering if the minister can provide us with the wait-list for the CT scanners in the province and the MRI wait-list, as well, in the province.

Because the hospital funding formula still confuses me -- and I beg for the minister's patience on this. . . . The minister explained a very complicated formula, and the formula had different factors that could be weighted by specific determinants in the catchment area, I guess, that the hospital would service. When those weight factors are fed into this formula, are they the same -- given the same weight at the same time? Or are they weighted differently for different hospitals?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is a weighted-case workload model, so it's applied to each hospital differently. There's the provincial utilization rates, and as a result of the provincial utilization rates, which are. . .well, I'm sure the hon. member knows what those are, a provincial average cost per weighted case is determined and then the formula is applied to the individual hospital's ranking according to the average cost per weighted case. And there are incentives to hospitals for improved utilization management and increased efficiencies.

So there's an incentive for improvement. And hospitals where there is a higher utilization rate. . . . Sorry. Yes: higher utilization rate doesn't benefit to the same extent where hospitals have a utilization rate below the provincial average. So the methodology is applied on an individual hospital basis.

S. Hawkins: The same factors are not applied to each hospital, then. It seems to me that. . . . I mean, how does the ministry decide which factors to use in the formula for each individual hospital?

When I travelled up north, I was told that in the Cariboo there is a high suicide rate, a high low-birthweight rate, and a high drug-and-alcohol addiction rate. They felt that these factors weren't taken into consideration for their hospital funding, yet they have to deal with those kinds of problems. That's why I'm trying to get a sense of this formula and whether it treats everybody fairly. It seems to me that we can pick and choose which factors we're going to apply, and give them which weight we want to, to decide how much funding a hospital is going to get.

Is there a move towards using a more fair, more equitable funding formula? Is there a move towards using the same factors with a given weight base, so that every institution is treated fairly?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it's interesting. Virtually every hospital that I go to, as well, has a question about the application of the. . . . Well, not every one; that's not true. But there are lots of examples where hospitals think that they have specific needs. The funding methodology committee gets that information all the time, deals with it and incorporates as best as possible the appeal for a special needs calculation. That is taken into account in the funding methodology committee. It's a very complex exercise.

I would be more than happy to have the industry members of the funding methodology committee meet with the member, or she can attend one of their meetings. It's a very complex but quite open process. The member gets a balanced view between the ministry's representatives on the committee and the industry representatives on the committee as well. But the requests for special consideration are ongoing throughout the years.

S. Hawkins: I will take the minister up on that offer, if it's still extended after these estimates.

I have some specific questions now, the first one pertaining to the Comox Valley Nursing Centre. Is there staff here to answer that? The first question I have is that we know now that the Comox Valley Nursing Centre will receive annual funding. That's my understanding. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Its funding has been continued until the end of fiscal year 1998, I believe. I'll get that for sure. But after that, it's up to the community health council to decide on allocation.

S. Hawkins: If the minister has the information, I'm just wondering how much annual funding, up to 1998, this institution will get.

[ Page 3818 ]

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: That's fine.

I understand there was a review done of this centre. I believe it was a couple of years ago, or even longer. Now that there has been a decision made to extend the funding, was there a review done before this funding was extended? If so, would the minister share that review with us? If not, what kind of outcome measurements are there for this centre to show that they are effecting positive patient outcomes for patients that use their centre?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The answer to all of those questions is yes, a review has been done, etc. But for the details of it, the staff is not present, so I'll have to take that question on notice.

S. Hawkins: Then I'll just throw in a few more for Hansard, if the minister can get back to us on that.

I understand that the centre recently underwent extensive renovations as well. I think the funding for the centre was first granted in 1993. It was a two-year demonstration project, and it has been extended. I'm just wondering how much the renovations cost and what was renovated. The centre just seems to be two to three years old, unless it's an older building. Could the minister advise us of that?

The senior staff at the centre -- who are they, and what is the salary of the senior members? If the minister can get us that information, I'd appreciate that.

At this time, since we were talking about waiting lists for cancer treatment and MRI and some of the others, I wonder if we can move on to waiting lists for cardiac surgery. That certainly has been a topic of concern over the past year. I've said before that some of the saddest letters I get are from patients who are waiting on cardiac surgery lists, and I know that those lists have grown. The minister has promised a substantial amount of money for reducing or alleviating those lists and a plan, I understand, to give a report card. The minister alluded to it earlier this afternoon. They're working on a plan with specialists, I understand, not only for cancer biopsy surgery but I hope for some kind of coordinated strategic plan for cardiac surgery. I wonder if the minister can comment on how that's evolving.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're verifying the wait-lists right now; there's a full audit going on. As of March 1997, which was prior to the audit, there were approximately 510 patients. There was a rise of approximately 100 patients recorded in April 1997 as a result of cardiac surgeons at St. Paul's Hospital having not entered patients on the cardiac waiting list. As a result of this, the provincial advisory panel has asked all physicians to conduct a full audit of the wait-list to ensure its completeness and its validity. As we speak, the panel is also developing criteria for prioritizing patients according to medical need and developing some optional triaging system for patients to access more timely care by broadening the choice of hospital and surgeon.

That's what I was addressing earlier on with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. The physicians themselves are developing this protocol. But at the end of the day, it will be patient choice about whether the patient wishes to move from hospital or from surgeon. This is to deal with the issue that some physicians have shorter wait-lists than others.

We will be providing 3,200 coronary angioplastic procedures in 1997-98. Part of the information that we receive from the cardiac care advisory panel will form the quarterly reports that the ministry will be issuing on wait-lists. We're expecting the audits to be completed very shortly.

[7:15]

Is there a plan? Because the minister says 3,000 angioplasties will be done this year. If the list grows at the rate it is and it keeps on that way, that's just going to handle the backlog to last March. Is there a plan, then, besides tracking how many people are on the wait-list and finding a system to integrate them all? Is there a plan to actually reduce the list by giving more resources? My understanding is that there aren't the intensive care beds and there aren't the staff and there aren't the operating rooms to do these procedures.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to reiterate why it's important that we manage these issues carefully. . . . Yes, the wait-list will probably remain the same or, as in other provinces, increase rapidly, because that's what happens with an aging population. The important factor is: how do we manage that increasing wait-list in terms of the time that people have to wait for the surgery?

In our province the approach we have taken is. . . . On the angioplasty procedures the wait-list remains virtually unchanged over the last four years, even though the population has expanded and there is a very short waiting time for angioplasty procedures. Cardiac surgery: the wait-lists are approximately the same as they were last year, which means that there are more people needing cardiac surgery. What we've done is maintain the wait-list. The statistic we're focusing on is how quickly, no matter what the size of the wait-list, people are receiving their surgery. There's no way we can control the number of people that need heart surgery -- that's what happens when the demographics change. So our focus is on the length of time people have to wait for surgery.

For instance, in '95-96 there were 2,690 adult open-heart surgeries. This year we'll be doing 2,950 open-heart surgeries -- an expansion of almost 300. Even with that expansion, we are still maintaining that 75 percent -- a statistic; I apologize to the families for taking a statistical approach, but I do understand that there's a patient behind each one of these numbers -- continue to be treated within 12 weeks, and 95 percent receive their surgery in under six months. And, of course, that's where the doctor has determined that it's not an emergency case, which would be done without delay. So that's how we're managing our wait-lists, and that's how we fund the wait-lists.

S. Hawkins: The cardiology panel that follows the wait-list had developed guidelines for how long patients ideally should wait. Can the minister inform us, then, about the different categories, from emergency to urgent to elective? How long, on average, do the ministry statistics say patients are waiting?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The cardiac care advisory panel does a complex assessment that basically categorizes patients' illnesses 

[ Page 3819 ]

into six or seven categories. The first assessment is for emergency surgery that requires immediate attention. Then the assessment is done on the basis of whether it is a procedure that needs to be done within six hours. The next one is 72 hours. The next assessments are: does it need to be done within six weeks, six months or over six months? Each patient is assessed for which classification their illness falls under.

S. Hawkins: On average, then -- because we have heard of patients waiting an inordinate amount of time -- in what amount of time, for each category, are patients having to wait in the province, according to the ministry's statistics? I hope the ministry is keeping statistics on this.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The waiting times are for the surgeries that aren't needed within six weeks. It's for the categories of "elective for six months" or "over six months" that the waiting times are as I listed. The provincial advisory panel -- this is part of the audit that's being conducted right now -- is determining whether its assessment tools are accurate for all categories.

S. Hawkins: How much is being budgeted to set up this plan and to deal with this issue and get it coordinated and integrated so we do have a plan? Is there a budget to assist this review?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have money incorporated into the base budget for surgery such as this; we made that announcement earlier. But the cardiac care provincial advisory panel also makes recommendations about when money needs to be infused over and above the base funding. I know this has been interpreted as us lurching from pillar to post in a crisis way. But, in fact, the advice that we receive from the panel is: due to the particular demographics of a population that exists at this moment, it's recommended that, for this particular period of time, you infuse X number of dollars.

Those recommendations come to us periodically. They're not recommended to be incorporated into the base budget. For instance, in November of '96 the panel recommended that $1 million was needed for cardiac surgery, and we funded that. They made a recommendation that a further $3.3 million was needed in February of this year; we did that. We also allocated $1.25 million at the same time for coronary angioplasty. They will continue to make recommendations to us for what periodic funding is recommended over and above the base funding. The base funding is for 2,950 patients to receive open-heart surgery and for 3,300 coronary angioplasty procedures to be completed.

S. Hawkins: How many cardiac surgery centres are in the province, and where are they located?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are five centres that do cardiac surgery. One is at Children's Hospital; the other four are for adult surgeries at Royal Columbian Hospital, Royal Jubilee Hospital, St. Paul's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital.

S. Hawkins: How many surgeries are each funded for?

Hon. J. MacPhail: St. Paul's Hospital is funded for 1,100 surgeries; Vancouver Hospital for 770 surgeries; Royal Jubilee for 575 surgeries; Royal Columbian Hospital for 475 surgeries; and Children's, over and above that, does approximately 200 surgeries.

S. Hawkins: When the $1 million was allocated in November 1996, I understand that it wasn't used up right away. How long did it take for that $1 million to be used up? I know the minister has allocated another few million for the cardiac surgery wait-list. Again, I want to know how long it takes to get all those patients in, to use up that money.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was funded from December '96, to be used to the end of the fiscal year, and it was used during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

S. Hawkins: Patients are put on a waiting list. I wonder if there are statistics kept on how many patients do not survive waiting on that waiting list.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Statistics are kept on the people who die while on the wait-list -- not the cause of death, just death occurring. That statistic has remained constant at about 0.5 percent over the last few years. Again, I apologize to the patients for. . . . I know we should just make it generic, but it must be awkward for patients who hear this. It has remained at about 0.5 percent, without the cause of death being labelled. . .just people dying. That's the same statistic nationally and internationally, and the statistic for death related to surgery is between 2 and 5 percent.

S. Hawkins: Have we compared our wait-list to other provinces? How do we rank?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Alberta's wait-list, for two-thirds of the population of British Columbia, is approximately 600. For Ontario, whose population is three times the size, their wait-list is about 1,800.

[7:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm advised that the cardiac care panel has not made that link at all. So no, we have not been advised of this medical information.

S. Hawkins: I have been speaking to some medical experts. The information that I will pass on is that there is no research done, obviously. Perhaps that is something the ministry does want to look into, because it seems to me that it coordinates with when the reference basing was done and the list started growing, if it was a year ago. So I'm passing that information on, and that is something we certainly will be watching.

I know that the cardiologists and heart specialists were not happy that these drugs were reference-based. They want to provide their patients with the best possible treatment, and there is some concern that perhaps the drugs might have something to do with the surgery being required sooner. That may be a factor to look at when the waiting list is growing and 

[ Page 3820 ]

patients are being added onto a cardiac surgery waiting list that could have perhaps been treated by a very, very simple drug that has been used for years to control heart conditions.

I am going to defer now to one of my colleagues.

D. Symons: I have some concerns about wait-lists at Richmond General Hospital as well. When you were talking about the wait-lists, I heard a number compared to Alberta and Ontario. I'm confused a little bit by that, because I was speaking to a doctor at Richmond General Hospital, and he indicated that their wait-lists were around 1,200. I assume that must mean everybody for every type of procedure in the hospital, because compared to the figures you gave, we have more in Richmond than you have in the rest of the province. I heard a comment about that figure, but you also said that that figure has remained fairly constant over the last four or five years and would vary a couple of hundred one way or the other.

He talked also about the fact that in order to meet its budget, the hospital basically had what they called corporate days and also had extended summer closures. These were necessary so that it could meet its budget. Also, the elective surgery was down for all of August and most of July -- again, to save money, and I think also to utilize the beds in the best way possible. They would sort of put their surgery together when the staffing was full.

Just last week they were given an increase in funding of about $210,000, I believe, for bringing down those wait-lists. I think a new budget letter went out to the hospital last week on that particular item. Working out the costs, as this person did for me, he indicated that now Richmond has basically 5-2/5 operating rooms, and this will add three-fifths of an operating room to their operating time, which he didn't feel would make much of a dent in the wait-list.

I wonder if you might first confirm that the information I've been given is somewhat correct, and then we'll carry on from there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples. We had been talking about the cardiac surgery list, and there are four hospitals. Richmond General Hospital doesn't perform cardiac surgery. We can certainly, if the. . . . Was this a CEO? They can share a detailed budget letter for the Richmond General Hospital with you, if you wish. I'm sure we can make it available, as well; it's a public document.

Certainly the funding methodology committee takes into account the utilization needs of the hospital, how they compare with hospitals elsewhere in the province, and they're funded accordingly. That is taken into account in the funding formula, and it's interesting to note that they did receive an increase.

I'll just say this once, because I know these summer bed closures and corporate days come up all the time. I know that this is not well received by the opposition, but summer bed closures occur every year as part of the normal operations of a hospital. They didn't start with NDP, and they didn't start with a Social Credit government. They're as a result of physicians and staff taking vacation. All urgent and emergency services are provided as usual, and in no way are our summer bed closures used as a budgeting tool. They're not related to the operational funding changes or budget strategies in any way.

D. Symons: Except for the last, we were in agreement with what I've been told, more or less.

I wonder if the minister can just clear up one thing, because I gather this $210,000 they talked about was for giving more operating room opportunities -- the staffing, the operating nurses, and so forth. But I also gather that that $210,000 is simply for that purpose only and that it does not go toward physicians' costs in working with the backlog. I wonder if the minister might confirm that that's correct.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Physicians are funded out of the Medical Services Plan budget.

D. Symons: And for certain procedures there is a cap on the amount of spending that could go for that particular procedure out of the Medical Services Plan. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Part of the agreement reached with the B.C. Medical Association on the Medical Services Plan budget is that there would be a cap.

D. Symons: Therefore if you've increased the funding for more space in the operating room, you've increased that funding but you've put a cap on, let's say, cardiac or orthopedic surgery. If a given doctor has reached that cap, then there doesn't seem to be much incentive for that doctor to take more cases on to reduce the wait-list. Would that be correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Medical Services Plan budget was increased by 2.4 percent this year, which is equivalent to the hospitals' increase, but it's not an individual cap per doctor. The cap is $1.5 billion. The cap is increased this year, but it's a higher cap now.

D. Symons: If the cap has been there and you've increased it, then I assume that the cap has always been reached in the past -- the number of procedures that had to be performed under that cap in the past years. Therefore it would seem that the wait-lists are somewhat affected by that cap, as well as operating room time, possibly. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The cap is negotiated with the BCMA to take into account all increases and changes in utilization, so the waiting times are not affected by the Medical Services Plan budget.

B. Penner: As my colleague from Richmond Centre mentioned, I also have some concerns related to heart surgery waiting lists as they relate to my constituency.

Specifically, I'm going to begin by addressing the matter of one particular individual whom I've already written to the minister about. I have received a reply from the minister, and I thank her for that. That concerns an individual who has been waiting, as of today, just about 16 months for heart surgery -- surgery which at least one of his doctors described as quite urgent more than a month ago. Being a new member of the House, only elected last year, this has been my first opportunity to get to know something about the whole procedure that people in medical need go through when they're waiting to obtain the necessary heart surgery that their doctors recommend.

I'll just go through some of the chronology as I have learned it through the various doctors who have been involved. I'm taking this opportunity to raise it, because I'd like to get a response from the minister about what, in her view, could have been improved upon in the chronology that I'm about to relate. It appears to me that something fell 

[ Page 3821 ]

through the cracks. I don't have enough experience dealing with matters related to heart surgery to know where the process went off the rails, but I will begin.

Before I go any further, I will indicate for the record that I do have permission from the gentleman involved to use his name publicly. Because he's quite concerned about the present state of health care in British Columbia, he's quite willing to use his name publicly, if that will in some way help other patients who are in the same situation as he is -- that is, needing heart surgery.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

The individual I'm referring to is a Mr. John Watt, now living in an area known as Yarrow, which is essentially a neighbourhood close to Chilliwack. Mr. Watt is 68 years old, as of this month, and is a retired engineering inspector from the city of Richmond. A couple of years ago they moved to the upper Fraser Valley, and in the spring of 1995 Mr. John Watt experienced heart problems. Because of those problems, he went in for tests. By August of 1995 things had progressed to where he had angioplasty.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. member, I say this with the greatest of respect: you have permission from the patient, do you, to release these details?

B. Penner: Yes. I thank the minister for her caution also. I do view this in a cautious way, so I did get specific permission, not only from him but from his wife, to raise this matter publicly because of their concerns for other people who are also waiting for heart surgery.

By August 10, 1995, matters had progressed to where he had angioplasty surgery performed by a cardiologist in Vancouver, a Dr. I.M. Penn. Further tests were required. By October of 1995 Mr. Watt was referred to a Dr. Moscovich. By November 29, 1995, a further angiogram was performed, this time by Dr. Moscovich. Follow-up tests showed that more extensive surgery could possibly be required.

At that time Dr. Moscovich referred this gentleman, John Watt, to a heart surgeon in Vancouver by the name of Dr. Janusz. By February 21, 1996, John Watt finally got to see the heart surgeon, Dr. Janusz, in Vancouver. I'm told that at that time Dr. Janusz determined that John Watt would require heart surgery to repair a heart valve, as well as surgery to remove a partial blockage of the carotid artery in his neck, as well as surgery to correct a previous bypass procedure. That was February 21, 1996, when Dr. Janusz determined that all of those forms of surgery were required for John Watt.

[7:45]

On April 30, 1997 -- and they were still waiting for surgery -- I was contacted by this couple because of the concern at the extensive delay that they have been facing in obtaining heart surgery. Specifically, what provoked Norma Watt to call me -- it was actually his wife who initially called my office -- were the ads that she said she saw on television, with the Minister of Health claiming, among other things, that heart surgery waiting lists in British Columbia had been reduced. This made both her and her husband quite upset. It was based upon that, they say, that they contacted my office. As soon as I could, I wrote a number of letters to the doctors involved, as well as to the Minister of Health. I'm now told that Mr. Watt will be having his surgery sometime this week. That makes it about 16 months, unless I'm counting wrong, since he was initially told that surgery would be required.

One of the doctors who has been treating Mr. Watt -- a Dr. G.R. Grills of Chilliwack, who is a specialist in internal medicine -- wrote to me on April 21, 1997, and told me that in his opinion, Mr. Watt has "quite critical disease, and I wanted to touch base with you to ensure that everything possible is being done to speed up his surgery." He also refers in the letter to the fact that Mr. Watt's way of coping with his ever-increasing medical problems has been to, essentially, adopt a "sedentary lifestyle, and simply not provoking attacks by essentially doing nothing." Mr. Watt's wife, Norma, confirms that her husband has become increasingly more sedentary over the last 15 or 16 months while waiting for his heart surgery. It's as though more than a year of his life has been put on hold, and perhaps lost forever, because of the delay in obtaining heart surgery.

What makes me curious is that after simply a few letters to a number of doctors involved -- I've mentioned a Dr. Moscovich; Dr. Janusz, the surgeon; as well as Dr. Grills, the internist in Chilliwack; as well as a Dr. Hopkins, who I believe is the general practitioner for the family in Chilliwack -- within a couple weeks, suddenly then a date for his heart surgery was finally confirmed -- that being, as I said, for sometime this week.

This being my first exposure to the process of obtaining heart surgery in the province, I was quite taken aback at what seems to me to have been an individual somehow falling through the cracks and people kind of forgetting about him until this gentleman's wife decided to take matters into her own hands and raise the profile. I'm wondering if the minister can comment on whether this is a typical situation. If not, then what, perhaps, might have gone wrong in the case of Mr. Watt?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's not typical at all. As we discussed earlier, over 95 percent of people in British Columbia get their heart surgery within six months. That's not a statistic that the ministry keeps, it's a statistic that the hospitals keep. So it is highly unusual.

I am certainly willing to take this matter. . . . If you wish further explanation of the correspondence that the patient received or you received, I'd be more than happy to have my staff go through it with you. It sounds to me, just from the physicians talking here, that I couldn't possibly give you medical advice. These decisions are medically based. I can't imagine that the member is intimating anything else, but I would be more than happy to have the staff go through it with either the patient -- if the letter isn't satisfactory -- or yourself.

B. Penner: I did receive a letter from the minister with respect to Mr. Watt, dated May 21, 1997, simply confirming what we had learned, which was that Mr. Watt would be scheduled for surgery this week. There was no explanation in her letter of that date of why it took 15 to 16 months for him to eventually receive his surgery -- if in fact he does make it into the surgery room this week and the surgery is not delayed for some other reason.

I note the minister's comments that 95 percent of the cases are resolved in six months, in terms of the heart waiting 

[ Page 3822 ]

list. However, just last week another case came to my attention, again involving a local constituent. Again, I'll preface my remarks by saying that I have permission from the gentleman, as well as from his wife, to raise their case publicly in the interest, again, of trying to find out what is happening to our health care system.

The case that I'm referring to this time is the case of a 75-year-old gentleman by the name of Hilton Plain, of Chilliwack. He has been waiting since September 1996 for heart surgery. I was contacted by the Plains late last month and told that, again, his health has been deteriorating. The longer he waits. . . . His wife tells me that he is shorter of breath and has less energy than he did last fall when initially diagnosed as requiring heart surgery.

I just spoke to Mr. Plain this evening. He tells me that he's going in for further tests tomorrow -- I believe it's called an echogram -- but as of this very moment, no date has been assigned for him to receive a surgery, and he has been waiting since September 1996. The doctors involved in treating Mr. Plain include a doctor of internal medicine, Dr. MacFayden; he practises in Chilliwack. The surgeon who has diagnosed Mr. Plain as requiring the heart surgery is a Dr. Lawrence Burr of Vancouver. As well, there's a Dr. V. Bernstein, who has been involved in Vancouver; I believe he's a cardiologist and has been involved in the treatment of Mr. Plain.

What gives me concern here is that it is, again, another example where I'm being told that this person's health has definitely deteriorated since the time he was diagnosed as requiring the heart surgery. Yet, as I said, as of today he still has not been scheduled for a specific date. Speaking to him tonight. . . . He's trying to be quite understanding, and by no means is he demanding that he jump the queue. But he's just curious about what is happening to our health care system, where people such as he are left waiting for this period of time. For the minister's information, I'm told that he needs surgery to repair a valve -- I believe it's the aorta -- as well as perhaps a quintuple heart bypass. This gentleman had a serious heart attack ten years ago but did not receive any surgery at that time. However, further problems have occurred in the past year, and it's because of that that the doctors take the view now that perhaps a quintuple bypass surgery is required as well as repair to the heart valve.

I'll defer to the minister's comments at this time to see if she has any instruction for Mr. Plain about what has led to the delay or about what steps could be taken to eliminate this type of delay that seems to be becoming all too frequent.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I very much respect the member for bring these matters to our attention. But, frankly, I am uncomfortable doing this unless the member has some written permission from the patient that I too can respond to details on this case. I don't want to in any way avoid answering the question, and I feel more than comfortable doing that. But I also know that we are receiving advice from the privacy commissioner on how to approach these matters. I have nothing in writing saying that I'm allowed to talk about these cases.

I am wondering why we're deviating from the norm, which is to discuss these matters through correspondence, with the patient writing, etc. I also would need to seek the information from the medical practitioners who make these decisions about tests and diagnoses. Decisions made without tests, with tests -- all of those matters are matters that I would seek advice on from the health care practitioners who make these decisions. And I would also appreciate, if the member wishes an answer in the House, that he provide me with permission to give that answer.

B. Penner: As I indicated, I have been given permission by the individuals involved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Not to me, though. I don't have permission.

B. Penner: Certainly I think the minister would be well within her boundaries to answer what is going on in the system in British Columbia, that people are waiting up to 15 or 16 months -- or, in the case of this most recent individual, I believe it's now nine months. If the minister was listening closely to my question, it was seeking an explanation for what is happening in our system in British Columbia, where individuals such as those that I've mentioned have to wait that period of time. I know that the minister has quoted the figure that 95 percent of heart surgeries occur within six months. Yet in the last number of weeks, two individuals have come forward to my office who have waited up to 15 months -- or, in the most recent case, nine months -- and they're still waiting for heart surgery.

Again, being very honest, this just gives me grave concern. I don't have a lot of experience or background in matters related to health care. But when I hear about this, and I hear from their spouses that their medical condition has deteriorated over the last few months, I have concern. Obviously, timeliness is of the essence. So I'm taking the opportunity to raise it with the minister today. If she wants me to write to her and follow up with respect to Mr. Plain, I certainly will, just as I did with Mr. Watt.

What I'm seeking here today, not only on behalf of these individuals but of all people who are concerned about their health, is: what is happening with our health care system, where people are waiting nine months or 16 months for what appears to be a very necessary medical procedure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have discussed these matters in a generic, general, statistical way -- which is the appropriate way to do it in estimates -- over the course of the last hour. I would be happy to repeat those statistics. The system will be performing 3,300 angioplasty procedures this year and almost 3,000 cardiac surgeries in addition to that, for a total of about 6,300 procedures. We have gone through how the wait-lists are established, and we have given to the chamber the statistics for the wait times, as well. Beyond that, as many members on the opposite side have come to me personally and have written, I would be more than happy to have the ministry -- not the minister's office but the ministry -- investigate individual cases and provide an answer.

B. Penner: Certainly the minister's office and her staff in the ministry can expect a letter from me asking for an explanation and/or an investigation into why these delays are taking place.

On behalf of my constituents, I've been asked to ask the minister the following question. Is she prepared to indicate to the House and to the people of British Columbia how much the Ministry of Health spent on the television ads earlier this year, in which she was on television proclaiming loudly that waiting lists in British Columbia have been reduced? That was a concern specifically raised by Norma Watt, because that was what finally prompted her to call my office in regards to the 

[ Page 3823 ]

delay that her husband had faced. She specifically asked if I could find out how much it was that the province spent on those television commercials.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ads to which the hon. member is referring were organ transplant donor ads. The cost of the entire campaign, which ran over a period of two weeks, was approximately $250,000, including print and television. We had a very good debate in this chamber about the importance of people becoming organ donors. The statistic was mentioned, not only in an excellent speech from the member for Okanagan West but also from the member for Rossland-Trail, about the fact that if the number of organ donors in this province doubled, we could eliminate the wait-list for organ transplants. That's what the ads were all about. They were done in association with the B.C. Transplant Society, and they've proven to be extremely effective in getting the number of organ donors needed.

B. Penner: I'll be happy to pass that information on to my constituents who asked me to raise it here today.

At this point, I would like to defer to my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: I sympathize with the minister in going through many of these cases. I know that to us they seem fairly repetitious, but to the constituents out there they are all very personal, as I know the minister also understands perfectly well.

[8:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would be more than happy to investigate the individual circumstances of this. We did talk earlier today about a strategy, a plan in place, by the B.C. Cancer Agency for the wait-lists in lower Vancouver Island, where they are longer than elsewhere in the province. The B.C. Cancer Agency was actually transferring patients not from Victoria -- so that's why this is a bit surprising to me -- but from mid-Island and North Island to receive cancer treatment in Vancouver and Surrey, where the wait-lists are substantially less. There has been a substantial increase in the budget of the B.C. Cancer Agency, though, to reduce wait-lists overall and not have people bumped. In the context of that general answer, I would be more than happy to investigate the particular circumstances.

V. Anderson: Another part of it disturbed her. She understood that there might be reasons they wouldn't know about. So even though it was hard on the family to be ready and then to have to wait, they understood that it might be a medical necessity. The other part of it that concerned them -- and I share it; she asked that I share it -- is that they weren't informed of this ahead of time and weren't given any idea of how long they might wait or what other options they might have. For instance, if they had perhaps known that there was the option to go to Bellingham or something, at least they could have made their own choices.

They were concerned when this suddenly came upon them, and no one advised them of the circumstances or of the options. Therefore it was the uncertainty that made it more difficult for the family, even apart from having to wait. I wonder if the minister has a comment on that practice or non-practice of informing people at each step of what is happening and the options that are available to them.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The options available should certainly be presented to the patient by the attending physician. I'm not clear on whether the patient -- and we can discuss this later -- was waiting for surgery or for radiation therapy. Those details will be important in terms of options that can be presented, but I am as disturbed as any member in this House when I hear of a patient travelling without notification to a procedure that has been cancelled.

Personally, members of my own caucus have presented me with concerns in this area of people travelling substantial distances. I think it's unacceptable. I am working very carefully with the B.C. Health Association to do whatever we can to lessen this as much as possible. How do we enforce on people better communication between physicians, patients and hospitals? And how do we do it in a way that's compassionate and recognizes the anxiety that patients face? I too share that concern. A great deal of. . . . I don't want to say political will, because it isn't political will, but a great deal of attention paid to this will help the situation, and I am already trying to do that. The hon. member and I are in the fortunate situation where our constituents live in a community where the vast majority of specialized health care services are provided, but many of the members in this House have constituents who travel a great distance to get these specialized services. I have approached some members of the House for specific examples of where constituents have been adversely affected by a cancellation after travelling, and I am taking those matters up with the B.C. Health Association.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, because I grew up where distance and health care were extremely important, and weather and other things made it impossible for people to get to health care. I know the difficulties and the differences between those.

I just report that it was those two main issues that she was concerned about. He was to have had radiation treatment. When the radiation treatment was postponed, he had brain difficulty and entered emergency. As a result, the radiation treatment has begun, but they don't know how much setback resulted because of the waiting. She did want to share the experience in the hope that the knowledge of it would be beneficial for other persons as well as themselves. I thank the minister for her concern and interest, and I think they will feel better to know that. . . . They have to live with whatever happens, but the concern and the interest is important to them, as well. So thank you very much.

R. Thorpe: I hope the minister will be as tolerant of me as she always has been. I have a variety of questions. . . .

An Hon. Member: She's not in a good mood today.

R. Thorpe: Well, perhaps it has to do with how you deliver your questions.

[ Page 3824 ]

I have a variety of questions that have come directly from constituents, because I asked people in my constituency to provide me with questions they would like asked.

The first one pertains to kidney stones -- a chronic kidney stone patient. He's had this problem since he was four years old; he's 35 years old today -- just released from the hospital today. I understand that the medication he needs is called Urised. Can the minister advise whether that particular drug is covered by the provincial drug plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, hon. member -- did you say he received the drug from the hospital?

R. Thorpe: No. A constituent -- a patient -- has been asked to take this. This is the drug he should be taking to counteract his medical situation, as prescribed by his doctor -- his specialist.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's not part of the reference drug plan, so it's not a limited drug. But whether it's been passed by the health protection branch -- whether Pharmacare covers it -- I'll get that information for you. I will also get the information on how it's funded.

R. Thorpe: Moving to a completely different subject: home care. As we know, many people -- and more and more people in British Columbia -- are receiving care in their homes today. I apologize in advance if I ask a question that has been repeated, but this is very important to some constituents. Is there a basic package of services available to all British Columbians with respect to home care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All services that are medically needed are available to all British Columbians, but there has to be an assessed medical need for the service.

R. Thorpe: Assuming that the service has been requested by a medical practitioner, it's my understanding that there's a basic service available to all British Columbians. Is that service that's been prescribed covered on a prescribed basis? Or is the coverage and the service dependent on an individual's income?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For home care nursing that has been assessed to be medically necessary, there is no income assessment -- income testing -- and there's no user fee for home care nursing that has been assessed to be medically necessary.

R. Thorpe: If a constituent is telling me that he has a very, very sick wife at home that he is helping care for and that people are coming in to help him with this prescribed service, and if he is indicating that he is having to pay for it, is the minister then saying that perhaps, working together, we should investigate this particular situation and see if in fact someone has erred here?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to investigate the circumstances under any situation. There is a difference between homemaker services and home care nursing, so I would be more than happy to look into the particular circumstances.

R. Thorpe: One of the issues that I'm getting a lot of calls on more and more -- unfortunately, I'm getting them from seniors who are having to go to the hospital for a variety of needs -- is the number of people who are being admitted to a hospital and are having to stay in emergency services -- in emergency rooms, in the hallways. Can the minister advise if this is a serious problem throughout the province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to take this opportunity, and I hope it's right. . . . I forgot to do something earlier, and that's to advise that the House will be sitting tomorrow. I knew everyone was waiting with bated breath to know that. I just want to, while I have it here, advise that I'm hoping that we'll be able to do exactly this same thing tomorrow as well. So the House is sitting tomorrow.

We did a review of emergency room services -- and ambulance services to emergency rooms as well -- in the lower mainland throughout January and February. It was only in the lower mainland, because there had been some media concerns raised around that. The report was issued in March, I think. I released the report of the review of the utilization of emergency rooms and the integration of ambulance services to emergency rooms -- discharge of patients, triaging of patients and admission of patients. The review was done by a group of experts from across the country. I think there were people from outside the province -- from Saskatchewan and Ontario -- as well as experts in the field here. They made recommendations. The report was made public at the time. I would be happy to provide the member with that report.

Generally, the conclusions -- if I could articulate the conclusions -- were that there was a problem with triaging, which is when a patient arrives, and how best to get the patient the right services that she needs. There was an inappropriate admissions policy through the emergency room that often involved people with mental illness that went not to the heart of lack of resources but of proper management and administration of emergency room services. There was a call for a computer-assisted dispatch system in the Ambulance Service, which we have committed to and funded. There was also a recommendation that there had to be better utilization of admissions to Riverview Hospital, for instance, of people who were in the emergency rooms, and we have acted on those recommendations.

The report was only done for the lower mainland hospitals, but I hope that every hospital in the province got a copy of the report and took to heart the advice given for the hospitals in the lower mainland.

[8:15]

I hope that we will aggressively pursue it -- that all hospitals in British Columbia did get the report. More importantly, after that, what kind of follow-up is taking place to make sure that British Columbians are receiving the health care they need? I am led to believe that proper records 

[ Page 3825 ]

and documentation are not kept on people sleeping for three days in emergency, sleeping in hallways. They're just considered to be checked in, admitted to the hospital, not to be in emergency for three days. That's wrong, especially when we're dealing with seniors. It's wrong when you deal with all people, but it's really wrong when we're dealing with seniors.

I just would like to. . . . And I won't release the name of this person. This letter was actually addressed to the minister -- she gets thousands of letters:

"Get out of the clouds and face reality. Put on a gown and a mask and visit some of our hospitals, emergency wards, hallways, etc., and see how very overcrowded they are. See the stress to many patients having to lie on those narrow, uncomfortable stretchers, beds, etc."

Can I have the undertaking of the minister today that she will direct her staff to review that this report has gone to hospitals, has gone to administrators of hospitals -- that some follow-up is going to take place and that in, let's say, six or nine months we can have a report that some action has actually taken place in the hospitals of British Columbia with respect to this issue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I didn't mean to be facetious in saying that I truly hope that they have. The report has gone to all of the hospitals. I personally have not followed up with every hospital to ensure that they've paid attention to the recommendations, but as a result of the report, we did put in place an advisory committee -- a steering committee -- of people who will ensure that the recommendations are implemented. There were ten recommendations; we accepted all of them. We put a committee of industry experts in place to not only monitor but to enforce the implementation of the recommendations. That committee is hard at work and, in fact, is well on its way to implementing all of the recommendations.

I feel more than comfortable offering to this House that the minister of the day in 1998-99 will be able to report out on those recommendations. I also want to say that there are millions and millions of health care procedures at hospitals each and every year. There best-practice utilization issues in each and every hospital. We have discussed today a funding methodology where we provide incentives to hospitals which properly manage and utilize their beds in a way that delivers the best patient care -- not in the way that delivers on the budget bottom line but in a way that delivers the best patient care.

I know that I often get confronted in my own city with situations where people with mental illness are treated much differently in emergency rooms than people who are in for a physical ailment. I've worked with my own hospitals to turn that around, and I must say that the hospitals are greatly improving.

So I take these things very seriously -- as does the hon. member. But we also. . . . How can I say this? There are also issues about the way that the public uses health care facilities, as well, and I mean that only in the most positive sense. There's a change, from one generation to the other, in the way we use hospital facilities. And that ongoing process of education has to take place, as well. That was part of the report: that there has to be public education about the purpose of an emergency room. And I don't relate this in any way to the letter that the hon. member raised.

R. Thorpe: Yes, and I know you wouldn't refer to it. This is a senior that. . . . Quite frankly, it was the first time in 20 years her husband ever had to be in the hospital. So we know that they paid their fair share and probably paid for others.

You talk about best patient care. We have all these committees and working groups and ways we're doing this. Could the minister advise me -- and the House, in fact: what kind of mechanisms do you have in place to get feedback from patients on their degree of satisfaction, on non-satisfaction, on improvements, on recommendations, etc? Could you explain that to me?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I can actually make available to you the excellent discussions we've had already on this in the House around the performance standards that we're putting in place -- the accountability standards as a result of regionalization. The discussion occurred under regionalization of health care -- how we are going to monitor those standards and on what basis those standards are determined. In each and every one of the standards, patient feedback is key. It's not the only factor, but it is key. There are a variety of ways that have proven effective so far in getting patient surveys. And of the hospitals that have met with success in getting patient feedback, we will be applying that across the system now. The outcomes will be reported in an annual report -- which has never been done before on the health care system.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that. I trust the annual report will be a timely annual report delivered to this House so that we can actually even read it and perhaps use the material to develop a better system.

Does the ministry, under regional health. . . ? Who actually has and seeks the feedback from the patients? Is it the regions? Or does the ministry do it, or is there an independent survey of both?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The feedback will be across the system but will probably be received at the front line of service. The input will be sought at the front line of service, which will be on an institution-by-institution basis. But the performance standards and the accountability measures are the responsibility of the regional health board or the community health council.

R. Thorpe: I would just make a suggestion to the minister and ministry staff that I totally support the idea of front-line workers and organizations receiving feedback. What I would like to suggest that people investigate from time to time, so that Victoria and management can keep in touch with what's going on out in the real world. . . . Perhaps you'd want to institute a random information-gathering system to verify what's happening out there, and also to keep us and staff in touch with what's going on out there.

Moving to another area: osteoporosis. I'm sure some of this might have been asked earlier. Have there been any restrictions placed on drugs that patients have been taking that they now have difficulty taking or that they in fact have to pay for?

[ Page 3826 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there is a series of questions there. If the hon. member is wishing to move into Pharmacare now, I'd be more than happy to. . . . We can explore Pharmacare in detail, but. . . . I could say, "Yes, yes, no, yes, maybe," but there's a full discussion around Pharmacare that I'm waiting for anxiously.

R. Thorpe: Well, you won't be getting it from me. These are just a variety of questions from constituents that I am asking. So if you can't answer that right now, I'll come back. Can the minister advise whether a user fee for bone density testing on osteoporosis patients was recently instituted?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There have been restrictions, on the advice from the Medical Services Commission. I'll provide the member with the details of that.

R. Thorpe: I wasn't sure that I heard the answer to my question. Is there a new user fee that has been just recently instituted -- within the past six months or a year, I'm saying -- with respect to bone density testing? I'm led to believe by a constituent -- a patient, someone who's now paying -- that it is relatively new. I'd like a direct answer, if I could, to that question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll get that information for the hon. member. It will take us about five minutes.

Just on the drug Urised, which the member asked a question about previously. . . . It does not have a drug identification number, which means that. . . . And I say this advisedly: drug identification numbers are given by the health protection branch of the federal government. It's their stamp of approval. Once a drug identification number is given, the Pharmacare program covers the drug. But it does not have a drug identification number to date.

[8:30]

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I take that as a "yes," so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Again, as I say, I have a variety of things here. One of the questions I have been asked to raise by constituents has to do with chiropractors. I'm just going to simply read the question: why doesn't the Ministry of Health endorse or encourage the use of chiropractic services, when it has been demonstrated in several analyses that chiropractic treatment is cost-effective and could save MSP tens of millions of dollars?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, our government endorses chiropractic services -- so much so that we spend $30 million of tax money each and every year on chiropractic services. So that's the answer.

Could I just give the answer on bone densitometry? There are actually conflicting opinions on whether or not bone densitometry makes a difference in terms of health outcomes. A number of centres have been providing bone density measurements, but the Medical Services Commission, which is a tripartite commission, put a moratorium on the approval of new diagnostic facilities pending the development of protocol for the service. So they're developing this protocol, and it is expected to be completed by the summer. The Medical Services Commission is expected to consider licensing new facilities in the light of the protocol recommendations.

R. Thorpe: Just a quick follow-up on that. Again, I appreciate the answer; I interpreted that answer as a positive answer. Assuming that everything goes through properly, would it then be the intention to have those services available throughout British Columbia, as opposed to perhaps just the lower mainland? Would that be the intention of the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We always take accessibility of services into account, but that will be part of the licensing procedure that will be examined by the Medical Services Commission. I don't want to predict in any way, though, the outcome of the Medical Services Commission's decision.

R. Thorpe: Going back to chiropractic services and the minister's very positive answer, and her government's great endorsement of the tremendous efforts that they've been doing in that area, I have just one follow-up question. I'm just wondering if the minister could answer it. The question is from a constituent: "Why is the ministry effecting a two-tier health system for supplementary services by imposing a user fee for anyone wishing to use these services, while no user fee is imposed for mainstream medical services?"

Hon. J. MacPhail: I couldn't agree more with the hon. member's thrust. The fact of the matter is that the Canada Health Act, which is a federal piece of legislation, protects two medical services. The federal government considers it valuable only to contribute to two medical services: physicians' services and hospital services. Beyond that, the federal government does not recognize any health care service, and they certainly don't contribute to it financially.

Our government has the most complete range of supplementary services funded in any jurisdiction in Canada. In fact, we cover naturopathy -- we've gone through this before -- chiropractic . . . the whole list. There are six or seven services, and the services are funded 100 percent out of B.C. tax dollars.

In the context of huge cuts to our federal transfer payments, we have managed to protect all of the supplementary services, including chiropractic services. The same number of visits are covered and the same amount of dollars go to the chiropractor, but due to the cuts of the federal government to our whole system, we have increased the patient visit charge in order to not have to deinsure services. This year the budget for all supplementary benefits exceeds $116 million, I think. What are we up to now? We're up to $122 million in total B.C. tax dollars that will be going into supplementary services.

I might also add that I have continued the work of my predecessors in lobbying the federal government to take a real look at the health care system and the real health care services, beyond hospitals and physicians, that the real public are demanding. We have lobbied as recently as before the recent Health ministers conference to say that the federal government should be funding a truly all-inclusive single-tier health care system: home care services, continuing-care services, a national drug plan and supplementary benefits as well. To date we have received an answer that was actually part of the election campaign, which said: "British Columbia, during 1998-99 we'll give you $5 million more."

R. Thorpe: Unlike other members who have been in here today asking questions, I really don't want to get back into the 

[ Page 3827 ]

tennis match and the rhetoric. But I might just point out for the record that I do not believe that the health cuts. . .the transfers from Ottawa are less than the tax increases that your government has placed on British Columbians. I just wish that from time to time we could leave the rhetoric off the table and just deal with the issues here.

My question is with respect to chiropractic services and the preventive benefit they can be to health care -- to patients first and then to the efficiency of health care dollars. Can the minister advise whether they've done a comprehensive analysis that the prevention work that could be done with some increased funding from the provincial government would in fact be an investment -- that they would save money on the other side by perhaps some other services not having to be done? Has such a study, such a comprehensive review, been done by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Chiropractic Association has done its own study. It's a national study. We have the national study, and it's a good study.

R. Thorpe: Then I understand from that answer. . . . I don't want to jump to conclusions, hon. Chair, but I guess what the minister is saying to me is that in fact the minister and her staff have not done their own review to see if perhaps funding a few dollars here could save a lot more over there. The minister and her staff might be well advised to embark upon that, and if they need any assistance, perhaps we could provide it. As the minister said, people out there are asking. They have ideas; they know how to save; they know to be more effective. So perhaps it would be incumbent upon us to do such a survey or work together on this. I would like some kind of a commitment from the minister on that -- that staff will in fact look at it and develop a position based on this very good study that you have from the national Chiropractic Association.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our whole system is premised on evidence-based medicine. Research on all aspects of health care delivery is going on throughout the world, and we pay very careful attention to all of the research. The Tzu Chi Institute is a groundbreaker in Canada for its evidence-based research into alternative practices.

I must also caution the hon. member that there are competing interests across health care professions in terms of how and when and why we fund certain health care services. At the end of the day our decisions about how we fund health care services are based on the best medical evidence.

R. Thorpe: I support the best medical evidence, and I support the concept of looking after the patient and making sure that the patients and the people of British Columbia are as healthy as they can be. I support that concept.

Provincial personal assistance guidelines. This is something new to me, but it's been brought to me by another constituent. I have very interesting constituents that care, and they bring forward. . . . I'm just going to use one example here. It has to do with foot care and a transfer of functions. I'm going to just read this: "This task is now never to be done without a transfer of function on any client." This has to do with foot care. I don't know whether that's just a puzzled look. Is the minister conversant with the provincial personal assistant guidelines that have been changed and the transfer of function with respect to foot care?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be more than happy to get an answer for the hon. member.

R. Thorpe: I'd be pleased after, outside, to give parts of this information, this document, because people have asked not to be. . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I'm supposed to use the words "home support worker."

. . .personally identified. But interestingly enough, what they're saying here -- again, I share this because we're so interested in patients and patient care -- is that now a doctor is going to have to drive from Penticton to Summerland to review the situation and, as I understand it, authorize this, and then the charges for his services will be covered under the Medical Plan.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The way the system works does not compute with the information that you're giving us at all on several levels, so we'd be more than happy to look into it.

I'd also like to correct the record, if I may, on that drug identification number for Urised. There is a drug identification number issued by the federal government, but the manufacturer has never applied for coverage under Pharmacare. However, on two occasions at least that we know of, a physician has applied for special authority for coverage of the drug. Even though the drug manufacturer has not asked to be listed, there's a process for going through to get coverage. We have covered it under what is called special authority, so the patient should give that information to his or her physician.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, minister, and to your staff, for that answer and direction. Actually, when I'm finished here tonight, I'll phone the individual who raised this. I know that they'll be very pleased, and I thank you for that.

The last subject. . . . I don't want to go into a whole pile of details, but as the minister is well aware, hepatitis C is a subject that has received a fair amount of attention in my part of British Columbia. I know that we're on a program right now and that we're sending out a blitz of mailers, and I understand that we're going to do a follow-up. Could the minister just advise me where we are in the program to identify. . . ?

I know we've done the mailer, and I understand there's going to be a follow-up blitz. I am also led to believe that when people have received this documentation, for some of them it hasn't been very straightforward about what they're supposed to do. I understand that your feedback, based on the original mailout, has not been high, and perhaps that's why you're doing a second wave. I'm wondering what you can share with me about that process and how we're really trying to go out there and reach everyone who potentially has a problem, which I know you're concerned about and we're certainly concerned about.

[8:45]

[ Page 3828 ]

It is essential for the patient, from a health care perspective, that we contact as many people as possible. But if the look-back communication is not in plain English, I would be more than happy to receive that feedback.

Our concern is, yes, in reaching a number of people. We did about 52,000 mailouts about that, because that was the number of people we had the data on, of which about half have responded. Now, there are various reasons for that, and we didn't expect a 100 percent response. If the information is too complex, we are already looking at that to make sure that the second time around is totally effective. But if there are individual comments, I would appreciate them.

There are several things that we've done on our hepatitis C look-back. We've done a physician education program around it. Some of the complaints -- only anecdotal -- we received from patients diagnosed with hepatitis C were that there was a great deal of difficulty getting the physician to come to the diagnosis or to apply for the test. That's understandable; it's a relatively new infection in the context of health care. So we've done physician education, public education, and we're working with the hepatitis C survivor groups in the best way possible to assist families of victims of hepatitis C.

R. Thorpe: I will undertake to gather the information that some constituents have sent me and talked to me about and provide that to the minister.

Just one other comment on that mailout. I just wonder if you've done any focus groups with the people who did in fact respond, to see from them how it could have been more. If you're going another way, you might want to consider doing a focus group with some of those folks. Maybe you did, but if you didn't, that might be another way to get something. It doesn't cost a whole bunch of money, and there are a lot of people who have been affected.

My next area is that we obviously have a cross-section of people who have been affected. Are we applying, or are we. . . ? I don't know the correct way to ask this, so I'll try to work my way through this. Do we have the same protocol in dealing with all the people who have been affected with hepatitis C so they can move on with their lives? Do we have the same program, or do we have a different program based on age? I'll be straightforward about where I'm going: are we doing anything special for children?

Hon. J. MacPhail: B.C. Children's Hospital does have a program, and they're totally child-oriented. I can get the specifics of that program for the hon. member.

R. Thorpe: The minister is probably not aware of it -- I didn't broadcast it; I just do what I have to do -- but I have recently been at Children's with an eight-year-old patient whom the minister is aware of. I have been led to believe that there have been some restrictions on funding for some of the research that should be done to do some work on the blood that's taken. Can the minister clarify? Are there any funding restrictions imposed on the research they're doing and the tests they have to do to properly diagnose patients?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

R. Thorpe: Just for the record, again, I will pursue that, because I was there on May 22 and was led to believe some things in that particular area. I will pursue that and provide the details to the minister.

Based on that, I'd just like to thank the minister for answering my questions and helping me with my constituents.

R. Neufeld: I have a few brief questions that relate directly to Peace River North and Fort St. John specifically. Just for the minister's information, I have been informed that in Fort Nelson the health care facilities and those people involved are happy with what's happening. So if anything, we have a positive note to start out with on questions. Hudson's Hope is much the same, but Fort St. John have a few requests they would like me to bring forward to the minister.

I want to preface this with the fact that the people in Fort St. John who are responsible in the community, the North Peace health council, are cognizant of the fact that there are scarce dollars, so they are not asking for things that they know are really unrealistic. They're trying to keep their requests in more of a form where possibly they could receive some help in some areas that are desperately needed.

I'd just like to touch on a number of items, if it's okay with the minister. I believe she's probably talked a bit about some of these things, but this is specific to Fort St. John and it has to do with capital equipment. As I said earlier, the health council realizes that money is scarce. They've tried to break this down a little bit more so that it's a little more palatable and possibly can be looked after.

There are three areas in capital equipment that I'll just ask questions about. One is nuclear medicine. This is a regional service which is in serious need of replacement. This service has been largely overshadowed by the CT scan. The vast majority of people in the region requiring this service receive it -- over 90 percent. The majority of people that require medical intervention as a result of a diagnosis also receive treatment in the region. We're the only region that does not have a nuclear medicine program with SPEC imaging capabilities.

There's also a significant issue of whether or not the service can remain mobile, as the vendors of the technology will not support the maintenance agreements, given our road and travel conditions. I wish the Minister of Transportation and Highways was here to hear that. The equipment that has to be moved around the region can't be maintained anymore because of the road conditions. The physical space where the equipment is located is unacceptable, and we're only able to receive provisional accreditation as a result. Minor renovations are urgently required. We're on hold until we know what type of equipment and technology will replace the current unit. The value of that project is in the neighbourhood of $800,000.

Second is ultrasound. The hospital in Fort St. John is now the one ultrasound unit that is heavily used. If emergencies arise, patients are cancelled or rescheduled. If the unit is down for repairs, then we have major problems with wait-lists. The value of that is $280,000.

The third is anaesthetic machines. They're in need of replacement due to their age and the change in technology. The new units are equipped with a number of safety features required by risk management. Their value is in the vicinity of $180,000.

Those are three requests on capital equipment. I'll stop there and ask about some redevelopment of the facility afterwards.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just reiterate. The answer I gave earlier is that the health councils and the regional health 

[ Page 3829 ]

boards now have submitted their five-year capital equipment plans. We asked them to do that; they have done that. It's an updated five-year capital equipment plan, because we increased the budget for capital equipment from $13 million to $40 million this year. This is for equipment costing over $100,000, and I think I heard that all of the requests do fall into that category.

The plans are now being reviewed by Ministry of Health staff to identify group purchase opportunities. That's where we're at in the plans. Hospitals that qualify for inclusion in the group purchase will be invited to participate in that group purchase initiative.

I assume that the Fort St. John General Hospital has submitted this in the form of their updated five-year capital plan. It sounds like that's what that is.

R. Neufeld: I hope that they have, and of course, I'll take back the message that the minister has given.

Next is the redevelopment of the facility in Fort St. John. As I indicated during question period, there are some dramatic deficiencies within the Fort St. John Hospital. One is the ICU unit, which is in terrible disrepair. That is a unit that shouldn't be that way.

Three years ago, a master plan that amounted to about $12 million was finalized for the Fort St. John Hospital. There was an agreement in the North and South Peace at the time that the Dawson Creek hospital needed repairs in a much greater fashion than Fort St. John, so they agreed to do Dawson Creek first, then Fort St. John. Then the freeze came, and Fort St. John was left out in the cold a bit on the redevelopment of their facility.

They also realize that $12 million as a lump sum is probably unacceptable and not feasible, so they have broken it down into projects with a value of about $1.5 million, or something in that neighbourhood. These include the redevelopment and relocation of the ICU unit, the visiting specialists clinics, nursing wards and renovations, improved emergency and day care areas, a sprinkler system and kitchen upgrade, and so forth within the hospital itself.

The hospital, as I know it, has not been revamped to any degree for quite a number of years. In fact, the minister has said that after we finish this sitting, she is going to travel to the north and visit some of the hospitals. I'll be happy to take her through the hospitals in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson and the facility in Hudson's Hope to have a look at what we've got there. I know you've probably mentioned it to some of the other members, but for my benefit and for the community health council in Fort St. John, maybe you could relate a little about what could happen with these types of requests.

Hon. J. MacPhail: At this hour, I'm not going to engage in discussions around capital review. I don't want to provoke the members opposite to have to go to bed tonight upset, so I'm not going to review the election of 1996, and capital and debt and all of that. We did the capital review so that we could do exactly what the electorate asked us to do, at the provocation of the members opposite, and that is to not incur debt. The capital review has been done. I have not yet made the announcements of how plans will proceed for the expenditure of health capital dollars, so those announcements are forthcoming. Our Premier has said that every commitment we have made will be honoured.

I would be pleased to visit, with the member, his particular facilities and to work with the community health council on the best expenditure of dollars.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister. I don't particularly want to stay here all night, either, but I don't have any problem sleeping at night, so I don't know what the issue is.

We'll carry on from the redevelopment of the facility to physician recruitment and retention. That has probably been a greater issue in the northeast than anywhere else in the province. In fact, I'm not sure if even now. . . . There was a short period of time when Chetwynd had their OR room closed because of the lack of physicians, and we see that on a regular basis. It happened just recently in Fort Nelson that a young boy was driven 300 miles one way from Fort Nelson to Dawson Creek to receive an appendix operation -- the lack of a surgeon, again. These issues are continual.

I want to preface my remarks with the fact that the ministry has moved in some directions to try and encourage doctors to move to the north and to practice in the north, but our experience to date has been that it hasn't worked. I know the plan is in its infancy and hasn't been operational for a long time. But we are still heavily reliant on foreign-trained doctors, and I think that probably, when you think about it, we always will be, regardless of what kind of program you put in place.

[9:00]

Many of the South Africans find it quite comfortable to come to either Fort St. John, Dawson Creek or Fort Nelson, because there is a community of their own, actually, in each one of those communities, and they can integrate into the community a lot more easily. But we are having some real difficulties trying to continue to attract doctors. The minister is also aware that the Royal College of Physicians at the end of this month or soon thereafter, I believe, is going to withdraw its support for the recruitment of foreign-trained physicians. That's going to make it much more difficult -- in fact, almost impossible -- for us to be able to attract the caregivers we need.

I just wonder if there is some plan the ministry has for trying to deal with, first off, the Royal College of Physicians, and secondly, how we can reduce the paperwork and the burden on foreign-trained physicians who come to British Columbia to practise. It's specifically the northeast that I'm talking about.

I'm informed by the community health council that Manitoba has exactly the same problems in the north, but they have a process where it takes less than a month to get foreign-trained physicians and get the paperwork and all those things done so that they can get them to come to northern Manitoba to practise there. I'm wondering if there is something we could maybe do in conjunction with Manitoba, if that is in fact the case, to try and work something out so it makes it a bit simpler in British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to begin by expressing the utmost empathy for the position that the hon. member is putting forward. Physician recruitment to northern and isolated communities is a problem. It has been a longstanding 

[ Page 3830 ]

problem, and we are making steps toward resolution, but I would expect that the member would stand up and say that they are baby steps -- and I would have no comeback to that.

There are cultural attitude issues within the profession, as well, where even after years of medical training, there are medical school graduates who would prefer to remain in the lower mainland even at a substantially reduced earnings capability. I have met with a whole range of the medical school students out at UBC, and there are real issues that they face there as well as to why they don't want to work in the north.

In my view, the most successful programs to date have been the small but very effective programs where the medical school actually does training in the communities in which the physicians will remain. The northern outreach training programs are proving very effective. In those, as I'm sure the hon. member is aware, residency training actually takes place in the community, and we've actually got a specific recruitment program going on for medical school students coming from the north. We have locum programs in northern communities, which we've discussed here, for relief of physicians who need a vacation.

We will be debating this whole matter of physician supply when we debate the matter under Bill 28, the medical protection act, where the physician supply measures will actually be incorporated in the legislation. Again, that's controversial, as well.

On the issue of recruitment and the current recruitment practices, yes, we know that the north is largely supplied by foreign physicians. We took a very proactive stance against the national college's attempts to limit the recruitment of foreign doctors, and we were partially. . . . I think we did contribute to the success of having that initiative put on hold.

But the other thing we've done that's very new -- and again, these are all new steps, as well, so we have to monitor them carefully in their infancy -- is that we have put in place a requirement that foreign physicians stay and practise in the community for three years. The practice before, of course, was that once they got their landed status, they left. Now we have made an arrangement with Human Resources Development Canada that the permanent employment authorization be given only after we have received this written commitment from the physician to stay in the community for three years, and that's a breakthrough. I hope that's good news for the community.

We are also working with the Health Employers Association of B.C. to update our recruitment techniques for physicians, so that we are recruiting in a way where the people who come understand the nature of the job, aren't surprised by it and are making a real commitment to going to northern and isolated communities. The Health Employers Association of B.C. has actually had some very recent success in this newly revitalized recruitment program, the details of which I would be more than happy to make available to the hon. member.

R. Neufeld: It's difficult. Within the last year, Fort St. John was faced with one doctor for about every 2,000 people who live there. It's almost unheard of; in fact, it is unheard of anywhere else. They have informed me that they're actually in pretty good shape now. They are looking for a radiologist, an ear, nose and throat specialist, and two psychiatrists. They are actively looking for some people, and they are again trying to get some physicians from overseas.

The minister remarked on two things. One was that once they received their landed status, they soon left. I don't think that's been our experience in the north, and specifically not in Fort Nelson or Fort St. John, unless I've been ill-informed. Usually, when those types of people come to Canada, for the most part -- I wouldn't say all of them, but for the most part -- they enjoy the north. It is difficult to get people out of the lower mainland, and I appreciate that. If they want to stay there, I guess they're going to stay there, and we have to look at some other avenue for looking after the rest of the province.

It has been my experience, anyhow, that doctors do stay in the north. They love the north when they come out of South Africa. Most of them, in fact, stay there for a long period of time. Many of them who I know have been there for years. I suppose there are some who come and go; there's no doubt about that. But generally, they do stay there for a long time.

The other question is that of the Royal College of Physicians. I believe their moratorium ends shortly -- in fact, probably within months, or a month. They would give an extension for one year, as I recall from a year ago, to continue to support the process of foreign-trained physicians coming to Canada. But I believe -- and I think I'm informed here, lately -- that that's coming to an end soon. I just wonder if the ministry has a game plan of how we're going to be able to handle that situation when it does come within the next few months. That'll happen fairly quickly.

Hon. J. MacPhail: As the clock ticks on the moratorium, our College of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as our ministry, is working to continue to advocate to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons that B.C. -- at a minimum -- should be allowed to continue to recruit foreign physicians. Our college is taking a very proactive stance on this, and those talks are being pursued as we speak.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I'm happy to hear the response that we are working on it and will, hopefully, be able to head it off before it becomes a problem.

The minister talked earlier, too, about the northern outreach training program and those kind of things, and maybe the minister would like to comment on the University of Northern British Columbia changing the training for nurses. I'm not familiar with the whole process, but as I understand it, some of it has been cancelled out for rural nurses training at UNBC. I just wonder if there's something the ministry can do to help us there to encourage UNBC to continue that program. I know that's within the Ministry of Education's purview, but because it affects the north being able to get nurses who want to practise in the north, it does affect the Ministry of Health.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will prepare the Minister of Education for that question and also provide to him the information about the impact it has on the nursing profession as well. I'll get that information for him.

R. Neufeld: You talked earlier to one of the other members about the $3 million you spend each year on chiropractic services. In Fort St. John we have a chiropractor from Norway who has all the training required in Norway, which, as I understand, parallels ours. She lives in Fort St. John and wants to practise there, but she can't until she takes some accreditation process through the Open Learning Agency. I'm told some of it is some really basic stuff, almost the start of the program. She is almost going through the whole thing all over again that she has already done in Norway.

We have difficulty attracting those kinds of people to the north. We have one who wants to stay there, but what happens 

[ Page 3831 ]

through the Open Learning Agency is that -- if I'm informed right -- she has to take 12 courses. Because she's a foreign student, it costs her triple what it would cost a British Columbia student to take those courses. As I said earlier, they are courses that she has already experienced in Norway, and she already has the papers to practise in Norway, which is, I'm told, almost the same as Canada.

Maybe those are some areas where the minister can help me or help the people in the north who want to provide that service in the north. If we can't encourage people to come from the south to the north, maybe we can help some of these people so that they can practise in the north. They want to stay in the north because they come from a country that's much the same in geography and weather and all those kinds of things as the north. Is there some way we can do something to look seriously at those kinds of issues? It's pretty obvious that the person really wants to do it, or she wouldn't be paying triple the fees to do it -- and to do it all over again.

[9:15]

R. Neufeld: I'm not advocating that we don't have an accreditation process. That certainly wasn't what I was implying. What I was trying to impress on the minister is that there are people who will come to the north and practise, but we certainly throw some roadblocks in their way once in a while. If the accreditation process that this lady has gone through in Norway is comparable to ours, I can't understand why we wouldn't look favourably at some of that, instead of putting that person through absolutely the same processes or near the same processes again that she's already gone through once. So I'll maybe get a little more information on what's happening with that person and get it to the minister in a little more detail so that we can look at that.

One other issue that's been brought to my attention in my constituency concerns a mother who came to my office and had a son who was going through some withdrawal problems from many years of alcohol and drugs -- those kind of things. He's an adult. Between the family, her son and the doctors involved, it was felt that he should be admitted for some psychiatric care in the lower mainland to try and work out his problems.

The mother told me it was quite a long, drawn-out process to be able to do that -- to be able to, I guess, as an adult admit yourself. In fact, it's almost impossible. They had to go before a judge to state the case of why this person wanted to be admitted for some psychiatric care. In fact, it only lasts for a number of months, and then you have to go through the process again. The mother was feeling quite. . . . I don't quite know the word, but she was not feeling good about having to go in front of a judge and talk about some of those things that were happening in her family to prove the point to a judge that this person needed psychiatric care.

I just wonder: the mother asked me if that was the standard process that we go through for an adult to be admitted for psychiatric care. What is the process? If everyone agrees -- if the recommendations of the doctors are that it happen and the young person is an adult -- why do we have to go through that on a rotational basis?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We had a good discussion about the Mental Health Act and the balance. It's a very delicate balance between patient rights, community responsibility and proper delivery of health care.

There are a couple of red flags going up here for us, though, so we would be happy to look into this case. It is very unusual for a committal process to have to go to the court. It normally is at the request of two attending physicians that a committal process can take place, and if it's a review board process, that normally takes place when the person is already admitted to hospital. So the way that the member describes the circumstances does appear to us to be highly unusual, not the norm.

I don't know whether that's enough reassurance, but we also have just published -- and I actually gave a copy to the opposition members -- a guide to the Mental Health Act last week. It's an excellent document. It's a plain-English document that outlines the rights of patients and the responsibility of the health care system. It has a very easy guide to how to apply for admission; everything that you would need to know. So I would be happy to make that available for the member's constituent.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that response, and rather than belabour it any further -- maybe I don't have all the information that I need -- I'll get the information from the minister and supply it to the family and see if that answers their questions.

I have one more brief issue to deal with. I'll start back a way with your predecessor, the Minister of Health, when the RHBs were created in the north. There was a new hospital district formed called the Peace-Liard regional hospital district. This was actually against the wishes of the two hospital districts that were incorporated. They didn't want to see it happen, for specific reasons. Since the change, no RHBs; we've gone to CHCs. That's not the issue; that's fine, everybody's happy with that. In fact, there are a number of identities: the Peace River hospital district, the Fort Nelson-Liard regional hospital district, the Peace-Liard regional hospital district, the Fort Nelson-Liard regional district and the Peace River regional district. All the identities involved in those two hospital districts cover a huge part of British Columbia; I think the minister knows that. Those two hospital districts cover everything east of the Rockies. They've asked to be dissolved and returned to the districts that they were before.

We have agreement from everyone. It's not as though you had to go out and get the agreement. These people have asked; they've sent letters. I've received letters back and communications from the Ministry of Health that say: "We want to study this. There are some other parallels we have to study. We want to work with the Union of B.C. Municipalities capital asset group." There is a whole host of people, organizations and groups that the Ministry of Health is getting involved to try to do this. Now, it's nothing new. It has already been in place, and it worked fine before.

I can see the Ministry of Health. . . . They're the only ones who are dragging their feet on the whole issue. No one seems to know why, but everyone wants to study the issue to death. I would think that we have enough issues to deal with in health care that we don't have to create things that we have to study. If one of those regional hospital districts disagreed with the process, then I could understand the study. But when all of them have positively asked to be broken up into the same boundaries that they were in previously, I can't imagine why we'd want to study it to death through the Ministry of Health and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

[ Page 3832 ]

There are some exasperated people around this issue, wondering: "What's the reason, and why do we want to go to extra work?" Like I say, it worked before -- and very well, thank you. They were married against their will; now they just want to be separated. This is their will.

I just wonder if the minister could maybe give me some assurances that this is going to happen. There's no need to spend hundreds of hours in travel time. In fact, people are travelling back and forth from Dawson Creek to Vancouver to talk about it, to talk about something that was already in place, that worked. It's not as though one's gaining anything and the other one's losing anything. All we're doing is going back to something that's been there for eons. It's a huge area of the province, and all they want to do is go back into their regional hospital districts.

I have a pile of information here that just chokes you. Somebody has got to develop it; somebody has to work on this stuff and write it. It takes time, the valuable time of very valuable people that I think probably have lots to do in some areas where there are problems or could be problems.

But this is not a problem; there's no need for it. It's just an issue that I think could be dealt with very quickly, by the minister or by the ministry, to get a problem out of the way. Why not? It's off the shoulders, it's gone and it's finished. The people up there will be quite happy with being able to go back to exactly the way they were prior to your predecessor coming in and joining those two hospital districts.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that the hon. member has talked to me about over the last three or four months. Look, we'll try to move this issue along. Frankly, I know the rumour is that we like to create work for ourselves; it's simply not the case. The Deputy Minister of Health, who is assigned to look after this -- and that was in the letter I sent to you that met with your wrath once again. . . . I know that you didn't like my letter, and I appreciate the fact that you didn't like my letter. I mean, I appreciate the fact of why you didn't like my letter. So he'll make a commitment to go and get the answer for you.

But I also just want to say one word of caution. We're not trying to obfuscate the issue here, but UBCM signed on, and we have to make sure, just the same way that we don't bulldoze through something that works for one area of the province, that we're not putting at risk solutions in the other areas of the province. We're working very closely with UBCM right now.

I'm not using this as an excuse; I accept your push on this. We're working very closely with UBCM now and have had quite a bit of discussion in this House about the way regional hospital districts will work with the new regionalization and health care system. Those consultations are going very well. There are special needs across the province, and I guess that's where the caution is coming from.

Tomorrow we'll come back to the hon. member, and we'll see if we can move this issue along to the satisfaction of where at least what we're saying is, "Here," and somehow give him an explanation that there are provincial implications -- or, if there aren't provincial implications, just move on toward a solution.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister. I know we've been working on this for a while. And I guess she's right: what I've been told is that there are some parallels in the province, some other issues that have to dealt with in other areas. I could see that affecting what we want to do in the north if it were something new -- something brand-new -- that may have an effect on something in the southeastern part of the province. I can understand that, but this is nothing brand-new. It's tried, true and tested. It has worked before, and it will work again. I don't think that we can take the cookie-cutter approach. In fact, I heard the minister talk about it earlier: we can't take that kind of approach to health care in this province.

I think that probably part of the problem is, again -- and I'm not going to belabour it much longer, but. . . . It's the size of the area and the population. I don't think people who work on this issue understand it. It's a huge part of the real estate of British Columbia, if you look at it on the map. It's sparsely populated in comparison to the Kootenays, maybe, or to Vancouver or the Okanagan. So there are obviously going to be some differences, and I think those are the issues I'm trying to bring forward. I had no intention of bringing it forward to the minister here, other than the last note I got, which was just on May 29. It said: "The committee is in the process of being formed. No quick or definitive time frame. They will keep you informed as to progress." So that's why I brought it to the minister's attention, because of committees being formed.

And I know that you want to consult with the UBCM. That's no problem; they don't have any problem with that. I think the UBCM would be in total agreement with what these people are asking for. So on that note, I just thank the minister for her time and her answers tonight, and for her patience with my questions.

[9:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I couldn't, and I would be. . . . I know that there's a great deal of controversy. I don't want to be labelled an urban yuppie member, which I'm often accused of being. There are minds better than mine that have determined these issues. But if it's in the context of the application of a certain policy, I would be more than happy to tell you how a policy is applied to the north.

J. Wilson: If you have no designation of where this area is, then you would have no idea where this policy would apply. Is that not the case?

I guess what I'd like to know is: is the central interior, which is the Cariboo-Chilcotin, considered to be in the north or is it somewhere else?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The reason why I asked if there's a specific policy is because we have policies that apply in different ways throughout the province. The northern isolation allowance, for instance, applies to specific communities, some of which are contained in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region.

J. Wilson: The problem we are being faced with in the Cariboo is that we are short of physicians. I believe I heard the minister go into a discussion on incentives they have to attract doctors to these areas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if a doctor will sign a three-year contract, they will be allowed to set up and practise in these areas. Is this correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We actually just explored that a few minutes ago. Perhaps the hon. member could show by a 

[ Page 3833 ]

nod: is he talking about a foreign-trained physician, a physician from out of country? If so, we have just negotiated with Human Resources Development Canada that in order for a foreign physician to be recruited into northern communities, they first be required to sign a three-year commitment to stay in that community. That is to cope with the problem that existed before, where a physician from another country would enter, get landed status and then move out of the rural community.

J. Wilson: I guess it's a physician from a foreign country. But let's look at a physician from this country. Is there any incentive for anyone from Canada to move into these areas and start up a practice?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. It's our physician supply system that we've negotiated with the B.C. Medical Association, which will form legislation: the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997, which is before the House for debate now. It's a complex physician supply program, all of which is directed toward encouraging physicians to locate in northern and isolated communities. There's a substantial fee-for-service enhancement, and it's on a community-by-community basis. There are increased fees which the doctor can charge. We have locum programs to relieve that person where there are three or less physicians in the community. There is a substantial number of programs in place now.

J. Wilson: I'm a bit confused here. The minister described a piece of legislation that we're enacting at the moment, but I take it that it has already been implemented.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We had temporary physician supply measures negotiated with the BCMA, and we are now incorporating those into legislation to make them permanent and therefore supposedly able to withstand a court challenge from those who do not agree with such supply measures.

J. Wilson: This sounds like a good idea to try to entice physicians to the north, but at present I have been told that anyone wishing to come into our area and start up a practice is restricted to 50 percent billing.

Hon. J. MacPhail: All northern isolation allowance communities have 100 percent billings. We have been through this several times. I don't mind if there's a specific community to which the member wishes to refer. There's a complex chart, depending on specialty and community, on what the allowable billing rate is. It ranges from 50 percent through to 120 percent.

J. Wilson: I guess in a roundabout way the minister is getting back to answering my question. I asked if we were considered to be in the north or somewhere in between, and I find that if we're 50 percent billing, we're indeed not considered to be a northern community. That was my question in the first place. Are we even considered in the scheme of things in order to get practitioners into our area?

Hon. J. MacPhail: My understanding is that the Cariboo-Chilcotin is a fairly large region. Would the member care to specify a particular community, so I could give him a particular answer?

J. Wilson: It may be a large area, and I know that it is; it's almost remote. But we have two centres for health care -- actually, three: 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel. Everyone has to come to those centres, if they want any type of health care service. Now, my question is: can the minister tell me what the status of the Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House hospitals are in relation to a northern allowance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they're NIA communities. They ordinarily qualify for 100 percent billings, but it is by specialty. For instance, in the northern interior, the neurology specialists get to bill 100 percent and in some cases even more. If the member has a specific specialty that he wishes to bring to my attention -- the 50 percent billing -- then I can actually confirm for him whether indeed that specialty is at 100 percent, 75 percent or 50 percent in his community.

J. Wilson: When you start restricting what a person's income is, it's putting the cart before the horse. What we need are physicians. Whether it be general practitioners or specialists, we need people to come to work. If you restrict the income they can earn, you are going backward, not forward. It just doesn't make sense to me how we can ask someone to come up and take a job at 50 percent of the income they should be earning. It does not work. Now, is there anything that's going to change with this system to make it. . . ?

I don't understand. Maybe we have a surplus of doctors in this province. Maybe they're lined up at the minister's door looking for a job, but when we advertise. . . . For instance, we have been down one surgeon for almost a year now. We cannot seem to get that position filled on a permanent basis. It is all part-time. In our hospital in Quesnel, we need the services of two surgeons, but there is no one who wants to take it on. Is there anything else, besides what's been described to me, to encourage doctors to come and set up a practice without being penalized through the billing system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, hon. member, and we've gone through each and every one of those initiatives over the course of the last three weeks. In fact, if the member would be more specific. . . . If he's suggesting that there's a 50 percent billing restriction on a surgeon and that's why they can't recruit the position, I would say that his information is wrong. It's a very complex physician suppy program that we've discussed at length here and that has been negotiated with the BCMA, which is to meet the needs of supplying physicians to the north.

I just spent a half-hour discussing it with the member for Peace River North. I went through all of the recruitment measures that we have in place. I have said that this is a very serious problem to which we need to turn our attention, that the new programs are in their infancy and that it's a high priority for us to deliver the services to the north.

J. Wilson: I wasn't implying that the surgeon was being restricted to 50 percent. I'll get some stats for the minister if she wishes.

My comment with regard to a surgeon that we need was that the position hasn't been filled for a year now. Even though it's been advertised, you cannot find people who are eagerly waiting to take these positions. In the example of our hospital, the reason we have lost a surgeon is the restriction on the number of beds. The fact is that they're continually cancelling surgeries that have been scheduled because there aren't enough beds in this hospital to handle the everyday run of work that comes in and needs to be attended to. So when you book two or three surgeries for Monday, you find out that you cancel them because all of the beds are filled up.

[ Page 3834 ]

We have a few people lined up on stretchers in the hallways who are not scheduled surgeries, who have come in through accidents or whatever. The surgeon cannot be expected to function or carry on and work at their potential, because of the continual reshuffling of surgeries that need to be done. Unless this is corrected, it won't improve.

In regard to patients in hallways, we had a meeting with the minister some time ago. I'm wondering if she has come to some resolution of the problem we are encountering in the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital with regard to this.

[9:45]

J. Wilson: I thank you for that. The date, I believe, was May 28 or 29. A few more days will be fine.

Something that I have been pondering is the purchase of equipment for hospitals around the province. Is this done through the ministry? Do they budget for the purchasing of equipment, or is it done through the budget in each hospital individually?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This will be the third time I have answered this question. We have allocated $40 million this year for capital equipment. The hospitals have put forward their updated five-year capital equipment plans. Those are being reviewed by the ministry now to determine what group purchase initiatives we can move forward on.

J. Wilson: When her ministry takes this money that is allotted to all the aspects of the health care system. . . . Could she lay out in some detail how this is paid out? Does it go directly to the hospital board, or is it billed directly to the ministry? How is the funding carried out with our present system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have a $7 billion health care system. We have been talking about funding various aspects of the health care system over the course of the last three weeks. I have gone over, in detail, every single aspect of how we fund it.

So I would be more than happy to answer a specific question from the hon. member on a specific program. If indeed there is nothing more specific than his general question, I would be more than happy to personally photocopy Hansard and give it to him.

S. Hawkins: On that point, I would move that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

The Chair: We'll carry on. I recognize the member for Cariboo North.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're going until 10 o'clock. We said we'd go until 10 o'clock. That's the deal.

R. Neufeld: We didn't know.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Order!

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, the member for Cariboo North has the floor. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Hon. members, I request respect for the person who has the floor, and that's the member for Cariboo North. Proceed, member.

J. Wilson: I didn't realize we were going until 10 o'clock, either. It's kind of nice to be a mushroom.

Back to my question to the minister. . . . The minister may be becoming a little testy at this point, but that's fine. What I would like to know is: when a non-profit society is set up -- and I believe there are hundreds of them in this province that receive funding from this ministry -- what has been put in place to monitor the way that these societies function and how they spend money internally? Is there anything that monitors the way they operate?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. There is a series of accountability measures, performance contracts. We sign service contracts with the societies. What kind of contract is in place depends on the particular program to which the member refers.

J. Wilson: If we have some checks and balances in place, are they ever utilized, or are they ever enforced? Or is it simply there, and no one looks at it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they're utilized.

J. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I won't take up a whole lot of the minister's time at this point. If it's possible, I would maybe ask that she supply me with some of the procedures or the system by which things are monitored -- such as wages paid to employees within a non-profit organization, this type of thing -- what goes on, exactly. I'm a little confused on this issue, and I don't doubt the minister is right when she says they are enforced. But in some cases, I believe that there are instances where there is abuse in the system. To my knowledge, nothing has transpired to correct that. With that, I would like to close.

I. Chong: I just have a few questions for the minister. I know she's been very patient with us in dealing with some of the questions that we've had to do with the cancer wait-list. I have some questions that I have been trying to participate with in earlier debates, but I did not hear, in particular, clarification on some issues that I'm concerned with, which affect my riding and people who have called me about this.

The extra funding for the wait-list that I understand was announced back in February of 1997, a few months ago, was $3.7 million. I understand that $2.7 million of it was to go to actually reduce wait-lists and that about $1 million of that was to improve cancer detection services. I wonder whether the minister can tell me: of the $2.7 million for Victoria, Surrey and Vancouver -- I understand it was to extend operating hours and therefore allow in more patients to be treated -- what portion was allocated to Victoria in particular?

[ Page 3835 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The $2.7 million was allocated to the B.C. Cancer Agency, who then distributed it amongst their centres to allow for the operation of the centres for ten hours per day. So they allocated the funding throughout the agency.

I. Chong: If I were able to contact the B.C. Cancer Agency, I would expect that they would be able to supply me with that information. Is that correct? I appreciate that; I see the minister nodding.

The other area I was concerned about again deals with the wait-list. In the winter, I suppose -- or even late last summer -- there was concern that in order to deal with the wait-lists, there were patients being sent to Bellingham because they have the facilities there, and we were at maximum capacity here. Can the minister advise whether that has now concluded? Are there still patients who, because they started their process there, are still proceeding down to Bellingham for treatment, or is that now completely concluded?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we talked about this earlier today, as well. There is now a policy in place that all treatment will be given in B.C. There may be some patients who commenced their treatment in Bellingham, and they will be seeing that through. Their treatment will be completed in Bellingham. But all health care services now will be delivered through the B.C. Cancer Agency in B.C.

I. Chong: Perhaps I missed that particular answer, and the Hansards aren't yet available for me to review.

The other area in terms of the wait-lists that I've received some concern about was that in fact the lists had not come down substantially. I had heard earlier this evening that the wait-list in Victoria, in particular in the area of prostate cancer, was four months. There was another wait-list, I guess, of about eight weeks for another treatment, and I missed that again. There was some noise in here, and I wasn't able to hear that.

I am wondering whether the B.C. Cancer Agency has discussed what optimum level would be satisfactory in terms of the wait-lists for prostate cancer, for example. If it now sits at four months, what would the optimum level be? Would there would be more moneys targeted to decrease what the wait-list is currently at? Is there additional funding in place for that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The CEO of the B.C. Cancer Agency advises me that his plan is moving the entire system toward a wait-list, across the board, ranging between two and four weeks. He sees that as being possible in the very near future.

I. Chong: The other area to deal with in the wait-lists, at the Victoria cancer clinic in particular, has to do with the proposed cancer centre. I know we're going to be getting into the capital projects later on in the debates, and I wonder whether the minister would prefer that I wait until then or whether I am permitted to ask a couple of very brief questions at this time regarding the Victoria cancer clinic. Is she able to answer those, or. . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. member, I've answered several questions about it, so if they're repetitive questions, I don't mind answering them again. But I have no idea. . . . I've already outlined the capital budget for the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre.

I. Chong: Well, in particular, the cancer clinic that was originally targeted to cost perhaps $18 million, as I understand it, has been targeted to cost $30 million, so that's a $12 million increase. I understand that perhaps some of that may include capital equipment, but I'd like perhaps a more definitive answer from the minister as to whether in fact all of that is for additional equipment or whether there's been some additional cost involved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The original announcement didn't include capital equipment or a sixth bunker that is now being planned to meet the needs of the demographics. That's the difference.

I. Chong: The other question I have regarding the cancer centre expansion -- and I understand the announcement occurred in February that the freeze was lifted for this -- is whether the funding has actually been in place. What portion of that is allocated for this budget year? As I understand it, it's straddled over a number of budget years. Can the minister advise on that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We announced the capital flow at the time, and it's on target, but we'll get you the exact numbers. It was part of the announcement that we made.

[10:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. The way capital projects are funded is that the cash flows over the course of the whole project. If the project is a three-year project, the total cost of the project is funded through a cash flow in each year until project completion. That's how every capital project is funded.

I. Chong: I appreciate that. But given that it is a three- or possibly four-year project and $30 million has been allocated. . . . I'm not trying to assume that it will be an even $10 million that's allocated each year or whether in fact there has been a substantial amount allocated in the first year or a much smaller amount allocated -- for example, $5 million this year and then $10 million and then $10 million, and then $5 million in the last. Could the minister advise us what amount has been allocated for this year? If she's able to provide that, it will give me some opportunity to perhaps monitor the progress of the allocation over the course of the expansion.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the amount that's been allocated for this particular year is how much money they will spend this year. It's approximately $5.9 million. You pay for your bills as you go along, and that's how capital projects are funded.

I. Chong: That really was the figure I was looking for. I understand that you do pay for things as you go along. But usually, as I say, I'm not privy to some of the information the minister has, and you can generally tell from what has been allocated in a particular year just what kind of progress may be made in the development and expansion.

[ Page 3836 ]

At this time I have some rather extensive questions, as well, to do with the Royal Jubilee Hospital redevelopment. That can take some time. I would ask the minister whether she is able to proceed at this time with those questions. Or would she defer them to another time?

Interjection.

I. Chong: Then I presume the minister is wishing to continue. The questions I have are regarding the Royal Jubilee Hospital redevelopment, announced back on February 27, as I am aware. I was wondering if in fact the minister can advise whether the shovel has actually been put in the ground, whether this has occurred or not.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The project is about to go to tender.

I. Chong: I guess I find that a bit alarming, because I understand that the announcement that was made. . . . Everything was in place, everything was ready to proceed, and I had understood that the minister was quoted in the paper, saying that the shovels will be in the ground by late spring of this year. So I had been waiting to see that particular photo opportunity, I guess, appear in the paper.

I understand, as well, that the original projection for the Royal Jubilee Hospital redevelopment was estimated at $105 million, and that has gone up to $112 million in its final announcement -- a $7 million increase. I'm wondering whether the minister can advise what the $7 million increase. . . . That does not appear, as I recall, to be capital equipment that had not been anticipated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The construction has been divided into two phases. Actually, the phase that we funded is now about $83 million.

I. Chong: I guess I find that a bit confusing in that while the purpose of the capital spending review was to look for savings, we now see that there was an increase of $7 million. I'm just trying to determine what kind of savings was anticipated, given that we now have a $7 million increase in this particular project. How does that suit the purpose of the capital spending review?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Capital review was done across the system, across government services, because the election was fought on how we spend money on facilities and debt. This government was accused of being out of control in its debt-spending, so we did the capital review across the system to make sure that the projects we were proceeding on were needed and were in the context of what taxpayers could afford.

Are there going to be savings across the system in terms of the $1.2 billion that we spend in capital? Yes, there will be. Are there savings in each and every project? No, there won't be.

G. Farrell-Collins: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will repeat my announcement that the House will sit tomorrow, and I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
(continued)

R. Coleman: I just want to spend a bit of time discussing this task force on manufactured homes. I frankly don't see the need for the task force. I haven't seen it since I read the Manufactured Homes Advisory Committee of British Columbia report that was done in September of 1992, which dealt with a number of the issues that the task force has been dealing with, including everything from the bare-land strata to freehold lots, the pros and cons of tenure, the homebuyer and all the rest of it. I'm just wondering how we came about needing another task force and how we set the terms of reference of that task force, considering we already had a fairly comprehensive report with regard to this particular industry.

We also had a report -- another one that I read a draft of -- which we all referred to as the Kasper report, with regard to the same industry. I'm just wondering what the mandate of this particular group of people is, what the terms of reference are and why we're not just implementing what we already have.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, the task force is a subcommittee of my advisory housing group, which includes representatives of the manufactured homes industry. So basically, it's to get a broader perspective and just to put a broader dimension on things. That's what they're there to do, and that's why it's being done.

R. Coleman: I'm not a big fan of duplication. That's why I asked the question. I think that sometimes you can study yourself to death and never accomplish anything. That would be a concern that I have with this particular group having to meet.

I want to canvass a few issues with regard to affordability and housing, and some of the impacts of government on 

[ Page 3837 ]

housing so that we're aware of them and understand what they are. In the past four years, the British Columbia government has put in more measures to tax housing than any government in Canada. In fairness, few in government may realize the total extent of the damage that provincial legislation can do or may have done. So it's time for us to take a step back and realize what we have here.

We added a property transfer tax to move up bars, including a great number of seniors, which affected seniors and the cost of housing with regard to their move out of their single-family home into condominiums -- or whatever form of housing they choose to move into. We allowed park and school site levies on new building lots, which add a total of up to 10 percent to the cost of a new house. The province has introduced building and energy codes that have added unnecessarily to the cost of multifamily and single-family housing.

The provincial environmental regulations hamper delivery and the financing of land with regard to housing. I have a report that was done on the legislation on contaminated sites that came into effect on April 1 and how it affects the real estate industry. Frankly, the impact of that is not felt yet, but I can guarantee you that we will feel it dramatically in the housing industry as we do this retroactive look at who is responsible for what on contaminated sites. Then we had the agricultural land reserve. Whether its freezing has had an effect on property values in some areas, making them unrealistically high, is a separate debate in itself. The province has introduced employment and labour changes that have increased construction costs on new homes.

Basically, what it comes down to is this: if you look at a $200,000 home in British Columbia, that home can carry up to $40,000 in direct and indirect costs associated with government, all of which are passed on to the homebuyer. Seldom have I ever seen a builder absorb the costs of any levies, or whatever. So what happens is that the homebuyer ends up paying for it.

Costs from levels of government are basically broken down into three areas that affect the cost of housing. At the municipal level we have development cost charges to parks and school levies that can average up to $22,000-plus per home. In addition to that we have permits and hookup fees of $1,945 on the average. On the provincial level we have property purchase tax of $2,750 -- I'm using a $200,000 home as an example here; PST on building materials of $3,150; Workers Compensation Board costs of $1,890; and environmental and filing fees that were about $167 per unit last year, which are anticipated to go up as a result of new regulations. In addition to that, the homeowner pays GST of about $8,960 on that unit, for a typical government cost of $41,312 per unit. I just wonder what the minister thinks of 20 percent of the cost of a $200,000 home being related to different fees and levies that we put against the home rather than into the actual construction of the product itself.

[6:45]

I think there are some things that need to be looked at. They are being looked at, and they fall particularly in the guidelines of this ministry. One is what the member has referred to in terms of hookup costs, servicing costs, DCCs and infrastructure costs. Clearly those are costs to homes. And the debate there in the community is: who should pay for them? Should they be spread amongst everybody? Or should they be spread amongst the new home purchaser who gets the brand-new street, the sidewalk, the underground lighting and the nice street posts, compared to the guy or the woman who has the house with the open ditch, no sidewalk, the pea-gravel road, whatever the standard was in their time? Should they bear some of the cost if they're not going to get any of the improvement? So that's all part and parcel of the debate.

Having said that, there are some really significant variations between municipalities as to what they use and how they apply DCCs. Some municipalities try to use DCCs to control development. That's wrong. DCCs are not intended to be a stop to development. If you don't want development in a community, just say you don't want development. Don't use DCCs as a backdoor route to try and do that. What we need to do is try and get some sort of standard policy, some standard practices within regions if not within communities. We need to say, "Okay, here's the best practice in this community," and get a buy-in from communities and business so that everyone has a sense of what's fair and what's right. And we're moving that way.

At the end of the day, there's not much difference between the cost of a road or a sewer in Port Coquitlam and going across the street into Coquitlam, where the road and the sewer are exactly the same thing. The costs are comparable, yet why are the DCCs in one community sometimes $5,000 or $6,000 different? It doesn't make sense. So we need to address that, and that's being looked after.

In terms of some of the other issues like permit fees, municipalities have permit fees, and some charge full cost recovery and some don't charge full cost recovery. That's the way things are at the local government level. That's a cost that's determined at the local government level.

In terms of the PST or the GST, I guess we can talk to the Ministry of Finance, saying people want a break -- they don't want to pay a tax -- but at the same time, when they move into that new home in the neighbourhood, they want the new school there which costs money. You know, there's a whole host of things.

The same with the agricultural land reserve. We could do away with the agricultural land reserve and free up an awful lot of land. But then at the same time, you have everyone jumping up and down, going: "Oh, the farmland's disappearing." So yes, there's a whole host of things. There are some things we can do something about, and there are some specific measures being done.

R. Coleman: I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the minister. I know that having been in municipal government, you're aware of the problems that some of this has caused. Of course, as you described, some of the DCCs are being used as a stop to development or in some cases almost like a bank. I can assure you that in my portion of my township, there's substantial money in the DCC account. But I know that there are still streets still with ditches and without sidewalks, because they're not spending the money on those particular things. So even though the DCCs are collected for the benefit of the community, the benefit isn't accruing to the whole community. I think that's part of the argument that goes back to it.

[ Page 3838 ]

In the summer of 1995 the issue of water penetration in condominiums gained widespread attention. The representatives of the residential construction industry have worked with the government to come forward with workable solutions to meet shared objectives of protecting consumers. The minister was presented with proposals from the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. and the Urban Development Institute with regard to water penetration. The proposal included a request that the provincial government introduce legislation that would require that every homebuilder have some certification and a request to require every home built in B.C. be backed by a private sector third-party warranty program. Included in the legislation would be a requirement that the contractor must belong to a recognized industry association that delivers education, training and is capable of disciplining its members; mandatory licensing of property managers requiring continuing education for strata managers, including training in building envelope maintenance; creation of a 1-800 telephone line to assist condominium owners experiencing problems; and a best-practices guide for building envelope design, construction and maintenance in collaboration with the government.

The minister received this presentation from the Canadian Home Builders Association. The media release came out on May 6. I'm just wondering: have you had an opportunity to look at it or to deal with it? What is the status of it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I'd like to say that the first groups I met with upon becoming minister were the builders and the UDI. At that time, I made it clear that as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being a MLA from the suburbs and now as Minister of Housing, the number one problem is leaky condos, and the fact that first-time homebuyers, seniors and people who invest their money find it completely and totally unacceptable that three years after they move into a building, they are then presented with a $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 bill to fix a product they thought was fine when they purchased. Either we find some way to fix it where we work together or the public will force government to act unilaterally. I would prefer fixing things where there's a buy-in. That's a much more preferable way than the government coming in with a club.

Anyway, having said that, we got a proposal. I'm really pleased with how seriously the building industry is taking this. They've put forward some good ideas. They've asked for some changes that require legislation. I've read the proposal. I think it's a good base, and I think there's a lot to work with there. So I'm feeling quite optimistic. When we discussed the proposal, they and UDI asked if we could put together a task force -- an industry and ministry task force. That's taken place. We'll be meeting, I think, in the next week or so to discuss the recommendations, and we're doing work within the ministry on our assessment of the program. We're going to take it forward from there. In terms of any legislative change, I don't see it for this session. I want to make sure that we come forward with a program that works, and a program that's got a broad base of support and meets the objective that I think all of us want -- that is, no more leaky condos.

R. Coleman: One of my first trades when I left high school was as a roofer. I think the first thing we could do is teach architects that water does not run uphill, and also for municipalities, particulary planning departments, to look at what types of eaves they allow on buildings to deflect water in a west coast environment with a lot of rain. But, as you say, it's a very serious. . . . I mean, I make light of it at the moment, but as Housing critic I get a lot of calls with regard to the Condominium Act. I would say that most of them relate to some sort of argument within a strata corporation as to who should pay for what with regard to the leaky condo, whether it be water that's run down inside the stucco into one person's unit and put the dry rot into their wall, or whatever the case may be. It's an ongoing problem, an ongoing argument. I'm pleased that they're addressing it, and I'm pleased that you're addressing it, because I think it's something that's absolutely important that we deal with.

The only other issue I want to touch base on, just quickly, is how environmental issues affect the real estate industry in the Ministry of Environment's estimates. I think that is the appropriate place to canvass the issue.

The other one is with regard to a safety systems review. I understand that the Canadian Home Builders Association is about to submit a final report to you with regard to that, and you'll be dealing with that. There are some concerns out there with regard to the Building Code and some changes, and whether we can standardize some Building Code issues. I also understand that the ministry is working on that. So I won't get you into discussions of particular sections of the Building Code tonight, because I think it would probably be anti-productive, considering that you may not have read it yet. Or some of the standards would be confusing to both of us. . . . There is concern that there be some standardization within the industry with regard to building codes, particularly whereby municipalities make significant changes to their own local codes that affect the cost of doing business or building a particular product. I think that's very important.

I should also mention that the Canadian Home Builders Association is launching a program for training people in renovation certification, which I think is a positive. In reviewing this organization, I find that they're taking some positive steps to meet some of the concerns within their own industry, and I think that's very important.

I'd like to just conclude by thanking the minister for his patience. I know this has been a rather comprehensive review of housing, social housing, private-public partnerships and future opportunities. I think it's important that we do this from time to time, so that we're aware of the whole industry as it evolves. My recommendation, again, would be that we try and bring some of these other issues -- whether it be the Attorney General and the Condominium Act or the Ministry of Finance or whatever -- under a roof where we can actually get a handle on them. I think we're proceeding in the right direction in a lot of cases with B.C. Housing. I think they have some innovation. I think the tools have to be provided to them as they go into their strategic plan from the ministry. I think we should recognize that, otherwise a strategic plan won't work. When we move to this addition of the CMHC stock, which I'm sure we're going to do, I think that the strategic plan -- and how we're going to apply the use of that land and product -- is going to be very critical. Again, I'd like to thank the minister for his time. And I'm sure we'll move on to other issues in Municipal Affairs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just in response, I'd like to say that we have had a very thorough and comprehensive review of housing and B.C. Housing. I appreciate the member's comments. He's made some good suggestions and some good points. I look forward to discussion next year, when we can see the progress that we've made.

R. Thorpe: I just have a couple of questions that are specific to my area of the Okanagan -- very general questions. With respect to municipalities and the ALR, what kind of 

[ Page 3839 ]

liaison or work do you do with the municipalities or regional governments in assisting them in long-range plans with respect to the bureaucracy, or the process, of reviewing or getting things out of ALR to fit community needs? What kind of work does your ministry do in that area?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess it would primarily be growth strategies and official community plans. In terms of providing assistance to municipalities, we can provide assistance and advice and tell them how to negotiate with the Agricultural Land Commission. At the end of the day, the final decision is up to them, of course. But I think the biggest tool is through the official community plans and the growth strategies management act.

[7:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely.

R. Thorpe: Another area of interest, in looking long-range at the South Okanagan, is wastewater management. I understand that for the most part in the South Okanagan right now, if we were able to attract any major industry that required a lot of water for whatever, for processing, we don't have the facilities in any of our communities. I'm wondering: does your ministry have any services available to assist smaller communities, or communities in general, with longer-term wastewater management strategies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of wastewater management, there is the mandatory waste management plan required of each community. Having said that, in terms of implementation or capital costs, the ministry is able to assist in a capital program. That, of course, depends on how much money is available in any one year. So the answer would be yes.

R. Thorpe: At this point in time, I'm not interested in capital dollars. I'm interested more in situations where we seem to be -- and this isn't a criticism of the government -- reacting to situations rather than being proactive and saying. . . . We all talk about jobs and we all talk about investment, but if we don't have infrastructure and plans in place to say, "Here's where we want to be in 20 or 25 years, and here's where we are today. . . ." I would really be interested -- not on the capital side or other things; they don't have to be financial resources, they could be human resources -- in what kinds of resources are available from the ministry to help in this kind of basic strategy development.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The basic tool is still growth strategies, the growth strategies management act. However, within that framework is the ability to focus on key issues in different areas. For example, one of the key focuses in the growth strategies management act in Vancouver is the issue of jobs and how transportation relates to jobs. In terms of the Okanagan, the key issue that has been identified is water and the impact of water not just on housing but also on jobs and everything else. So in terms of being able to assist in regional planning taking place in terms of implementing the growth strategies management act, we have staff available to work not just in this ministry but on an interagency basis, in order to assist in making long-term plans and giving advice on long-term plans. So there is assistance available.

R. Thorpe: I guess it's always important to ask what seem to be very simple questions, because you never really know where they're going to lead you.

With respect to water being a priority in the Okanagan, I'm wondering if the minister could advise me what kind of plan is in place and where the ministry is in the development of that plan. What kinds of resources are allocated to that from estimates going forward?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's not a ministry plan; it's a regional plan. It will be the regional plan, so all the communities within a particular region will participate in the plan.

R. Thorpe: Does the ministry participate in this planning process? Does it nurture it along, or is it just up to the regions -- and if they perform, they perform; and if they don't, they don't?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's the legislation. That's one tool. There is an office that deals with the Okanagan, where there are staff available. That's another, and then there are also interministerial staff available to help bring things together.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise me what kinds of financial resources are in his financial plan in dollars and cents, and also about the FTEs in this department that are available to assist the regions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are nine FTEs and a million dollars.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much for this information. I'm wondering if I could, outside these estimates, ask that department, or ask you, to get staff to perhaps prepare a small briefing document for me on the status of the water situation and the growth management strategy in the Okanagan. I'd appreciate that very much.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd be happy to oblige.

G. Abbott: In the areas I'd like to proceed to in the next little while, I have just a few brief questions with respect to airports and the statutory amendments required to allow the municipalities and regional districts to go about the business of operating airports. I have questions on the school sites acquisition act, on where the ministry is heading with respect to the downtown revitalization program and on the business licence issue raised, as you know well, by the city of New Westminster. Then we'll see. If we've got any time left, we'll charge on fearlessly. That's just to give you an idea of where we're going today.

To begin, I'd like to ask the minister. . . . It was my understanding from the last estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that an amendment to section 928 of the Municipal Act was required to allow regional districts and/or municipalities to collect airport fees. That was my understanding from the minister. My understanding from the minister, as well, was that we would see the province moving forward in this session to fulfil the need for amendments there.

The Chair: I would just caution members in regard to legislation discussions in the estimates.

[ Page 3840 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: You might well think that, hon. member, but I couldn't possibly confirm it.

G. Abbott: Fine. I appreciate the business of future legislation and all that. We tend to operate on a slightly different plane in here, perhaps, than in some of the more adversarial debates that go on. For example, in the debates of the Municipal Affairs estimates on August 8, 1996, I asked the then minister whether the minister could confirm or expand that in fact section 928 was a problem. He said yes, it is. To quote him: ". . .it is our intention to move forward in the spring to provide that provision." I wasn't really introducing a new element into it. I was merely hoping for the present minister to confirm the stated goal of the previous minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've always admired that previous minister for his astuteness.

G. Abbott: I always admired him for his frank and very straightforward answers, and that's something I haven't received here yet on this particular issue. Frankly, the airport question is probably not one of the more provocative or sexy issues that will be raised in these estimates of many sexy and provocative issues. I actually raise it because it's one that UBCM has at times asked me to bring forward, and I can do it in the form of a letter. Really, I just want an indication of where we're going on these things.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is an important issue. It has to be done; I would like to see it done. I would like to say that it's going to be done. But since last April, a number of things have happened, not the least of which is that the heavy hand of the Speaker's office has extended even into this small and comfortable chamber. At that time last year, you used to be able to say things like what the previous minister said, such as yes or no. But we also used to be able to eat pizza in here, too, and drink Coke and other things such as that. Unfortunately, all that has been brought to an end, so the rules that apply in there are now being rigorously enforced in here, I take it. Anyway, it does need to be done. I want to see it done. I'd like to see it done, and hopefully it will be done.

G. Abbott: Could I ask, then, if there are in the minister's view any outstanding impediments that might prevent the ministry from obliging municipalities and regional districts in this regard?

Hon. M. Farnworth: None.

[7:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that's my understanding.

G. Abbott: You'll note how carefully I couch my question here. Is the minister aware of any outstanding impediments that might prevent successfully amending the Municipal Act, should he be fortunate enough to be able to do that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm always on the lookout for potential impediments that would stop me from introducing legislation that would make the lives of municipalities easier. I can determine no impediments.

G. Abbott: The third area where, as I understand it, there is currently some limitation in the Municipal Act is with respect to the ability of regional districts to operate airport commissions without having to obtain consent of the electors. I gather that this is part of the package which UBCM has been looking for for a couple of years to literally empower them to deal with airport concerns. So, again for the record, is the minister aware of anything that might act in the way of an outstanding impediment to achievement of such an amendment to allow regional districts to establish airport commissions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On that particular question, there are a few impediments, but we are working to overcome them.

G. Abbott: I'm tempted to address the time-frame issue on this, but obviously the ministry is well aware of the problems. I will deduce from the oracle-like answers from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the concern is there and that the ministry will be obliging the municipalities and regional districts across this province as soon as it possibly can with the necessary, shall we say, housekeeping legislation in order to achieve the objectives.

An Hon. Member: He was a big hit at Delphi.

G. Abbott: Yeah, I'm sure. I'd like to think so, anyway.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: This is way more exciting than that -- maybe than this, too.

The school sites acquisition act. I have been treated, on two or three occasions now, I guess, to quite animated debates at UBCMs on this subject, and perhaps the minister sat in on a couple of those as well. Frankly, it's an issue that I haven't entirely come to grips with myself in terms of what the province ought to be doing here. But it is a difficult one, and it seems to be one that doesn't really ever go away. The correspondence I've had on it recently -- one was from the city of Richmond, as I recall, and more recently from the city of Abbotsford -- was with respect to the school sites acquisition act.

The contention of the city of Abbotsford in their letter of March 24, 1997, is that the school sites acquisition act should be looked at in terms of making it uniform or mandatory across the province. They advance a number of arguments for that. They note, for example, that under the legislation only six municipalities have entered into the school sites acquisition agreement with their respective school boards.

First question: is that the ministry's understanding as well -- that there has only been very limited use of it? And second, is the province looking at ways of changing things?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would agree with the comments the hon. member has made. This issue has been around for a long time. There are many points of view. I think the letter from Abbotsford is probably typical of one particular point of 

[ Page 3841 ]

view, as in: make it mandatory or make it uniform. It is my understanding that about six municipalities so far have, in one form or another, adopted a bylaw. I guess where we're at right now is that we've struck a committee of this ministry, the industry, the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, and local government through the UBCM to sort of sit down, look at this and try to come up with something that's acceptable to everybody -- or that at least addresses the major concerns -- and to go forward from there. The one thing I want to see with this whole issue is that we don't rush into it, that we do it right. Otherwise, if we don't, it's just going to keep coming back again and again. Quite frankly, I'd rather not deal with it again and again.

G. Abbott: I think that's a good approach. I think that's a wise way to proceed on this one, because there are substantial differences of opinion within UBCM itself. I'm not sure whether the minister has actually received clear direction from UBCM at any point in time with respect to this one. I know the votes at UBCM are invariably very close with respect to this issue. I can't remember whether at times it's been passed or defeated or what, in terms of making it mandatory. I guess the question is: has UBCM given you any direction? Is it an issue that is coming before the joint council?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It may well come before the joint council. Currently it's at this task force level, but the basic message that I've got from UBCM members is: "Let's do it right." At the same time I've also had the views of individual municipalities on it, ranging from, "Scrap it and just don't bother," to municipalities saying: "Make it mandatory and make it retroactive." So there's a whole host of opinions out there.

G. Abbott: I'm happy to leave it that way. As I say, I think that's a good way to proceed on that one, because it's a difficult issue to come to grips with. There are quite strong conflicting arguments on both sides as to how the ministry should proceed.

One of the events of recent months was the announcement of the termination of the downtown revitalization program. I think the Village Square program was tied in with that as well. As I recall, that program for villages was terminated as well at the time. Could the minister advise what the reasons were for the termination of that program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was a budget decision. It was perceived at the time that the program was primarily a business subsidy, and business subsidies were first on the order. That was why the decision was made.

G. Abbott: One of the reasons I want to raise this particular point is that the former minister and I had a very pleasant discussion about downtown revitalization at the last set of estimates, and. . . . Well, we might talk about future policies. But we did talk about it. One of the rather remarkable things that the minister noted at the time was that the total cost to the province of this program, intended to deliver somewhere between $1 million and $2 million worth of grants and benefits a year, was only $120,000 a year -- the cost of Martin Thomas and a couple of his staff members. Given that, does that tend to support the notion that it was a budgetary consideration? I wouldn't think so, given that the program was largely self-supporting, based on the returns of interest and principal.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, it was a budget decision. It came back to the joint council, and I'm actually glad that it did. But the initial decision was very much a budget decision, and it was viewed as a business subsidy. Even though the cost was small, I think there was a certain symbolism there. At the end of the day, it was strictly a budget decision.

G. Abbott: Again, I don't think there's any percentage in spending a whole lot of time on this. I would have to think of the two reasons advanced by the minister: (1) that it was a budgetary decision; and (2) that it was a symbolic business subsidy issue. Given that $120,000 is chump change not only in this government but in this ministry, there had to be a good deal of weight attached to the symbolic importance of this being a business subsidy.

Let me offer the minister an even better way out of this, an even better answer, a more politic answer to the question I pose. The province had in mind a successor program that was going to be better and more effective than the one it replaced. Is that also a reason why the program went the way it did?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will resist the temptation to give the politic answer, but I will state for the record that it was part of a budget process; it was a budget decision. Ten $100,000 items add up to $1 million, and ten of those $1 million items add up to $10 million. That's a new high school or a new middle school in the member's riding. That's how it was done.

Having said that, there were concerns raised by local communities throughout the province, particularly small communities, about it being eliminated. I felt they were valid. We brought it to joint council, and we said: "Okay, let's see what we can do." What I think you will see come into place is some sort of a successor program. Within the next short fullness of time there will be a full, concrete proposal in front of municipalities, which hopefully should address their concerns.

G. Abbott: I love the expression "short fullness of time," because a number of groups, of municipalities, have asked me when we might be seeing the successor program. In fact, I'm not sure if it was this minister or the previous minister, but certainly we've had indications at meetings of the UBCM and so on that there would be a successor program to this, so that doesn't get us into that very dicey area of future policy. We already know that it's coming, and it will be here in the "short fullness of time." Does a short full. . . ? No. How did you put it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short fullness of time.

G. Abbott: Does that mean this session?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As opposed to the greater fullness of time, I would say yes.

G. Abbott: A successor program is coming relatively soon. Could the minister advise of. . . ? Let me pose it this way. The downtown revitalization program was very effective, I think, in most respects. There are a few areas, perhaps arguably, where improvements could be made, like the fa�ade program. I heard criticisms of that on occasion, because it was perceived by some to be almost a sort of straightforward subsidy to business. But generally, the program was always very well received, particularly the way it was delivered by Martin Thomas. In fact, one of the few things that virtually every municipality in the province of British Columbia could 

[ Page 3842 ]

agree on was that the program was very well run by Martin Thomas. Will the new program continue to make use of the expertise of Martin Thomas, and will it in a general way build on the strengths that came with the original program?

[7:30]

I think Martin has been doing a good job. I think he's still in the position to offer advice and assistance, which is what he's been doing since the program was devised. I think that when we announce the program, it will be seen by municipalities as building on strengths that as a program they'll be excited about. I think they will be happy with the personnel involved, as well.

G. Abbott: Do Martin Thomas and his associate staff still continue to be employed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

G. Abbott: In the successor program, will there continue to be the previous distinction between the downtown revitalization program and the Village Square program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't say for sure at this time.

G. Abbott: The funding, as I have noted, of the downtown revitalization program came in very large measure from the return of principal and capital from loans made in previous years or decades. In 1997 it's anticipated that there will be something like $1.9 million returned to the province in principal and interest from loans that have been made in the past. In the normal course of things, that $1.9 million would be effectively recycled, in the form of grants and so on, back to the municipalities. Could the minister advise, first of all, whether my numbers and my analysis of how the previous program was funded are correct here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, you are correct.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the disposition of that $1.9 million will be for 1997, given that the affairs of the Downtown Revitalization Program Society were wound up, I think, at the end of February 1997?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We still have obligations within the society, and we're still paying those obligations down.

G. Abbott: Are the outstanding obligations to the program the equivalent of $1.9 million, or is there a residual which could be used for the new program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may be residual savings, but I think it's a bit premature right now. We are working in terms of a new financial partner that also may be able to bring additional resources. That's what I can tell you.

G. Abbott: I am curious about how the financial arrangements for the successor program would be structured. I think the downtown revitalization approach was a good one, in that it was largely self-sustaining. I think any successful program should also be, by whatever mechanism, primarily self-sustaining or entirely self-sustaining. I think that unless that happens to be the case, we will have a situation again where the program possibly becomes the victim in a difficult budgetary year. As the minister knows, one thing I like to see in Municipal Affairs is continuity, equal access and ongoing access to programs that others have benefited from. Could the minister advise -- again, this is not to offend -- whether there is a model, other than the one we saw with the Downtown Revitalization Program Society, which could be used in a program like this? And if so, what would it be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Your comments, I think, are well taken, and that clearly is a concern. There are in fact a number of models that could be used, and that's something that's being worked on right now.

G. Abbott: Is it fair to surmise from the minister's comments that these models have not been refined sufficiently at this point that they could be explained?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct. They haven't been refined to being definitive, so I can't go into greater detail or into some expansion of how we're down to two or three options that might look like this or like that. But when I'm in a position to do so, I would certainly be willing to make the hon. member aware of what they will look like.

G. Abbott: The minister alluded to the possibility, at least, of a second or third partner -- I'm not sure which. Presumably the municipalities themselves become the second partner in every event with the province in any kind of revitalization program. Is the ministry looking at the possibility of a P3 kind of arrangement, where the private sector would form the third party? Or are we looking at UBCM or a semi-public organization like that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because we haven't finalized the arrangements, I can't be any more specific than to say we are looking at a new financial partner -- someone who does have an active interest in local government. Basically I can't go much beyond that at this time.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. I'll respect the need to retain some confidentiality there, since obviously the arrangements have not been concluded. To advise me of that in a precipitous fashion might jeopardize those things. So that's fair enough; we won't pursue that particular one anymore.

Again, this is because it is a very general concern among municipalities across the province. . . . There was a particular approach to applications and awards in the previous model -- the downtown revitalization and Village Square model. The applications were submitted to Martin Thomas; he evaluated the proposals. He probably weighed a number of factors in deciding: had the community received a grant before? Did it look feasible? Were they getting in deeper than they should? I'm sure there were 15 different reasons. Could the minister advise whether there will be a similar kind of approach to applications and awards in the new program? Municipalities are very interested in this and want to prepare.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would think so. I think the process that needs to be in place would be a careful, thoughtful, 

[ Page 3843 ]

methodical one that goes on a step-by-step basis, and I think the talents of Martin Thomas are the type of talents that we would need in assessing projects and proposals to make sure that municipalities aren't getting in too deep. So I think it's good.

G. Abbott: In terms of budgetary considerations, we've touched on this, but I just want to get the point on the record. Given that the minister has suggested that one of the primary reasons for the windup of the Downtown Revitalization Program Society was budgetary -- that the $120,000 ongoing annual subsidy to maintain this program was an important factor in its termination -- would I then be correct in assuming that in looking at the successor program, the province is not going to just put emphasis on it being self-supporting but is going to create a program around it being entirely self-supporting?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It certainly will be our goal to make it self-supporting.

G. Abbott: It would surprise me if that was not the goal, given that one of the reasons for winding up the former one was to alleviate at least $120,000 worth of budget crunch. Unless we're looking at a subsidy of a smaller amount, which would be quite insignificant, I would think that it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

In concluding the questions on the downtown revitalization program. . . . The old program -- and I guess we're really talking programs here, because there's Village Square as well -- was aimed at the beautification of downtown areas: brick sidewalks, trees and a whole range of features including fa�ades to dress up a downtown. Can we anticipate that the scope and mandate of the successor program will be similar? Or is it apt to be a broader or narrower mandate?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I suggest it would probably be broader -- more community-based, with a wider scope.

G. Abbott: A wider scope than was found in downtown revitalization -- what kinds of elements might be included in that broader scope?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There could be more emphasis on economic diversification; there could be more emphasis on employment opportunities. I also think that by changing the focus to community and away from the perception of a business subsidy, you're going to get greater acceptance and less criticism of such things as, say, fa�ades being viewed as a business subsidy.

G. Abbott: We'll leave that one alone, and I thank the minister for his comments. I appreciate that it is something that's still in the developmental stage.

I do want to say, though, just in concluding on the downtown revitalization, that it was one of those programs that I think was very widely used and widely admired, in part because of the personnel associated with it but in part, too, because communities for relatively few dollars could see very substantial improvements in their downtown cores. In my hometown of Sicamous, as a relatively new incorporated community, they have benefited very considerably and have beautified to quite a remarkable extent as a consequence of the program.

[7:45]

That raises another question in my mind. One of the issues that used to emerge about the downtown revitalization program was that unincorporated areas of regional districts could not access the program. Is there any anticipation that that might change in the restructured program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it very well could.

G. Abbott: Okay, we'll leave the downtown revitalization, then, if we could, and turn to the business licensing issue as it's been raised by the city of New Westminster. Just to get the issue on the record here, this is a copy of a letter I've received from the mayor. She argues. . . . I'll just quote from the second paragraph of her letter:

"In recent times there has been much debate concerning the merits of the Municipal Act, as compared to a charter and specifically the Vancouver Charter. While many of the provisions of the Vancouver Charter parallel the Municipal Act, clearly others provide the city of Vancouver with a greater scope of authority. Specifically, section 275 of the Vancouver Charter concerning business licensing powers and the ancillary definition of 'regulate' provide Vancouver with leverage above that which is delegated to the municipalities through section 508 and the definition of 'regulate.' Excerpts of relevant provisions are enclosed" -- whatever that means.

"Through its discretionary power to refuse, revoke or suspend a business licence 'without stating the reasons therefor' and through regulatory power which by definition includes 'prohibiting,' Vancouver enjoys enhanced control over economic development and licensing. These discretionary prohibitive powers are not delegated in the Municipal Act, where licensing 'shall not be withheld unreasonably'. "

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would have to say yes, there are areas of the Vancouver Charter that clearly are superior to the Municipal Act. I think I've stated in previous discussions that as a general rule I tend to take the view that if it's good enough for one municipality, it should be good enough for other municipalities and that as a general principle, changes in the Municipal Act should be able to be either accessed equally, so it's a case of moving one up, or taken it away, so someone moves down. But municipalities, as a rule, should be treated fairly. Having said that, on this particular issue I agree with the city of New Westminster, and I intend to get it changed.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that definitive response. I would concur that if there is a stronger provision in the Vancouver Charter that has worked reasonably well with respect to business licensing, then unless there are powerful arguments that emerge to not do it, presumably one would want to provide the same to the municipalities across the province in the Municipal Act. Good. That takes care of that one with very little argument -- in fact, none.

Could the minister, at this point, advise of the current status of an agreement from, I think, about two years ago -- 

[ Page 3844 ]

maybe it's a little longer than that -- called the Victoria accord? The Victoria accord was an agreement between the province and the city of Victoria, which was to provide some extensive additions in this area of Victoria. I'll let the minister give an update on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That question is probably more appropriately addressed to the minister responsible for Crown corporations, which would be the Minister of Employment and Investment.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough, I guess.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: BCBC? Okay.

I understood that the agreement was between the municipality and the province, and therefore would come within the purview of this. No? Employment and Investment. Fair enough.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We'll get the full details for you of where we have to go.

G. Abbott: Thank you, minister, for that.

Private-public partnerships, P3 initiatives. We have seen in the bill -- I can't remember what bill it is now -- the provisions allowing the city of Victoria to go into a long-term lease with private partners for the purposes of providing and operating an arena. I can't even remember what the status of that bill is now. I'm not sure if it's second reading. It doesn't matter anyway. I'm not going to pursue it from that perspective.

It's just one example of a public-private partnership that the government has had to deal with through the mechanism of a MEVA. We've talked about MEVAs previously and about how in the longer and broader term, the province won't want to deal with every public-private partnership that requires a long-term lease in that manner. Clearly I think the minister said it in these terms: that the broader changes to the Municipal Act will be made to allow those kinds of things to happen. Could the minister advise, first of all: what are the limitations that he and his staff see in the current Municipal Act with respect to P3 arrangements? The long-term lease is one. But are there other impediments in the current Municipal Act to prevent the smooth implementation of P3 arrangements?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of asides to even the long-term leasing. One was the forgoing of taxation revenues. There's the accountability issue, and then there's the provision regarding municipalities aiding specific commercial enterprises.

G. Abbott: Those went by me a little quickly. There was a taxation issue and an accountability issue. And the third was. . . ?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't want to say aiding and abetting a commercial enterprise, but aiding a specific commercial enterprise. Of all those provisions, the key ones in terms of how they impact on municipalities are the long-term leasing of land and accountability through a referendum.

G. Abbott: Is it the intention of this ministry to move towards resolution of these in the near term -- i.e., in the year ahead?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is. We're doing policy work within the ministry and in conjunction with the UBCM. From that, hopefully, we'll be able to come up with legislative proposals for the next session.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me of the number and nature of P3-type initiatives or ventures that are being anticipated currently by municipalities elsewhere in the province that may be limited by these kinds of constraints in the Municipal Act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have an exhaustive list, but there are quite a few just in terms of letters that have crossed my desk. I can think of a number of communities: Nanaimo being one for example, Kelowna being another, I know Coquitlam is interested. There's a host of communities.

G. Abbott: On the impediments contained in the Municipal Act with respect to P3 issues, could the minister advise how those problems are going to be resolved in the interval between remedial amendments to the Municipal Act and the present?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Until the regulations are actually changed, it would have to be under the old practice of an MEVA. An MEVA can only be introduced during the session, and I'm not anticipating introducing any MEVAs in the rest of this session.

G. Abbott: Basically, then, for those municipalities that may be contemplating a P3-type partnership -- which would require a long-term lease or some special discretionary power with respect to taxation or anything along that line, essentially -- they are going to have to continue on in a kind of planning mode until the ministry is able to bring forward amendments which will allow them to come into being.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct. For example, I remember having a meeting with Kelowna earlier on this year, and we discussed the P3 and raised the issue of an MEVA. I think I made it clear at that time that I would be reluctant to be proceeding with a series of MEVAs on a P3 when we're working to try to bring a resolution that will deal with the issue on a provincewide basis. So I know that some communities may be getting to a stage where they're anxious to go. But I'm not aware of any that are sitting on my desk right now saying: "Look, we have a deadline. If you don't do an MEVA by next week, the whole thing falls to bits." I think most communities are supportive of coming up with a policy that will apply equally across the province, and I don't think waiting until next session will be too onerous a task.

[8:00]

[ Page 3845 ]

they deem it appropriate. I do hope the ministry can move expeditiously on the P3 changes, because I think they are widely endorsed.

Moving along from that, I'll see what I might be most comfortable dealing with next. Some, I guess, might be termed planning issues. Same staff? No problem? Great.

In response to a question from Okanagan-Penticton, the minister briefly made mention of the growth management strategy and its role in the province. For my benefit, could the minister provide me with the current view of the ministry with respect to the purpose and objectives of the growth management strategy for 1997?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically, it's to continue on the work that was started last year, and to focus local government to deal with identified regional planning issues in their particular areas, with a view to making further progress on them under the model of growth strategies, which is a voluntary model with a series of carrots as opposed to a heavy-stick model. For example, I think the work being done in the Okanagan is coming on their plan, the lower mainland is well ahead on their plan, the east side of Vancouver Island is making steady progress, and basically I see a continuation of that work. Other regions of the province are also starting to make some progress to the level that those three areas are.

G. Abbott: The only area that I'm really familiar with in terms of growth management strategies is the Okanagan -- Central Okanagan, particularly, which, in conjunction with the Okanagan-Similkameen regional district and the North Okanagan regional district, has tried to move ahead on that particular question.

Is it possible. . . ? I think the program has probably been in place now for two or three years; I can't remember exactly when it was initiated, but I think it was in the time of Minister Marzari, so probably two or three years. Are there any definitive results that can be pointed to at this point in time in terms of achievements of the program or achieving goals that have been set with the program?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it's basically been about 18 months or two years, so it's still very much in the beginning stages. In terms of benchmarks, I think some significant benchmarks have been passed. It is very much an ongoing process -- evolutionary; building on what's been done before. To date, seven regional districts, representing 75 percent of the provincial population, have initiated growth strategies. Two of these -- greater Vancouver and Nanaimo -- have completed growth strategies, and have achieved agreement with all of their member municipalities and initiated action on implementation.

The committee recessed from 8:05 p.m. to 8:10 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Plant: I want to rise during these estimates to raise an issue which is specific to the city of Richmond. It is an issue, though, that I understand has been canvassed in general terms during the course of the estimates debate. It has to do with challenges that municipalities face from time to time in relation to matters such as recovering back taxes on leased federal property. This is obviously a potentially large issue for the city of Richmond, because the Vancouver International Airport is technically within city limits. I am told by officials in the city of Richmond that there was a fairly large amount of money -- nearly $1 million -- at issue in respect of outstanding lease taxes. I think a report went to the city council in Richmond earlier in 1997, asking that the council seek the authority of the minister to write off certain taxes, in accordance with the act.

I'm told that on February 14 there was a meeting involving the minister and probably the mayor of Richmond, and that at that meeting the minister took the initiative in terms of agreeing that he would direct staff to follow up on the issue, and that the following-up would be done by Ken MacLeod, the assistant deputy minister. There are some technical questions relating to these issues. I guess there are always the issues of setting an appropriate precedent, making the right decision on the particular facts and so on. I wonder if I could ask the minister whether the process that he and the mayor discussed in the middle of February has moved forward. If so, in what way, and can the minister indicate whether the matter is near completion or not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process that the mayor and I committed to at our meeting in February has taken place. My assistant deputy minister, Ken MacLeod, has been involved in looking at the issues, working them through with staff, and being in touch with the city of Richmond. The decision is being finalized, and I expect that I will be able to notify both the mayor and yourself within a short fullness of time.

G. Abbott: The minister is so precise in his answers that a supplemental is rarely required. If only that were so when we get into the big House -- that we could get such precise answers from. . . . Frequently supplementals are required there, and even at that, sometimes the. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: That will be the day that you ask a question in the House and then don't ask a supplemental.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. Through the Chair, please.

G. Abbott: I want to remind the minister that in fact we asked a question today and didn't ask a supplemental.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Saved by the bell.

G. Abbott: Right. But nevertheless, true.

An Hon. Member: Who?

G. Abbott: We're testing the patience of the Chair here.

Further to the growth management strategy, could the minister advise whether, over time, the province anticipates adding to the tool kit of planning mechanisms or whatever the province can offer to implement a growth management strategy and see it to completion?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I would see additional legislation coming in over time. For example, the fish protection legislation that has been introduced this session is an example of legislation that is a companion or an addition, as a tool for municipalities in terms of managing growth.

G. Abbott: Are there any other tool kit additions or initiatives that the ministry is contemplating for the coming year that might enhance the ability of regions to manage their growth?

[ Page 3846 ]

[8:15]

G. Abbott: Does the ministry anticipate conceptually -- not this session but in the future -- other additions to the tool box, and what might they be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Certainly it's a possibility, but right now our key focus is on trying to make the existing tools work, and building on what has been accomplished so far. I think what we need right now is a bit of time to allow that to happen. Clearly, if there are issues that have an impact -- fish, as an example -- then I can see legislation forthcoming.

The other way I see things forthcoming is if, for example, the municipalities involved in growth strategies see the need for change -- either legislative change or a focus and direction that may require some additional tools. That, then, might initiate changes.

One of the things, for example, that has come up has been. . . . Right now it's voluntary. There's a series of carrots and mediation to make the process work. There have been those who have suggested, for example, that it should be mandatory. Right now I think it's working fine. I don't think we need to look at a mandatory change. What I want to do is hear how the municipalities see it working. They're the ones who are working with it on a hands-on basis, and if they require additional tools, I'm prepared to consider it.

G. Abbott: What degree of success has the ministry enjoyed in coordinating the activities of. . . . I guess the best way to characterize them would be provincially sponsored task forces like the Okanagan Valley transportation authority. What degree of success has there been in coordinating the activities of that initiative with a growth management strategy?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is, in fact, a very good point. I think it's one of the areas we need to put more focus on, and I think you will see more focus on it. It's getting the idea that, look, it's not just growth strategies, but it's bringing things like transportation into the picture. That's why, for example, you're seeing current negotiations underway with the greater Vancouver regional district in terms of looking at the role of transit in the coming years. Should it stay with B.C. Transit, or should there be a devolution of transit to the GVRD?

G. Abbott: Does the ministry have a specific strategy, though, to ensure that there is a synchronicity or full coordination between the transportation-type authority initiatives and growth management initiatives?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess a strategy is contained within the growth strategies act and the growth strategies process, and the fact that once you start making the decision, once you start making the steps that are required within growth strategies, it has the effect of drawing these outside bodies into the process. If you're looking at this as where you're going to need to make a route, then you have to start talking in terms of transit. And that necessitates such things as water and all the other things that are required. So yeah, in fact, it is taking place.

G. Abbott: I was actually after whether the ministry has a strategy to ensure that there was coordination or synchronicity; but that's close enough, as answers go.

What planning grant programs currently exist in the ministry, apart from the growth management strategy grants?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a number of planning grants available: infrastructure planning grants, community planning grants, regional growth strategy planning grants, special provincial planning grants and restructure planning grants.

G. Abbott: I think I caught three of the four. Again, although I think I understand where each of them is roughly headed, could the minister provide a brief summary of the focus of each of those four programs? We've already talked about the growth management strategy ones, so we don't need to do that. But of the other ones. . .a brief summary of who's eligible and what they do.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are infrastructure planning grants, which assist local governments study and plan the feasibility costs, technology and location of proposed water facilities, proposed sewage collection or disposal facilities, proposed drainage facilities or proposed transportation facilities. All infrastructure planning projects must take into account financial cost, public health and environmental impact. So all communities planning an infrastructure would be eligible for one of those grants.

Community planning grants help local governments study and plan for growth and management of development at a community level, including, but not limited to, preparation of housing policies for the community. Again, all communities are eligible for that.

There are special provincial planning grants, which support a wide variety of planning projects that make a significant contribution to the provincial interest. Again, communities undertaking specific or special projects would be eligible.

And there are restructure planning grants, which assist communities and local governments in investigating the benefits of changing their local government structure -- or boundary extension or what have you. Basically, any community that's considering either an amalgamation or incorporation would be eligible for that type of grant.

G. Abbott: I actually want to spend a little bit of time on the restructure planning grants, because there's some interest surrounding those at this point in time. Before we go there, though, there's a couple of other things I want to discuss. The one planning grant area that I'm still a little bit fuzzy on here, from the minister's brief explanation, is the special provincial planning grant. If I understand correctly, it is a grant program where the subject of the planning grant might be something of broader scope than simply a municipal interest. Is that correct? If so, could the minister provide some examples of where it might be used?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a grant that's very rarely used, if ever. But an example could be. . . . Let's say we wanted a number of local municipalities to do an environmental assessment on our behalf. We would be able to make moneys available for them to do that under this mechanism.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise of what funding is available for each of those four grant areas for the 1997-98 fiscal year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pool of about $2.5 million.

[ Page 3847 ]

G. Abbott: Am I to understand, then, from the minister's response, that the ministry doesn't anticipate particular amounts for each of those four; that there is a pool of $2.5 million and that there is flexibility for staff to approve grants in any one of those four areas in any given year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We do a comprehensive package for the coming year. It's sort of balanced between each of the categories, and it reflects considerably what the local priorities are. If there's a heavy emphasis one year on restructuring, then you'll see restructuring; if there's a heavy emphasis on one of the other areas one year, you'll see that. It's a pool spread among the different grant programs without a fixed amount to each one, and it has a tendency to reflect local government priorities.

G. Abbott: Before we move to restructuring and amalgamations. . . . One of my colleagues who also wants to ask some questions in this area is wanted in the other House to ask some questions at the moment, so we may just juggle things around here a little bit, if that's okay.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yep.

G. Abbott: One concern that has been posed to me by a constituent in respect to a planning issue -- and it's not one that I'm at all expert on, but it's one that my constituent is particularly concerned about -- is section 996(2) of the Municipal Act. The concern they have -- and I'm not sure if you have staff here that can deal with this -- is that section 996(2) provides opportunities for subdivision that would not otherwise be there and that in fact some misuse of section 996 has occurred over time. Could the minister advise whether he or his staff is familiar with any concerns with respect to section 996, its use and/or misuse?

[8:30]

Having said that, if the member wishes me to look at this particular constituent's complaint and take it in and have a look at it specifically, and in terms of looking at the issue on an overall basis as an aid in developing either a solution or identifying further problems that need to be more addressed, we're more than willing to do that.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's generous offer with respect to that, and perhaps, given the nature of the concerns of this constituent, that might be appropriate. He has, in the past, taken the issue up with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I guess the issue was not resolved to his satisfaction.

Could the minister advise, just in terms of explaining it to me -- and I suppose, through our discussion here, to my constituent -- what the ministry's understanding is of the purpose of section 996(2)? In what ways, in the ministry's view, has the use of that subsection been taken in unacceptable directions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's to allow the subdivision of a piece of property that would make provision for a relative to live on the piece of property. Subsection (2) places some restrictions on who you may subdivide to and who may be eligible. So that's what I can tell the member. If he wants a more technical briefing, I can arrange for my staff to provide the full technical briefing for him.

G. Abbott: As I understand it, the concern of my constituent -- and I'm curious as to whether this has been the experience of other municipalities or of the ministry, and whether it is now leading them to begin this process of at least examining this section and seeing whether it can be improved in some way -- is that people use that provision to say, "Yes, I'm subdividing this off for my son/brother/mother/grandfather," or whatever it happens to be, it's approved on that basis, and then once a legal subdivision is made, it can, as a separate legal parcel, be sold to anyone. I think that is one of the central concerns here. Is that one of the central concerns that is prompting the review by the ministry as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

G. Abbott: I'll leave that with that definitive response to my question, for now. That's good -- and actually, I'll pass along that particular case. Perhaps you can have a look at it and, hopefully, indicate to him how, in future, these kinds of issues might be resolved.

As my colleague from Oak Bay is here now, I think we can move along to the planning grant area that we hinted about: restructuring and amalgamation. Could the minister advise of the current level of support for restructure planning grants? I guess it's just a part of the overall -- what is it? -- $2.5 million pool. If a non-incorporated area of a regional district decides that they want to look at incorporation -- let's say Westbank, or any other unincorporated area of the province; Westbank would be quite atypical, as it's probably the largest unincorporated area in the province. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Spuds Acre.

G. Abbott: Spuds Acre is not one that I am as intimately familiar with as Westbank, but it does sound like a fascinating and very beautiful place to be from.

At any rate, whether it's Spuds Acre or Westbank, if the population is 300 or, I think, in the case of Westbank probably 20,000 or 30,000 people, depending on where you draw the boundaries, how is the level of provincial support for a restructuring study determined?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's done on a priority basis, but primarily it revolves around such things as the size and population of the community, areas that need to be looked at, and any other outside factors -- other community impacts, for example. All of those things are taken into account, and also, I would say, the timing. If a community has sort of been in the pipeline and working on it for some time, I would say they are farther up the ladder than the one that comes tomorrow and says, "Hey, we want a restructuring grant because we think Spuds Acre should have village status," or what have you. And there are other factors, such as when the last one was 

[ Page 3848 ]

done. Westbank is atypical. It is still a priority area, but there has been a lot of work done around that issue and I think a vote was held a year or two ago -- certainly not more than three or four years ago, but fairly recently, let's say, in comparison to an area that may have had one seven or eight years ago. So all those things are taken into account.

G. Abbott: When the ministry is considering a restructuring or an amalgamation grant, is the contribution primarily for consultative services in terms of consultants coming in, having a look at the economic base of the community, all the factors that might enter into whether it can successfully operate as an incorporated municipality?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your question would be yes, and basically what you have described is the planning stage. So there are grants for restructuring at the planning stage and then at the implementation stage.

G. Abbott: Is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs anticipating any changes in the way in which their support for restructuring or amalgamation studies is being delivered in the year ahead?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say no. In terms of changes to approach, we may be looking at some things on a perhaps more businesslike approach, or a business case-like approach, as opposed to what is sometimes perceived as -- I don't want to use the term "emotional" -- a sort of "Gee, it's a good idea; let's see if we can do this." Maybe that's the wrong way of phrasing it, but certainly we're giving more of a priority to those where the economics seem to make really good sense.

The other thing is that we are not looking at anything that's even remotely along the Toronto megacity model. So I think that's also something to put on the record.

G. Abbott: I don't know whether anybody will heave a great sigh of relief at that -- probably not. Our municipal structure is so different in British Columbia than it is in Ontario, and I think that in large measure the relatively successful model we have in the regional district probably eliminates a lot of the incentive that would be there to try to do those kinds of large municipal amalgamations.

There are two issues surrounding restructures and amalgamation. One is support for the process. I think the minister has laid that out reasonably well. As I understand it, the restructure support programs will remain in place for at least the foreseeable future. The other side of the coin, of course, is that when, after a suitable process, a community resolves by referendum to incorporate -- perhaps they go to a vote -- there is the whole issue of the restructuring package that is put together. When my hometown of Sicamous incorporated back in 1989, there was a reasonably complex package associated with that, surrounding the reconstruction of certain roads and a grant for the takeover of formerly provincial roads. I can't remember them all. I think there's a whole range of things involved in an incorporation grant of so much per capita, as determined by a census. What is the province doing in terms of those kinds of packages now? I don't even know what communities have incorporated recently, but is there any kind of shift in approach with respect to that part of it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're still doing the incorporation packages. If anything, I think we're trying to relate them more to a sort of strong businesslike case for the economics of an incorporation or restructure. But they're still taking place.

G. Abbott: I may have some more questions in that area, but what we might do now is talk briefly about the case of South Cowichan. I believe my colleague from Oak Bay has some constituents who have properties in the South Cowichan area, and I believe it's a community that may be considering a potential incorporation vote in the relatively near future. But I'll defer to my colleague now for her questions.

I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to canvass the minister on this particular issue. It has only recently come to my attention. When I say recently, it was only when I was able to get back into my community office this weekend and there was an urgent message for me to deal with this -- urgent because the particular voters affected by this are deemed non-resident, particularly in the Shawnigan Lake area.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

As the minister may or may not know, Shawnigan Lake is an area that has a number of waterfront properties, mostly owned by people who live in the lower Island, Victoria area. They use these homes to vacation in the summer, and actually become residents for two or three months throughout the summer. What has occurred -- and I'm not sure how well the minister is informed on this particular incorporation issue -- is that a referendum is being put on June 21 to amalgamate, as I understand, the Shawnigan Lake, Bamberton, Cobble Hill and Mill Bay areas. What is particularly concerning the non-residents is that they have not been able to have the opportunity to participate in the voting referendum due to the stringent requirements now in place. So I'd like to ask the minister if he is aware that there is this problem, what he deems to be perhaps stringent requirements or not stringent requirements, and if he is familiar with those regulations requiring notice to the electors in that area?

[8:45]

But I am familiar with this particular issue, and I can tell the member that ads were place in the Sunday Citizen of May 25 of this year and the Times-Colonist of May 24 of this year. The sections that deal with this requirement to advertise are sections 44, 77 and 164 of the Municipal Act. They require that at least six but not more than 30 days' notice be given by publication in the newspaper, so that people know what's taking place.

Well, given the fact that this vote is taking place on June 24, I think you'll see by those dates that not only has the act been complied with but it has been exceeded, and that there has been nothing untoward done by anybody on the restructuring committee. It's all been done in compliance with the act, and there is opportunity. . . . This is the act that applies to every restructuring and incorporation throughout the province. So while I can understand the constituent's problem, I would have to say that the requirements of the act have 

[ Page 3849 ]

been met, and I think every community has been treated the same way. I don't anticipate changing that at this time unless there's support from local government to change it, and then I would look at it. But certainly any change would not take place in this session. I hope that this answers the member's question.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's answer. I was aware that there was compliance with the act, and I wasn't particularly concerned with that, because the compliance. . . . I did get copies and I did see the six-to-30 days' requirement to advertise. But given that this is a particular area where the residents aren't residents there until perhaps July 1, when school is out and the family literally packs up their Victoria home and heads up to Shawnigan Lake for the summer, that advertisement in the Citizen, for example, would not have reached many of the property owners, because these properties are vacant right now. I was also aware of the fact that it was advertised in the Times-Colonist, because one resident happened to notice and by chance came across that. Given that perhaps it was an additional effort on behalf of the Cowichan Valley regional district, had they not done that, then there would clearly have not been ample and sufficient notification. I understand what the minister is saying. But when there are areas such as the Shawnigan Lake area -- and there might be areas within other parts of the province that have properties which are vacated for a good portion of the year -- surely there could be another opportunity to look at the act.

What is particularly disturbing is that in the past, as I understand it, prior to 1993, property owners were permitted to show up on voting day with a copy of their tax notice and a number of other things to show that they were registered to vote. As I understand it now, non-residents, those who live in Victoria -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- have to get an application and they have to have it notarized by June 6, which is 14 days prior to the voting. So if the first advertisement showed up on the 24th or the 25th in the Times-Colonist, and if they're required to have this done, that really only gives a non-resident two weeks, provided they're not out of town, or provided they come back in time to know that this is happening. My question to the minister is whether or not areas like this can be viewed somewhat differently, and whether anything can be done in this particular referendum vote to alleviate this problem. As I understand it, there are some 5,600 property owners in the Shawnigan Lake area who are very much opposed to this amalgamation, and they would like to cast their vote. Granted, if the other areas are looking to incorporate, they're going to have to accept that outcome. But in this particular case there are concerns.

There is one resident particularly who has contacted me who has tried to reach a number of residents, but he cannot possibly contact 5,600 property owners in about two weeks' time. I understand the chief electoral officer, Mr. Moore, has recently been receiving ten to 20 calls a day, mostly from these property owners complaining about the process. When there is that much complaint about the process, I'd like to ask the minister if there's anything that can be done to ensure that those who wish to vote can vote and don't have to go through this extra step of this non-residency rule. I don't think it was intended to prevent people from exercising their right to vote.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm willing to look at this provision of the act and the ways things are done. If there are people who are concerned, then the ministry is willing to take a look. It would be in the context of discussions with local government. In terms of this incorporation vote, it is set for June 21, and it has followed the act. It has been set, the guidelines of the act have been followed and there is nothing that can be done at this time. This vote is going ahead.

I fully understand the concern of the person you're talking about. At the same time, there has been a whole process that residents of the area have gone through. Incorporation committees and studies have taken place in terms of setting up the vote. The legal requirements of the act have been fulfilled. There has been discussion within the communities affected as to when the vote should take place. All those things were by people who are involved on a day-to-day basis. I understand the concern, but in terms of this particular vote, the vote is called, it has been set and that is not going to be changed.

What I will commit to the member to do is review these sections, and if there are problems that need to be addressed, issues that need to be addressed for the province as a whole, then I'm willing to do that.

I. Chong: I understand that the referendum has been set for June 21, and clearly, with all the advertisements that have so far gone out -- which is really only two -- it would be difficult to change that date. I'm not asking the minister to do what would appear to be the impossible, although I know some of the residents would like that. However, I guess the larger concern. . . . And I know the minister can appreciate this, because in the past week or so he has certainly demonstrated that he believes in the democratic process. He believes that people should have the right to run for office, and as well he believes that people have the right to vote. What I'm requesting here is that the minister consider the fact that there are restrictions in place that prevent people who wish to exercise their right on the 21st to appear to vote, and they are not able to do so at this point, because they must obtain an application from, I think, the Cowichan Valley regional district, they must attach to it copies of their property tax notice and proof of ownership, etc., and they must have that notarized and returned by June 6 -- which is this Friday, which certainly poses a problem.

This particular resident is trying to contact as many people as he can. Some people are away and aren't going to be returning, but some will be returning probably close to June 21 in anticipation of returning to their vacation homes and opening them for the summer. So obviously they'll be able to be up there on that weekend to vote, only to find out that they cannot vote, because they haven't followed the rules that were in place. As I said, I understand that prior to 1993 a non-resident was allowed to participate in voting just by showing up on voting day with the requirements. Like any other voting, if you show proof and you sign a form and declare -- it's a legal declaration that you make -- that you are qualified to vote and you take that responsibility, then surely the ability to vote should be permitted.

So what I am asking is that the minister ensure that this can be done, and I can convey that to these property owners, because the right to vote is very important to them and they do want to participate. It's not a question of moving the date of the referendum, albeit they are concerned that they weren't given ample notice. But now that they've resolved that fact, they want to participate in the vote. They don't want to have to meet the guidelines of this Friday to have to do so. So I would ask the minister to reconsider and think whether there is an option available.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the problem. . . . I understand fully the hon. member's concerns. It's not a question of 

[ Page 3850 ]

whether I want to say someone can vote or can't vote. The fact is that there is an act in place that says how a vote must be conducted, and I am not in the position to say no and replace that. I have to be guided by the act and what it says. In terms of the provisions, it is being followed. In terms of what has to be laid out, that's all been laid out. In terms of the advertising, that's taken place. In terms of the date, that's in place. In terms of how you can vote, there are provisions in place. If I start to waive something in one community, then I'm going to have to do it in another community if someone complains.

It's like the federal election. There are rules in place for how the federal election is to be conducted. There are dates in place that one must meet. I don't like the fact, for example, that the advance poll is on three particular days. If I'm not here for any of those days, I can't vote in the advance poll. I may not have received notification of that. I may not have been enumerated. Many people were missed during the enumeration because they weren't home. Consequently they didn't receive their voter identification card. Consequently they weren't able to take advantage of special voting provisions, or they weren't able to take advantage of advance polling. You can't then go forward and say: "Look, by some estimates, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the country who were missed during the enumeration and who did not receive specific notification of all the options available to them that everybody else did who was at home or resident on the property when they were enumerated. "You've got to make a special provision for them." The act is specific on how it says an election must be conducted, how it must be advertised and how it must proceed according to the legislation.

[9:00]

I. Chong: I appreciate what the minister is saying, in that there are rules in place. Again, I would stress that it wasn't a question of convenience as to why the property owners are not able to participate. Certainly, when you are not at home and you miss the enumeration, or when you are not available for the advance polls, all those things considered. . . . But on the day that an election or a vote takes place, surely there is a mechanism in place to allow those who are qualified and who wish to vote, to vote. And any time we remove that ability, then certainly people feel that their democratic process is flawed.

What we have here is, as I say, not a question of convenience, but a question of why would the act, whether it's the Election Act or through the Municipal Act, have been changed to not allow non-resident owners to show up on voting day, when prior to 1993 it did? That did precipitate a lot of anger, as I understand it. Perhaps there were some amendments made, but probably not to the satisfaction of all communities. But the bottom line, as I understand it -- and I know it's one the minister certainly can appreciate because of his personal views on voting -- is that there are people who want to vote, who know that they're being inconvenienced at this particular time, that they cannot get all the documents and applications in place and have the notarization take place in time to allow them to vote. They want to show up on the 21st and they want to vote.

Again, I ask the minister whether that particular segment would inconvenience this particular referendum vote so poorly, or create such a bad precedent that it could not be looked at. Clearly, if that were a change to be made and it were to become a precedent, but were something that the ministry would look at anyways in the future, to allow it, then it would not necessarily be such a bad precedent.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Look, I fully understand what you're saying, and I fully sympathize. But I ask you to think about it. You say it may not be a bad precedent, and it might not be, but I don't think we want to have ministers of the Crown interfering in an election process. Even if that precedent is for the good, that precedent has been set. And I don't have the authority to do that. I don't think that's a desirable thing to do, to come into something when the rules have been set as to how an election should be conducted and what the requirements for voting are. To then come in and say: "Oh, hang on. I'm getting complaints from a group who say they should have been allowed, or they didn't get this, or, you know, it's. . .'We're up there these three months of the year and the vote's taking place while we're there. . . .' " That is opening up and treading on a path that I think is really fraught with danger, even if it's done with the best of intentions and the best of motives.

What I've said I'll do is review the issue. We look at issues regarding municipal elections within the ministry, in consultation with other municipalities, and we will do that. But in terms of this particular election. . . . It's no different than previous provincial elections where you could show up on election day and you could not register to vote. Okay? It wasn't right, but that's the way it was. And people jumped up and down and went: "I'm registered federally. I just voted federally." You know, in the case of elections. . . . In 1980, I think, when the provincial election and the federal election came within a week of each other, people went and voted federally then showed up at the provincial polls, but because they weren't registered provincially, they were not entitled to vote, even though they were registered federally, even though they were able to go to a federal poll and register on election day. And you couldn't change the Election Act to suit those people who had been inconvenienced, even though that received a huge of amount of publicity.

The fact is, there is an election underway, there is an issue to be decided, there are a set of rules in place by which that issue is to be decided, there are procedures that are to be followed, and there is an act that spells out how those procedures must be done. All those things have been followed, and as much as I may like to change it, I am not in a position to do so. So, hon. member, I don't think I can say any more than that, other than I'm willing to look at the issue after this, in terms of a provincewide application.

I. Chong: I understand what the minister is saying. It's not that I don't understand. I thought that the minister would have the opportunity to look at this and perhaps see that there is this perceived inequity, given that this particular area is 

[ Page 3851 ]

primarily owned by non-residents. Although the act is in place, it serves three of the other areas looking to amalgamate, because those areas have residents who live there year-round, whereas this area does not. But given what the minister has said, I will not continue to press him on that.

I would have liked him to say that he would perhaps be able to allow the latitude that I think the voters are looking for to be able to vote. I know there will be some scrambling this week -- as soon as I notify a number of the owners that this cannot occur for them -- to get their applications in place and have them notarized. Even an extension of that would perhaps be something. But if the minister is not able to provide that, I appreciate that.

What would happen. . .what would the minister view as the appropriateness of four municipalities looking to incorporate, three of which have significant voter turnout and one of which has particularly low turnout? Would that not -- I guess I could say -- affect the decision whether the incorporation should go ahead? Are there some criteria whereby the ministry would step in to look at, if four municipalities were looking to incorporate, one having 1 to 2 percent voter turnout and the others 40 percent? Clearly, it shows that there's a flaw in the voting process. Would the minister then be able to declare the referendum not valid or have a second look at it to ensure that full representation is afforded all municipalities involved in the incorporation or amalgamation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We've just gone through a federal election, and there has been a great deal of time and advertising and debate and campaigning on a whole range of issues from coast to coast in this country in 301 ridings to elect 301 Members of Parliament. Voter turnouts vary from riding to riding -- even within ridings. Some areas have 90 percent turnouts and others have 50 percent turnouts and some have 30 percent turnouts. We had a turnout this election campaign that was lower than traditional election campaigns.

At the end of the day, it's called democracy, and people have a duty to make themselves aware of issues in their local communities, and people have a duty and a responsibility to decide whether or not they're going to vote, and then people have a duty and a responsibility to exercise their franchise or not to exercise their franchise. At the end of the day, the vote must be determined by the people who took the time to exercise their responsibility, to do their duty and go and cast their ballot. And if they fail to do that, then they must live with the consequences. We can't start second-guessing the voters. We can't start second-guessing the electorate. We have to put in place the mechanisms to conduct an election. We have to put in guidelines, and at the end of the day, we have to recognize that voters go out and make that decision.

If an issue stirs up enough interest that you get a high voter turnout in one area and apathy and low voter turnout in another area, that's why it's called democracy. That's why some parties win some seats and some parties don't win some seats, and that's why the political process is the way it is. It's not a perfect world, but it's the best I can think of. So I'm not about to change it.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's stand and speech on this and the fact that he reiterated he believes voters have to exercise their franchise. That cannot be any further from the truth in this particular case. Certainly the voters wish to exercise their franchise. A person who owns property, who lives there year-round and can just shop on voting day, can produce their required property tax notification and proof of ownership, etc., and vote. Someone who lives down here, where this advertisement only appeared the middle of last week, and who then called my office and over the weekend tried to find out a little bit more about this. . . . We're now in this week and it's been a week since the advertisement has appeared, and we've just been able to find out from the chief electoral officer that they have to get everything in place by this Friday. And it certainly has limited his ability to contact as many people as possible.

So as I said earlier, it's not a question of convenience; it's not a question of not wishing to exercise their vote. The people do wish to exercise their vote. They want to be given the same treatment as those who are resident property owners because they are non-resident property owners. There's an inequity there, and it's very clear that something has to be done. And I appreciate the minister's commitment to review this.

But the other thing I want to ask the minister is: if one municipality having a significantly lower turnout is not something to alarm him, then what requirement must be met for each municipality to proceed with amalgamation? If there are four municipalities, must each of them represent 50 percent plus one of all their votes cast, or -- in order to allow the amalgamation to take place -- must it be 50 percent plus one of all the votes cast, the aggregate of all the municipalities concerned? Can the minister advise what would be the situation in this case?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is a case of 50 percent plus one of the votes cast in the whole area. In Port Coquitlam in 1987, I remember, I ran for re-election to city council. We had a 39 percent voter turnout, which in the lower mainland is actually pretty high. Right next door in the city of Coquitlam, they had a 14 percent voter turnout, an abysmally low turnout. But those 14 percent determined the council in the city of Coquitlam. The other 86 percent chose not to vote.

The same way here -- some people don't want to vote. That's their right. Some people, for whatever the reason. . . . The issue here is one that has been thoroughly canvassed. I've said I'll look at what's in place, and in terms of down the road in the future and how it applies -- I'm willing to do that. But in terms of this particular election, I don't have the power, and I cannot. In terms of how the vote will be determined, it's 50 percent plus one of all the votes cast.

[9:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: You asked me about this specific case. In this specific case, it is 50 percent plus one because those are the rules of the game as they apply in this particular case in determining how the votes will be counted. Let's say Port Moody, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam decide to hold a referendum on amalgamation. They can decide that it's 50 percent plus one of all the votes in all the communities, what we call the tri-city area. Or they may decide it's 50 percent 

[ Page 3852 ]

plus one of the votes in each community. And if it doesn't pass in Port Moody, then they would not be included; or if it didn't pass in Coquitlam, they wouldn't be included; or if it didn't pass in Port Coquitlam, they wouldn't be included. But in this case, the terms are 50 percent plus one of the votes cast within the particular area.

I. Chong: That's very helpful, because I understood it to be a decision where whatever was set in this area, it would be the same for any municipality throughout the province. But what I hear from the minister is that this case. . . . Each area looking to incorporate a number of municipalities may set their own parameters as to what the level of assenting voters has to be in order to proceed with the amalgamation. Well, what I'm hearing from the minister in the example he gave me is that the 50 percent plus one could have been decided amongst each of the municipalities, and if one municipality failed, then the amalgamation would not take place. But in this particular one, it's 50 plus one of the aggregate of all four municipalities. I was wondering why, then, it would be different, unless the minister is saying that this particular area has chosen its own level of voter assent.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Each case is made by a restructuring committee which makes a recommendation to the ministry. The question I was answering was that when you said the level of assent is up to each community. . . . I just want to make it clear: the level of assent is 50 percent plus one. There is no variation. It's not 30 percent plus one, or 60 percent plus one; it's 50 percent plus one.

I. Chong: For my clarification, then, what has occurred here is that a restructuring process took place -- perhaps through the Cowichan Valley regional district -- and through that process they decided that 50 percent plus one of the total voter turnout, regardless of where the pockets of the voter turnout are, must occur in this particular case. And the minister assures me that that is what happened in this particular case.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is my understanding, and the votes will be counted as one group.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's candidness on this issue that is, perhaps, a very difficult one for residents throughout Victoria and throughout the capital region to accept. I will convey his answers to them. Unfortunately, anything he decides in his review in the future will benefit other municipalities, perhaps, but not this one. I would look forward to those changes occurring to ensure that other municipalities, other rural areas, throughout the province will get the benefit of voting on a referendum that affects their municipalities and to ensure that the voting takes place in a democratic process and that they are allowed to participate.

With that, I thank the minister, and I will pass that message on to those who have contacted me.

G. Abbott: I want to discuss the South Cowichan restructure issue a little bit more. Restructures are fascinating to me, because I was a part of two restructure committees in what is now the district of Sicamous. The first one was in the early 1980s. It actually started in the late 1970s, but culminated in the early 1980s and was defeated by about a 70 percent margin.

Hon. M. Farnworth: First time around, they usually are.

G. Abbott: Well, that could be.

The second committee I was on was structured quite differently than the first one. And whether it was a reflection of that or a reflection of the maturation of the community, or whatever it was, in the second event, which was in the late 1980s, it was approved by about a 70 percent margin. Since that experience, I've been very interested in the way in which these restructure committees evolve, because I believe, in fact, that much of the ultimate success, if indeed a 50 percent plus one or more vote is a success. . . .

I think that often the outcome of the referendum is in large measure determined by some of the initial steps that are taken with respect to the composition of the restructure committee, by who makes the request to the province and by the general level of confidence that's enjoyed by what might be termed the non-incorporated community in their restructure committee and in the process. I think all of these things have as much or more to do with the ultimate success of the referendum than the actual restructure package that is negotiated with the province.

I'm quite interested in this one, because I've had delegations come to my office concerned about this particular one. From the ministry's perspective, I don't think you have any particular brief about whether this incorporation is successful or unsuccessful. The ministry, I'm sure, has tried to deal with this in an objective and dispassionate manner. But for whatever reason, this particular restructure seems, at least from what I've seen, to have turned into a bit of a tiger, possibly for the ministry but certainly for the Cowichan Valley regional district and that particular area. I'm curious about the evolution of this particular one, because it does appear that it has aroused some sentiments, as my colleague has obviously experienced.

I'm curious about some details. First of all, just to get the last point that you were discussing with the member for Oak Bay right in my mind, as I understand from the rules -- and I presume this is from the Municipal Act -- the restructure committee has the option of recommending to the minister whether they want on overall 50-percent-plus-one vote or separate votes by district. The restructure committee have the option of recommending that to the minister or, if they find it's a potato that's too hot to handle, they can leave it up to the minister to determine whether it's an overall or by-area vote. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct. The statements the member made a few moments ago are correct. I have no particular brief for this particular restructure or in fact for any restructure. Basically, at the end of the day it's up to the people that live there. If you want to restructure, restructure; if you don't, vote no.

G. Abbott: In terms of me understanding how this particular restructure turned tiger, could the minister advise -- and presumably his staff would know this; it's probably a detail that is not part of your personal knowledge or not immediately called up from your mind -- how the evolution of this particular request for restructure came about? Was it a product of the deliberation of the Cow Val -- Cowichan Valley regional district?

[ Page 3853 ]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: That's a frequently used abbreviation for that particular regional district.

Was it a product of the regional district? Was it a product of other local government? Was it a request from a chamber of commerce or other interest group? Is staff aware of how it came about?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't have that information handy, but I can arrange a full briefing for him on this particular restructuring, if he would like.

G. Abbott: That's fine, you don't need to do that. Again, I'm basing my comments on the delegations that have come to me with concerns about the way that this one has evolved. I've heard concerns from local government representatives that somehow the restructure committee has gotten away from local government -- that it has gone in directions that seemingly are contrary to where the local government representatives wanted to go. I think there's a whole range of things that can throw something like this off the tracks. I don't know what the outcome of the vote is going to be on June 21, and it doesn't particularly matter to me, but somehow it seems that the connection between local government and this particular restructure committee has been lost or at least jeopardized.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't know if I'd agree with that. My observations on what's happening here. . . . I guess it comes down to the old adage: "All politics are local." When I compare this to restructuring campaigns or rumours of potential restructuring campaigns that have happened in my own area. . . . It brings all kinds of people out of the woodwork. What you've had may seem like a thorough logical progression from initial idea, through studies, to implementation, to a vote, and it brings out all kinds of people: those who are opposed and those who are in favour. You get a local battle taking place, which is a healthy thing. All kinds of questions get asked.

A restructure should reflect the sentiments of the community. That's why, when you said that it seemed to have got away from the regional district or from Cow Valley, how they thought it would go. . . . Maybe that's not a bad thing in some ways, in that it shouldn't be up to the regional district. It should be up to the citizens of the local communities as to whether or not the restructure takes place.

If they're asking a whole series of questions, then clearly there's a lot of questions that need to be answered; in which case, it's probably unlikely that the vote would pass. Then there's often a time after that when people, in the cold light of day, look at it and say: "Okay, they were right when they said if we don't do this, this is going to happen." Maybe in two or three years down the road there will be another vote held, and this time you'll get a large majority in favour because some of the reasons for the incorporation have become very clear. People see that those were the right reasons to do it.

I don't think this one is any more controversial than others. What's happening right now is that you've got two very defined groups: those who are in favour of an incorporation and those who are opposed. There's a healthy debate and battle between the two sides. On June 21 they'll vote and decide to either go ahead or not go ahead. My general observation is that unless there's strong community support, a vote will fail, and that's not a bad thing, either. If there's strong community support and if the questions have been answered, then it's much more likely to pass; in which case, the restructuring committee has done its job to the satisfaction of the voters in the area.

G. Abbott: I agree with much of what the minister has said. There is, though, a very important point in terms of the composition of restructure committees which ought to be noted. Again, this is based on my personal experience and the ways in which the restructure committees were, relatively speaking, viewed by the community.

In the case of the second restructure committee, people actually had a very direct stake and a very direct opportunity in influencing the composition of the restructure committee. A majority of the members were actually elected in a kind of straw vote that was conducted at the local waterworks district office. People put their names forward, and people selected five from a list of 12, or something like that, to sit on the committee. It conferred some legitimacy on the committee, and I think that's a very good thing. The other two members were local government representatives providing some continuity and coordination with local government. In many ways, that's an ideal committee.

Now, where restructure committees seem to frequently go wrong is where. . . . They may be elected at a public meeting, but then, of course, one side would always claim the other had stacked the meeting, blah, blah, blah. Who knows whether they did or not? In any specific case. . . . Obviously we're not going to deal with that, but it can occur as a general problem.

[9:30]

G. Abbott: Rather like all-candidates meetings in some respects, although there are probably some differences as well.

At any rate, if a restructure committee is tainted by suggestions that special interests control them, they lack legitimacy, and frequently their recommendations are called into question by the community. I guess this is a long way of saying: does the ministry offer any suggestions, guidelines or recommendations with respect to how a restructure committee should be composed and operate?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we do give advice, and we do give guidance. We work intensely with local committees, but ultimately they constitute themselves and govern themselves. In a sense, they're taking their first steps on the road to local government.

G. Abbott: It's fair enough that they do that. I'm pleased that the ministry does provide some guidance and recommendations, though, because I think that's important. Very frequently, when communities are considering a restructure, most of the people involved are going into this for the first time. They're not aware of all the different possible ways they might structure a committee or do the many other tasks and steps that are associated with moving from electoral area into incorporated status. It is a fairly complex process, and the more advice and suggestions that the ministry can offer to groups like that, the greater the chance of the process being successful -- not necessarily resulting in an incorporation, but people having some sense that they've looked at a public policy issue and have made an informed decision on a question, which is really all we can ask for as a senior government.

[ Page 3854 ]

This is the final question I have on South Cowichan or on restructuring. On the issue of ongoing provincial grants to newly incorporated municipalities, or indeed to any municipalities, we touched on this a bit in terms of the Bill 2 debate. I think I posed the suggestion that it was going to be very difficult in the years ahead, where there was no predictability from year to year in terms of what the global size of grants was going to be. This poses some difficulty, obviously, for established municipalities, but it poses particular difficulties for either newly incorporated or unincorporated municipalities looking at incorporation. How does the minister see dealing with this problem?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the key way of dealing with this issue -- just to contrast it with the way that it was quite often done in the past, which was that you would have open-ended grant commitments -- is to clearly spell out, upfront at the beginning of the incorporation, that these particular grants will be in place for X number of years or that this particular grant will be in place and will decrease over this number of years until this time. That's to make sure there's a time limit upfront, so that the decisions can be made at the time, knowing what is going to happen after the vote is accepted. We're moving to a defined benefit as opposed to an open-ended commitment.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure if I understood the minister's answer. What I'm referring to here specifically are the unconditional grants -- not the conditional ones, but the unconditional grants -- and how, in an era where possibly in the absence of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act, there could be sharp rises or drops in grants. How can an area considering incorporation develop an economic model for themselves for the first five years when there isn't that level of certainty in what the grants will be in the following years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That was a good question, and it certainly is a very valid one. I think there are two things that need to be done. One is that the incorporating area needs to look at the level of grants that will be required in the first, say, five years to make it sustainable, if that's the issue, or to get on its feet. The second may be for the province to recognize this and say: "Okay, for the next five years, or however long it is that we figure it will take you to get on your feet, you're going to get X number of dollars."

I think the other area that will be looked at is the grant itself -- and we discussed this in Bill 2 -- in terms of how the formula applies and how that will be discussed at the joint council. And two things come to mind. First, if it's a small community of under 500, which many incorporations are, then their sense of security is greater, because you have the small community protection grant program in place. Contrast that with a larger community of 15,000 people -- Westbank, for example -- where they clearly have an established economic base in place and the ability to bring more resources. That's something that can be discussed with the UBCM. I think the ministry is going to have to take into account in some of these restructurings what level of support is going to be needed in those first five years and be prepared to commit to a higher level than it may have in the past.

G. Abbott: I agree with those comments. I think the ministry will have to look at that and. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Stop agreeing with the minister -- yes, I'm sure one day I will.

I think the real difficulty that is going to be faced here is particularly by the municipalities in the 5,000-to-10,000 population range, where they move from unincorporated status into a system where they are paying for policing costs which are very substantial and, of course, a whole range of other costs without having the economic base that a community of 20,000 might have. So I do think the ministry is going to have to look at this, because I think it's going to be a problem and an issue that will discourage some potential municipalities at least from incorporating. But I'll leave that. I think that sufficiently covers off the issues of restructurings and amalgamations.

I'll get a couple of quick questions in here before we go, if I can find my little list of all the things I want to ask the minister about. One of them is the issue of the status of grants-in-lieu for B.C. Rail in 1997 and beyond. Can the minister advise when that is going to be determined?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Our goal is still to make a decision this year. There's a computer model being developed, which is very complex. Not being a computer techie, I can't get into all the details, but that has been completed. The next step will be to have the work with UBCM done and then get to a position where we can make a decision. I expect that it will be this year, which is in keeping with our time line.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, if there are a few quick questions, we can probably get them in.

J. Weisbeck: It's actually fairly simple; it wouldn't take that long. Oyama, or Lake Country, has obviously just amalgamated, and they've got all kinds of problems. But the most current one and a very specific one is signage. It's actually not an amalgamation; it's an incorporation of a number of communities. As a result, Oyama particularly, which basically voted against amalgamation because. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: They like being Oyama.

J. Weisbeck: They like being Oyama, and they like to have some recognition of being Oyama. Of course, now the signage is being put up, and it says "Lake Country," forgetting about Oyama. They've recently had a meeting, and the residents are really fuming. I mean, they're really hot.

So how do we deal with this sort of problem? Here we've got three or four communities coming together, being very, very proud of being Oyamians, and they've basically taken away some of their identity. I think that somehow or other we have to soften this blow, and if there's some way we could give them recognition, they would appreciate it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell you, coming from Port Coquitlam where we are often used to being in the unwelcome embrace of some of our neighbours that surround us, who are constantly talking amalgamation. . . . I think Port Moody is in the same boat as we are. We like to recognize our distinctiveness, and I think one of the ways. . . . There's nothing wrong with putting signage up, and if the municipality wants to do that, it can.

I can tell you that one of the things that we did in Port Coquitlam to establish our unique identity -- to show that we are not in Coquitlam and that there is a difference -- is that when you drive through Port Coquitlam you will notice that all the lamp standards are blue -- Expo blue. Am I right?

[ Page 3855 ]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And we did that deliberately, as a way of establishing an identity. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hey, it was our colour. It was my committee that actually came up with that. We came up with these Expo-blue lamp standards. [Laughter.] Don't laugh, don't laugh.

But it worked. Right? It worked. Developers came in, and they didn't want them. They wanted black ones, and we said no. It gave the community a sense that this was Port Coquitlam; Coquitlam is over there. It's just one of the things you can do. Signage is another. There's no reason why they can't say: "This is Lake Country, and you're in Oyama." I know when people come out to the tri-cities from Delta, they hear "tri-cities." It's a commonly used name for our area now. I can't stand it, but it's a commonly used name, and you're going to Coquitlam or Port Coquitlam or Port Moody. There's nothing wrong with that -- with saying you're going to Lake Country. Where's the Oyama area of Lake Country? It's over here, right? So I don't see why they shouldn't put signs up; it doesn't seem like a big problem to me.

J. Weisbeck: Well, you know, painting three poles on a highway. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an example, right?

J. Weisbeck: Oyama is fairly small. Now, the Minister of Highways has not been very supportive at all about this, so I don't know whether it's something we should be bringing up during the Transportation and Highways estimates or whether we. . . . I'd like to deal with it here, obviously, and give the indication to Oyama that they're going to get some support for this. But at this point in time, they've come up to a dead end.

C. Clark: Maybe they could put a yellow brick road in.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thought that was your financial plan.

No, raise it with Transportation and Highways. You've raised it here, and I don't see it as being a particularly big problem. A little sensitivity could probably make people very happy.

G. Abbott: I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:45 p.m.

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