[ Page 3857 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Robertson: With us today we have many representatives from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association. In particular, I would like to note the presence of His Worship Mayor Russ Helberg from Port Hardy; Dave Nelson from Port McNeill; Bill Harrison from Campbell River council; Anita Peterson, who works with the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association; and also Chief John Smith. Would the members please join me in welcoming all these people to the precincts today.

L. Stephens: Today in the House are 50 grade 5 students from James Kennedy Elementary in Langley, with their teacher Ms. Ralph. Would the House please make them welcome.

I would like to make an introduction that is fast becoming a tradition in this House. I am very proud and happy to introduce to the House today a new member of my family, who will eventually appear in the members' gallery. His name is Jordon Ross Stephens. He was born yesterday at 7 pounds 13 ounces to my eldest son Colin and his wife Michele. He is a much-anticipated brother for his sister Jessica, and he is my third grandchild. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted today to welcome to the chamber members of the ALS Society of B.C. They have so graciously given to us the flowers that I hope we will all wear. On Friday and Saturday the ALS will be out asking British Columbians to donate to their very worthy organization and will be offering to B.C. people such a flower.

We are joined today by Cam Cathcart, president of the ALS Society; Gordon Caulder, the vice-president; Rob Tivy, the executive director; Sterling Ross, representing the Victoria chapter; and Ken Whipple of Vancouver.

ALS is a disease that was made prominent because of Lou Gehrig, the first man diagnosed with the disease. It requires an investment from our health care system, and change can be made for people suffering from the illness.

I welcome these advocates on behalf of the society and would ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Clark: Joining us in the galleries today is a great community activist from Burnaby and a student at Simon Fraser University, Kim Haakstad. I hope the House will make her welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to welcome the members of the ALS Society to this House. Today we wear the blue cornflower to raise both awareness and research funds for the national flower day of ALS.

As a nurse in my past life, I cared for these people. I know it's a debilitating disease. The best option is to stay at home, and we will encourage to keep fighting for funds for these patients so that they can remain at home for their care.

G. Robertson: With us today also from the North Island, we have a number of people from continuing education in school district 72. The teachers who are here this afternoon are Stu Meldrum and Marie Baird, and also 14 students. I'd ask that the members please join me in welcoming them to the House this afternoon.

Oral Questions

B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE DELAYS

We now know that the ministry had been warned about the pressure on the ambulance service as far back as 1994. A 1994 internal ministry memo says: "It is not uncommon for the B.C. Ambulance Service to experience unacceptable delays in clearing the emergency ward. . . . With the ambulances reduced to 'holding units' for the emergency ward, we are finding it impossible to provide adequate response times."

Another point is that the ambulance workers have had to leave patients on hospital floors "while desperately trying to put the ambulances back into service."

My question to the Minister of Health is: can the minister explain to this House why the ministry ignored the problems in the ambulance service, which were created by mismanagement of the health care system, for as long as two years, until tragedy struck in 1996?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we had a very good discussion around this in estimates yesterday. Clearly the opposition leader wasn't paying attention at all, so I don't mind repeating the answer.

Indeed, the ambulance service funding in our province has increased this year. The government increased the funding by over 10 percent. There is no question that it is a complicated service and that we work very carefully with the acute care hospitals and the continuing care hospitals in managing our ambulance service.

I also think it is tragic that the Leader of the Opposition would take the opportunity to stand up, when a coroner's inquest is going on around what is truly a tragic death, and leap to a conclusion such as this. The coroner has not leapt to that conclusion, and that investigation is ongoing.

But let me just say this. The review that took place around the link between emergency hospital services and the ambulance service said it was not a matter of resources. It was a matter of proper administration, it was a matter of proper admission policies and it was a matter of proper dispatch -- all of which we have accepted and all of which we're moving forward on.

G. Campbell: We have a public health care system in the province of British Columbia, and the public should be able to expect that the ministry will act on the real information that is given to them by professional health care providers on a regular and timely basis -- not just after there's been a front-page headline talking about a tragedy that's taken place for a family.

In December of last year the minister was told that our ambulance crews are increasingly being held while beds in emergency are being found for their patients. Things are getting 

[ Page 3858 ]

critical; that's what the minister has been told. And the question that I think the public has a right to ask and that we must ask is: how can the public have any confidence in this minister or this ministry, when they refuse to act on this professional information until there's a front-page story in the newspapers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope this opposition actually catches up to the 1997 record of health care. This story was already discussed back in 1996. In December of 1996 that letter was made public. The response that the ministry staff made to the letter was made public at the same time, and here's the response that the assistant deputy minister gave. Clearly the opposition leader doesn't listen to the House debate, and he doesn't read newspapers, either. What was quoted publicly at the time was that after receiving that letter from the Ambulance Service, the assistant deputy minister of acute and continuing care met with the hospital administrators listed in the report. They themselves did not report the same concern that the Ambulance Service did. They themselves said that they did not anticipate that problem, but in expectation that the problem could occur, they put a contingency plan in place. It was managed properly, the advice was taken, and a contingency plan was put in place that never had to come to fruition.

[2:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It doesn't matter how many times the official opposition repeats the same misinformation, it's still misinformation. You won't get around it by any means, by just trying to say it over and over and over again. It's still misinformation. It's still fearmongering in the health care system.

The problem that was anticipated by the B.C. Ambulance Service was investigated. It was managed by the Health ministry with the people in charge of the hospitals. Because there was concern in the media around what may have happened to this little girl -- the tragic death -- we did a review. To me, that's responsible management of a health care system. The review came in. The review made specific recommendations, all of which have been public now for months, and we're moving forward and acting on them. But we don't react to media stories for the sake of the media story; not like the opposition do we fearmonger around this.

S. Hawkins: A leaked briefing note prepared for the Ministry of Health '95-96 estimates debate highlighted the problem of ambulance delays. It says: "Overutilization of emergency wards [and a] lack of in-patient beds has created regular backups in the emergency departments of the major hospitals in the GVRD and the CRD." And it goes on to say: "This significantly restricts the B.C. Ambulance Service's ability to effectively respond to emergencies. . . ."

My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Why didn't this NDP government put an end to ambulance delays when it learned of this problem over two years ago?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, the fact is that we're coming to a conclusion in the ministry estimates. We've dealt with '97-98; we have to go back to '95-96. Let me tell you what has happened since '95-96. Let me make the opposition aware.

We have funded the health care system by an increase of $1.5 billion over the last five years. This year alone we put $83 million. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order on all sides. We're making a travesty of question period with this noise level.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We put $83 million more into the acute care hospital sector this year alone. We have met with the administrators of the hospital sector. We have talked about admissions policies. We have actually revealed to the hospitals overutilization problems in admissions, all of which the hospitals have accepted and are moving forward on. I actually think the hospitals have done a good job in adjusting to the different demands being made on the health care system.

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? We receive the information, and we move forward on it. I don't see what the problem is, which the opposition can't absorb.

S. Hawkins: According to the leaked briefing note, if the Health minister was asked about ambulance delays during the '95-96 estimates, the minister was supposed to say the following: "The B.C. Ambulance Service, the Ministry of Health acute programs and the major hospitals in the GVRD and the CRD are working to resolve the issue of ambulance crews being detained due to a lack of emergency department beds."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, on both sides. We must hear questions and we must hear answers, and I will wait until we have quiet sufficient to do that.

S. Hawkins: The cheat sheet of the minister's response was supposed to say that they were working on the problem. The NDP had two years to do something about ambulance delays. But do you know what? They failed to do anything.

I'm going to ask the minister again: will the Minister of Health come clean today and admit that her government had two years to fix the problem, but chose to ignore it until it resulted in the tragic death of a little child?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me once again repeat for the public so that the public isn't subject to the fearmongering of the opposition: the tragic death. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, I told members that we were going to have quiet for questions and answers; I will enforce that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The tragic death of the little girl, which is being abused by the members of this opposition, is the subject of a coroner's inquest right now. We are participating in that coroner's inquest, and we await the outcome.

The context of what we have done for the ambulance service is this -- and again, we'll have full opportunity to 

[ Page 3859 ]

discuss what happened in 1995, '96, '97, and in '98, in my estimates. We have increased the funding for ambulance services each and every year. The training of our emergency medical attendants is unexcelled in the rest of the country. We have put in place provisions for a computer-assisted dispatch service. We have conducted a review. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, I thought they asked an open-ended question. We have put in place. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I'm going to go to the third question. I think we have canvassed this issue.

FORT ST. JOHN AMBULANCE SERVICE

Briefing notes that I have obtained indicate that your own executive director of the B.C. Ambulance Service told the North Peace health council that the ambulance service would be moved as a result of a Labour Relations Board decision, and further, that "CUPE is a militant union." The issue that was arbitrated "was not deliberated in the context of service delivery but rather work jurisdiction."

Will you now admit that this decision had everything to do with politics and absolutely nothing to do with service delivery?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I answered that question yesterday. The B.C. Ambulance Service and ambulance service delivery is consolidated under a provincial ambulance service. We have moved toward that in each and every community. The Fort St. John community has been well aware of this move for over a year now. We have prepared for it; we have reassured the community of the proper service levels. It has absolutely nothing to do with union politics or politics at all. It has to do with the proper delivery of ambulance service.

R. Neufeld: Your own B.C. Ambulance Service executive director has further stated that the decision to move the Fort St. John ambulance service could not be justified, and that it was a political decision he had to abide by. In other words, it made absolutely no economic sense at all to move it from the fire hall into a new garage.

Will the minister admit that it was a totally political decision to suck up to the CUPE union and had nothing to do with service delivery?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I must say, I am really surprised how every single member on that opposite side of the House thinks it's abhorrent that 40 percent of workers in this province belong to unions. I think it's abhorrent that they take that kind of view. That is the only purpose of their questions.

Indeed, the executive director of the B.C. Ambulance Service has never, ever communicated that point of view to me; indeed, there is no question that when he joins me for my estimates, I will be asking him about what he actually meant to say.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. If members are quite finished. . . .

B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE DELAYS

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know it's not in the rules of question period that I'm supposed to accept the veracity of what the media reports, but I certainly don't mind. Clearly they're at the end of their list of questions to ask in question period.

Leah Hollins, the assistant deputy minister of continuing and acute care, met with the administrators of the hospitals to determine the veracity of the complaints made. That's very responsible; that's absolutely responsible. Indeed, there was a report released. We had experts from across the country come and examine the relationship between ambulance services and the emergency wards. We made that report public in February. There were ten recommendations. We accepted all of them, and we're moving on them. I will also tell you that in the report they indicate the high quality of not only our ambulance services but also the people delivering those services.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

In partnership with BCTFA, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, my ministry is supporting this crucial sector of our economy through the creation of a first-class transportation system that provides for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. This year we will be spending more than $740 million building, maintaining and protecting this system, making strategic, affordable investments that count.

The slogan for National Transportation Week this year is "Safety in Transportation." That reflects our top priority. Working with ICBC, we are developing safety programs to save lives, bring down insurance costs and reduce the human cost of accidents. We are committed to making British Columbia the safest place in Canada in which to drive. The enhanced CounterAttack, administrative driving prohibition, vehicle 

[ Page 3860 ]

impoundment and photo radar are helping us do that. The recommendations that came from the truck safety review will also make our roads much safer.

Transportation is not just about roads or rails or ships or airplanes. It's not just about business or industry, either. What it is about is people. So I would like to ask the House to join me in recognizing the many people in British Columbia who keep our transportation network running smoothly. They keep the lifelines of our communities open, linking us as a society and binding us a nation.

I would also like to extend a very special welcome to the almost 200 guests at the B.C. National Transportation Week dinner to be held in Vancouver tomorrow night. Your efforts -- those that are at that meeting -- in improving the transportation system throughout Canada are appreciated by all. Will the House please join me in extending our gratitude to all those who work in the transportation system.

[2:30]

We cannot ignore the reality of the aging infrastructure of our roads, highways and bridges throughout the province. Not only must we add to our infrastructure by building new roads and new bridges, but we must look towards ensuring the maintenance of our existing infrastructure. However, in a time of fiscal restraint, when budgets are being cut and, at the same time, we have 45,000 kilometres of roads with an average pavement age of 15 years, and 600 bridges that need replacing over the next ten years, it certainly is going to be a great challenge.

As the hon. minister noted, the "Safety in Transportation" theme reflects our own priority here in B.C. in making this a top priority. I applaud the minister in her commitment to make B.C. the safest place to drive in Canada. Such initiatives as the enhanced CounterAttack and implementation of some of the truck safety review recommendations are a good beginning. I also recognize the important linking role that transportation has always played in B.C. and throughout Canada. We hope that through continued cooperation we can reach our goal of making British Columbia one of the safest places to travel in Canada.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River South is seeking leave to. . . .

J. Weisgerber: Leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, transportation is important in British Columbia, and particularly important in the northern part of our province. Highways and railroad lines are all important, and transportation plays a key role in economic development. One has only to ask the people of Kamloops or of the Okanagan about the impact of the Coquihalla Highway. The Island residents are starting to see the benefits of the Island Highway.

But, Mr. Speaker, you would remember, as would the minister, that in the good old days prior to 1991, governments were spending a billion dollars a year on our highway transportation infrastructure. We were building roads and paying for them as we went. Incredibly, now the ministry spends half that amount, and all of the capital expenditures are financed with borrowed money. That's unfortunate, because it's moving the responsibility to future generations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I know that most of these folks weren't around prior to 1991, but they don't want to hear about the good old days in transportation. And for those who think transportation spending translates into electoral success, look down to this corner of the House. [Laughter.]

On a far more serious note, the road system, the transportation system, in the northeast is an absolute disgrace. I would use a stronger adjective if I were anywhere else. The minister knows, as a result of a program she did this morning on CBC, that people are moving by four-wheel drive for essential transportation. Farmers are actually trapped in their own yards, unable to get into town on our road system. So the $2.6 million that has been redirected is welcome -- no doubt about that.

We also need a substantial commitment over a period of time to rebuild the transportation infrastructure in the northeast, and I believe that in this week we should acknowledge that important fact. Billions of dollars a year come out of the northeast; they come out of gas and oil revenues, coal revenues and forest revenues, and we're not putting enough money back into the system, into the region of the province that develops those resources.

Finally, I couldn't miss the reference to photo radar. It's ironic that this week municipalities have to suffer through this government's flip-flop on the commitment made by this minister to allow municipalities to decide whether or not photo radar would be used in their communities. And it's this government's desperate grab for the cash that sees the minister now having to point to the Attorney General as the person responsible for this betrayal of municipalities.

We very much appreciate the work being done by people in the transportation service industry. We respect and appreciate the work of police. We wish that those 100 police officers had left their cameras at home, gone out onto the streets and enforced the law in a more visible way, because I believe that would be far more cost-effective.

Motion without Notice

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the reports of the auditor general of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the 

[ Page 3861 ]

Legislative Assembly during the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: I'm going to recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton. However, because I believe you are rising on the matter of privilege of which you gave notice, I am going to ask the Deputy Speaker to please take the chair.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Point of Privilege

The facts are straightforward. During question period on May 26, l997, I asked the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture questions concerning her Ladysmith constituency office. Information had come to my attention indicating that this office was being used as a federal NDP campaign office during the recent federal election. My questions concern the propriety of the minister's action in this regard.

The minister gave the following replies: "Had the Liberal member opposite done his homework -- i.e., talked to Mr. Hughes -- he would have discovered that the arrangement in place today is precisely the same that was in place in the 1996 election. It's in place with the blessing of and in consultation with Mr. Hughes." The second statement was: "All of the actions that I've taken with respect to my constituency office have the explicit approval of Mr. Ted Hughes, who was the conflict-of-interest commissioner."

Following the minister's statements, I wrote to the former conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Ted Hughes, on May 27, 1997. I received a reply from Mr. Hughes on May 28, 1997, and when the House reconvened that afternoon I raised my point of privilege.

In my letter I asked Mr. Hughes the following question: "Would you please advise me if, in fact, the actions taken by the member have taken place with your blessing and consultation and, further, with your explicit approval."

In his letter of May 28, l997, Mr. Hughes made it clear that constituency offices must be operated on a "strictly non-partisan basis." He also made it clear that if members wanted an opinion from him on which they could rely for all purposes and quote in this House, it must be in writing. He also made it clear that the minister had never requested a written opinion from him on this issue. Hon. Speaker, I ask that you refer to Mr. Hughes's letter in its entirety.

The question before you, hon. Speaker, is not whether or not the minister breached the privileges of the members of this House; the question is whether there is a prima facie case that such a breach occurred. In other words, on the face of things, is there some substance to my contention?

Two facts are very clear: (1) the minister stated in this House that "all of the actions that I've taken with respect to my constituency office have the explicit approval of Mr. Ted Hughes"; and (2) the minister never requested an opinion from Mr. Hughes on which she "could rely for all purposes and quote in this House."

My contention is that the minister's answers were not based on facts, and she knew that to be so at the time she made the statements in this House. This is not a case where the minister's answer is based on information from others. The minister clearly claims she had personally received explicit approval for these actions. Her claim is without foundation.

I invite you to conclude that there is a basis upon which this matter should be referred to a committee of the House. Hon. Speaker, I am tabling the relevant documents. I am also tendering the appropriate motion, should you find a prima facie case established.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. And you have copies for the Chair and the Table? Thank you.

Does the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. . . ?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The member has raised a point of privilege in which he is arguing that I deliberately misled this Legislature regarding the use of office space in Ladysmith.

Hon. Speaker, I take this matter very seriously. I therefore have reread the Hansard Blues and other relevant material, and I can say clearly that I at no time intended to mislead this House, nor did I. The statements I made are in fact correct. Hon. Speaker, I did in fact speak to Mr. Hughes about the potential for conflict in this situation, a fact which he has acknowledged in the letter to the member.

I have also acknowledged from the outset of this issue that I did in fact err in not getting that opinion in writing. I accept full responsibility for that oversight, and I have apologized to Mr. Hughes for any discomfort or any confusion that I may have caused by that oversight.

Hon. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for this House and its traditions. Although I stand behind my statements, I have, in the tradition of this House, absolutely no hesitation in apologizing to any member or to the House should they feel that my error has somehow compromised their rights as members or has compromised this House. I do, however, stand behind my comments.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. Do we have a copy of your statement at this time? And if we don't need one, that's fine. Thank you, hon. minister.

In view of the seriousness of the issue, I will not be making a response at the moment. I will ponder it, and I will return to bring you my response as soon as I can.

Thank you, members.

Orders of the Day

[2:45]

[ Page 3862 ]

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

I. Chong: Yesterday evening, when I started with some questions I had for the minister, I believe I concluded with some questions regarding Royal Jubilee Hospital. I'd like to recanvass that, as I require more clarification.

I asked the minister yesterday about the Royal Jubilee Hospital redevelopment project, which was apparently announced last April, in 1996. Finally, on February 25, it was advised that that planning and construction would proceed. I asked the minister why there had been an increase from $105 million, which was the planned redevelopment cost, to $112 million -- a $7 million increase. Her response to me was that there was an increase due to a two-phase redevelopment, which was perhaps not considered before. So my question to the minister is: given that this redevelopment has been going on for quite some time and has been announced four or five times, and that there was never really any question that redevelopment was necessary, why the delay of the capital spending program that was put on this particular project, when we knew this one would in all likelihood proceed? And for it then to be announced to proceed with a $7 million increase. . . .

This particular project is cost-shared with the capital regional district, and they provide 40 percent of the funding. That 40 percent of the extra $7 million would amount to $2.8 million extra for the CRD, which they, I'm sure, have not budgeted for. I understand that all their discussions in the past -- all the planning and redevelopment for some 20 years -- have taken into consideration everything up until last April when the announcement was made. So with the reannouncement this February, the costs cause some concern, because the taxpayers in this area will be having to look at another, $2.8 million increase.

The question, again, of the Royal Jubilee Hospital being redeveloped. . . . I don't believe it was ever in doubt. All major hospitals in Vancouver have been redeveloped or upgraded, and Royal Jubilee Hospital is the last of the province's major hospitals to be redeveloped. So in light of that, I'd like to ask the minister how she felt that the reannouncement of a two-phase integration of this process for this redevelopment project would benefit the capital regional district and, indeed, the people who require services from the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. How the project benefits the people of the capital. . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh. Well, I just want to reiterate that we did put a capital freeze on all of our capital projects. We made no bones about that. We did that for a very good reason. During the last election -- and I've been through this several times -- the debt management of this province was a major concern.

Debt is paid for hospitals, schools, care homes, universities and colleges. They're not separate items. So when the parties that were running for election raised the issue of us spending too much money on capital and incurring debt, we took that very seriously. And you know what? That does affect the construction of hospitals, schools and universities. They're not separate items.

We put a freeze on, and we said that we were going to review all those projects. And yes, we reviewed all the projects, and we came to the conclusion that the Royal Jubilee should go ahead. It's a much-needed project; there's no question about that. The estimates of the cost. . . . The results of that review are that with increased pressures, there's a $7 million increase anticipated. But we have also said to those in the project that we will work with them to eliminate that excess of cost and remove that from the books.

How does it help? The population is expanding; the capital health region very much needs this redevelopment. We're committed to it. That's why it was the first major capital project announced after the review. But we took your advocacy -- the opposition member's advocacy -- against debt very seriously. We listened to what the electorate said; we listened to the opposition parties that spoke against increasing debt. You can't somehow say: "We're decreasing debt but we're still going to build schools and hospitals and universities at the same time." They're the same thing.

So we did the review. We took it very seriously. We put cost containment measures in place. And those have all been announced. After that, we came to the conclusion that the Royal Jubilee Hospital should go ahead, and because of the delay. . . . I'll be very frank with you. Because of the delay that arose out of the public furore created around spending money on hospitals, schools and universities, the estimated costs rose in that time by $7 million. I think the hon. member needs to take some responsibility for that herself.

But what we said is that we're not going to pass that cost on to the project. We're going to work with the project to try to eliminate that cost. And that's exactly what we're doing now.

I. Chong: While I appreciate what the minister is saying -- that this project and this redevelopment was very necessary, as I said earlier -- I do take exception to her comments that we should bear some responsibility. We did not make the announcement in April of 1996 just prior to an election. In fact, the capital regional district certainly was urging this, but the ministry went ahead and made the announcement even prior to notifying the CRD that it was preparing to make that announcement, perhaps for its own photo opportunity. Granted, it was not the current Minister of Health who made the announcement back in April; it was the current Minister of Finance. So I am very concerned. I think everyone in this particular area has known for quite some time that this redevelopment was necessary and that in all likelihood it would be the first one to proceed after the capital review had been concluded.

My concern is that after an eight-month delay we do have a $7 million increase, an increase which the capital regional district must share in. They too have a debt management plan. But in their debt management plan they had anticipated a 40 percent share of $105 million, not $112 million.

I am wondering whether the minister can advise whether they've spoken with the capital regional district regarding the increase. And in their consultation -- if there has been any -- with the capital regional district, what mitigation measures are available to see whether the capital regional district will have to cost-share in this additional cost of $7 million?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just indicated to the hon. member that we're working to eliminate those anticipated cost increases.

[ Page 3863 ]

I. Chong: If that does in fact occur, I certainly do appreciate the efforts of the ministry staff who will be looking very closely at reducing those costs. As I say, in this particular area we all recognize that this hospital needs to proceed. We are concerned that this additional cost has to be borne by taxpayers at a time when their municipal taxes are already increasing due to recent amendments to the local government grants. I will leave this for now. I'm satisfied with the minister's answer.

Another project I would like to raise at this particular time is a facility in my riding. I have mentioned the Oak Bay Lodge facility on a number of occasions when I've spoken in this House. I know those members representing the greater Victoria area are quite aware of this facility. There was an announcement that the ministry was prepared to proceed with renovations to Oak Bay Lodge. I believe Treasury Board approval had already been granted in June of 1996. My understanding was that this was deemed a minor capital project -- $375,000 or $750,000, I believe; I'll have to check my records quickly.

In a press release that was issued by the minister, she advised that minor capital projects would not be affected by the capital spending freeze. At this particular point in time, the renovations have not yet proceeded; the facility is anxiously waiting to proceed with its renovations. I'm wondering whether the minister can advise whether minor capital projects are included in the freeze or not.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The project is going ahead. It's been tendered.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise when that approval was given? As I understood it, as recently as two or three weeks ago there had been no approval granted to the facility.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Oak Bay Kiwanis portion that was tendered closed last week.

[3:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The information about that project proceeding will be coming very shortly.

I. Chong: I'm sorry -- can I have the minister repeat that answer? Is she suggesting that she's still receiving the information on this?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I said that the information about that project proceeding will be coming very soon.

S. Hawkins: I would like to continue with capital projects, if I may. There's been some that I've been asked to inquire about. The first one is the MSA hospital in Abbotsford. Where is it in the list of projects that are going ahead? It was supposed to be a replacement of an obsolete hospital.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly don't mind finding out the particular issues of concern on individual projects, but I have not announced the capital projects yet and will be doing so in the very near future. So individual questions. . . . I'll just have to advise the members that I'll be making announcements very shortly on them.

S. Hawkins: I'm wondering if the minister can tell us how the decisions are being made, then, to unfreeze the projects that were frozen?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That was all done at the time of the capital review project. That was the criterion that was set for them, which was released, in terms of the one the government said: the commitment that everything we've committed to, we will building in this term. Cost containment measures had to be put in place and private-public partnerships explored for certain aspects of capital projects. A series of criteria was set down for how projects should be proceeded with.

S. Hawkins: There is one project that seems to be quite urgent. I toured the hospital, actually. It's the West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni. This is a hospital that's been condemned by the fire commissioner. I understand that the fire commissioner checks this hospital monthly. There are absolutely no sprinklers in this hospital. There are wires hanging out of the ceiling. Only 20 percent of the hospital lives up to the Fire Code. I've also been told that it can't withstand a seismic challenge or a fire challenge.

Can the minister give assurance. . . ? I understand there may be some planning money on the way for this hospital. But it was a hospital that looked like it was in very dire straits. I know planning money has gone into it. But when I toured it, it appeared like it was basically being held together by paint. We had an incident earlier this week -- and I know the minister is aware of the situation -- where a patient couldn't be admitted to that hospital and had to be transferred to Victoria. A new hospital, they tell me, will take two and a half years to build. Can the minister give some assurance to the people there that this is being looked at and is a priority?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I'll be making announcements soon on the capital projects. But the House can rest assured that the member from Port Alberni has made the government very well aware of all of the needs of the community.

S. Hawkins: When these projects that were frozen were reportedly unfrozen, the cost of the projects that were unfrozen seemed to have escalated. I believe that the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre project had increased by several million, and so did the Royal Jubilee. Can the minister advise if this is going to be the case in the other projects that are unfrozen?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Part of the capital review was to make sure that the $1.2 billion we're spending this year and the commitment to our capital plan in future years is done with the best cost containment strategies in place. We learned that lesson from the election.

Are there expenditures as projects are delayed? I expect there are. Are there ways of containing those costs in the interests of the taxpayers? Yes. Is there a demand for expending tax dollars on debt? Absolutely.

[ Page 3864 ]

S. Hawkins: When can we expect the announcement, then, that the projects will be released?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the near future.

S. Hawkins: I hope the near future is going to be the very near future. We keep hearing about announcements that are going to come, and unfortunately these projects have been delayed a year already. When the minister talked about listening to the public. . . . I didn't hear last year, before this government took power, that hospitals, schools and whatever weren't going to be built. I heard two balanced budgets and a surplus from the government that held the books and that knew what was in the books.

It's kind of discouraging to hear now that these projects that went on a freeze are being held back even more. Some of them are priority -- a very imminent priority. Like I said, some of the facilities that I toured were in very dire straits. It would be interesting to know what criterion is being used to prioritize these capital projects. Will the minister make that criterion available?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. The criteria were announced at the time that the capital review was completed. That was a public document; I can make that available to the member. Over and above the criteria set by the government capital review is the criterion that we meet the fire and other code regulations first and foremost. That's an additional criterion of our ministry.

S. Hawkins: Does the ministry keep in touch, then, with projects like the West Coast General Hospital to see how they're bearing out their existence. As I said, they are meeting the Fire Code only 20 percent of the time. The fire commissioner has condemned the hospital. What is the ministry doing for a situation like that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're in constant contact with all our institutions.

S. Hawkins: How, then, is the safety of patient care being ensured in these hospitals, like the West Coast, where patient care or safety are being compromised because of the condition of the building?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We make sure that our institutions meet fire and other code regulations. That's how we ensure it. It's a constant review. It's on the basis of this that we prioritize projects in this province. It's on the basis of this that this year alone we'll be spending $200 million in capital on health care.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry's officials have advised the minister that this hospital has been condemned by the fire commissioner of that community and that only 20 percent of the hospital is up to the Fire Code. I wonder if that information has been relayed to the minister. If it isn't, that's what I'm telling you. That is the information I got from the administration at the hospital. Is the ministry aware of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The MLA and hospital officials are making us well aware of the health care institution's circumstances in that community.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the ministry can tell us, then, when they were first aware that this hospital did not meet the Fire Code.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our ministry is in constant touch, as I said, with all of our facilities, including this hospital, about maintaining regulations.

B. Goodacre: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the House with us today we have a group of students from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers, along with their teacher Ms. Stuart and some parent chaperons, including two of my colleagues from the Smithers Old-Timer League. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: My question was a little more specific. I understand that the minister and the officials do keep in touch with the hospital, but when was the ministry first made aware that this hospital is only meeting 20 percent of the Fire Code? They are seriously concerned, and this hospital has been condemned by the fire marshal. When were they first made aware of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not going to answer the question of the member, because that would require verification of her information. I'm not in any way suggesting that she's manipulating that information, but I'm not going to verify that by this answer. But I will give the member the general answer that we have people in our design and construction branch who are in constant touch with the facilities in order for them to plan, design and prepare for the redevelopment of facilities across the whole of health care institutions, including the hospital that the member mentions.

S. Hawkins: For this specific hospital, when was the planning first announced, and how much money has gone into planning a new facility?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume that the member's asking for the expenditures in previous years, which are available in the public accounts. But the project has been requested since 1990.

[3:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I can get that information for the member, but it would be in previous years' budgets.

S. Hawkins: How much is being expended by the ministry this year to bring this hospital up to some kind of safety standard where patients aren't compromised?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I've said that we will be releasing these projects in the very near future.

S. Hawkins: I'll defer to my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon, and I look forward to hearing the announcements of the capital projects. Hopefully, the minister will give us the information we've requested in the last few questions.

A. Sanders: There are several things I'd like to canvass with the minister. One area is physiotherapy services, which 

[ Page 3865 ]

were not covered in the previous questioning. I'd like to read a letter I have received from a physiotherapist in my constituency:

"Dear Dr. Sanders:

"I'm a physiotherapist in private practice in Vernon. I'm writing to you in response to the confusion evident during the debate over budget estimates in the House yesterday at 17:35" -- this letter is written on May 27. "Particularly I'm referring to discussion between the hon. minister and the member for Okanagan West over the increase in patient visit charge pertaining to physiotherapy service in British Columbia.

"Firstly, it is true that the increase was announced in an unorthodox way so that PABC, after months of negotiation, was startled to first be informed that the new change came through the media, just prior to the Easter long weekend. This gave our association no time to notify its members before the news was all over the media. Many of us were notified for the first time by our patients.

"The way it was done, the fee increase to the public appeared to be an increase in fees going directly into the pockets of physiotherapists. However, because the government contribution to our service simultaneously went down an equal and opposite amount, we as physiotherapists did not benefit in any way from this fee increase. Make no mistake. The government was the beneficiary of this extra money. Hence my association's comments that these extra monies went straight to the government.

"Most of the physiotherapists in private practice in Vernon realized the strain on government funding for our service. At the private practitioner level, deinsurance is becoming inevitable. Most of us as practitioners can live with this. This is not to say that our patients can. However, when the government misrepresents to the public that we are receiving a pay increase, as they slowly deinsure us, we feel angered. In fact, between November and March of 1996-97 we received a proration, a payback, of 11 percent and have not seen an increase in government fee contribution for some years.

"I am enclosing other information on exact figures which will clarify proportions paid to physiotherapists by the patient, compared to the government contribution for the services. I would be very grateful if you would pass this letter on and accompanying information, as I feel our feedback is important.

"Thank you for your time.
"Jennifer Byrnes,
Registered physiotherapist."

The second area that I canvassed the minister on was the pathology lab group. When I last mentioned this, the minister said that we had discussed it in Hansard, so I took the time to go back and read it. The answer that I was looking for was not clear. Therefore I'll pose the question once, just to get a yes or no. The answer to the question that I'm looking for specifically is that only certain doctors can now use the Vernon medical clinic laboratory. More specifically, only certain patients can use that lab, and the other patients are no longer allowed to.

This is a change that has just recently occurred. For the last 30 years, all patients have been able to use that lab. As of today, hon. Chair, I would like the minister to answer me in a very straightforward way -- yes or no. Will all patients at the Vernon medical clinic be able to use the pathology lab in their clinic, or will only certain patients be allowed to use the lab in the medical clinic building?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me reiterate what I said. First of all, hon. Chair, I understand that this is a very complex matter. I appreciate that. That is why I have said that it's the Medical Services Commission, in its capacity, that makes decisions around this matter. They've made decisions. I certainly appreciate that because of the complexity, it requires good communication, not only between the community and the Medical Services Commission but among the practitioners and the Medical Services Commission. I undertook to refer to the Medical Services Commission, and I'm doing that. I can only offer to the practitioners in the community that it is being done.

A. Sanders: I appreciate that it's being looked at, but can the minister give an answer as to whether the decision will stand as it is, and certain members of the community will be able to use the lab and others won't? Or is it more likely going to happen that all individuals will be able to use the lab?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a decision of the Medical Services Commission.

A. Sanders: In terms of looking at this from a commonsense point of view, surely the minister has some power over the decision-making process of the Medical Services Commission and, from her superior height, can look at this and say that this is an illogical and counterintuitive decision, as opposed to a moving-forward, one~-stop-shopping decision. Will she in any way influence the Medical Services Commission to come to the right decision?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually don't want to seize this opportunity to make political hay out of the member's suggestion that I influence a neutral tripartite commission. There have been many times when I have wished that I could, but I know very clearly that that is beyond the purview and legal authority of the Minister of Health. I know that the hon. member is not really urging me to do that in a serious way. The Medical Services Commission is structured according to law as a tripartite commission. I don't say this facetiously. If the member is suggesting that the commission is somehow not functioning properly, I will undertake to pass that point of view along.

A. Sanders: I hope the minister will do exactly that. Because we are often caught up in bureaucratic roles, sometimes the very simple, straightforward, intelligent ways of dealing with things are bypassed for more complicated, ridiculous ways. I think this is a very good example of that.

In terms of the community being represented to the tripartite commission, how would this minister suggest that this community move toward seeking guidance with the commission to have this decision reversed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's actually a timely request from the member. I'm pleased to be able to advise her that the North Okanagan regional health board is currently planning to conduct a regionwide review of laboratory services. I would recommend that both community practitioners and consumers meet with their regional health board members. Then the North Okanagan regional health board members can surely make sure that this input is given to the Medical Services Commission.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister one question here, or I might go into a small one I have following that. It pertains to a subject she was on last Wednesday, near the end of estimates a week ago. I happened to be in a therapist's office subsequent to that, and I saw a large notice on the wall. It said that the user fees were going to be increased from $7.50 to $10, and then I recalled the minister saying that all of that was going to the therapist. Yet on the wall this large notice said: ". . .while decreasing the amount paid to the practitioner from $8.15 to $5.65."

[ Page 3866 ]

There was never any mention in her previous discussion about an increase in service fees by the client to the practitioner, but the practitioner. . . . So we're paying that extra $2.50. I guess we're just contributing to general coffers, as that was the expression she had used. Is it a fact? Can she clarify that the practitioners are now receiving $5.65 where they were receiving $8.15 prior to that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let's review what I actually did say, both for the member for Okanagan-Vernon and for the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. I said that there is no cut to what the practitioner gets. The amount that the practitioner gets remains exactly the same. The portion paid by the consumer increases, and the portion relative to that paid by the government decreases. That's exactly what I said. That's exactly what is on the record. I didn't hide from it. The full patient visit charge goes to the practitioner, and the government pays less.

D. Jarvis: So in other words, the actual fact is that practitioners are getting less for their services than they were before.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No!

D. Jarvis: I can appreciate that the minister gets kind of frustrated with these statements that come from either side, but when you are faced with another statement from a practitioner who states the opposite of what the minister states, then you usually want to have that clarified.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and my apologies to the member for expressing my frustration in a very inappropriate way. I'm really sorry.

The amount of money paid to the practitioner remains the same. The portion paid to the practitioner by the patient increases, and the portion of that fee paid by the government decreases.

[3:30]

It was interesting that in today's Vancouver Sun, the mayor of Vancouver was talking about crime taking over. It was a very serious article. In the article, the comment that struck me was that drug abuse is a central cause of many crimes in society and that there are many different programs given. I know the province has alcohol and drug programs, but I also know that the ministry has a great deal of costs incurred by alcohol and drug use, and especially heroin use.

I wonder whether the ministry has any records or statistics of the number of people using the ambulance service who are drug-overdosing or suffering damages to themselves from the use of drugs, narcotics. If you do have that information, I would be interested in having it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would be more than happy to provide that information when we're on the ambulance part of the estimates. I can bring staff in to do that if the member wants, or I'll take it on notice and report later today.

M. Coell: Yeah, I would be pleased if you'd take that on notice.

I'm hoping the minister can provide the House with the numbers of people overdosing on drugs or suffering from drugs who use the 911 system or the ambulance system to get to hospital. I suspect that that information is available. Also, what are the costs of that compared to the cost of the ambulance system for people with heart attacks, traffic accidents or other problems?

The other area that I think would be of some use is the percentage of the emergency wards that are taken up, again, by people overdosing or suffering from alcohol or drug abuse. I think it would be interesting for us to know what percentage of emergency rooms are taken up by those people and what services are provided to them. I also think that the hours of operation should be looked at -- when those people are needing that service. If the minister could give me those statistics, as well. . . . I realize you probably wish to take that on notice, and I appreciate that.

I think that the number of days in hospital stays by the poly-drug user would be of interest. I suspect that the cost is very high. That isn't part of the "war on drugs" that some of your other ministries are undertaking: the alcohol and drug programs of the Attorney General and the Ministry for Children and Families. I really feel that your ministry has some statistics that would aid all of the other ministries in their work.

I would also be interested in knowing whether there are treatment programs in the hospitals and whether, when someone comes in with an overdose of heroin or cocaine, there is a professional in the emergency ward who can try and hook that person up with treatment-recovery services in the community. I think, too, that the number of deaths, especially in the Vancouver area, of drug overdose. . . . Those individuals' histories with the health and emergency ambulance service would be of some help to other ministries.

The crux of crime, in large cities as well as smaller cities, is drug abuse. I think that this ministry needs to become part of the ongoing war against drugs. I think you have valuable statistical assets at your disposal that could be brought forward to help the other ministries deal with this problem, which is causing a great deal of individual and community pain in our province.

I will be anxiously awaiting the response from the ministry on the comments that I've made with regard to hospital and ambulance use by drug addicted individuals, with the hope that this information would spur some treatment and recovery programs that could probably emanate from your ministry.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and I appreciate the member's comments and constructive advice on coordination. I agree with that 100 percent. Actually, I also believe it makes sense to move the alcohol and drug treatment programs to the Ministry for Children and Families, because we know that drug abuse is a symptom of greater problems. It is truly only the symptom, and it is the underlying causes of drug abuse that we have to tackle. I agree we need a war on drugs. I totally support the Attorney General's hard-line stance against drug

[ Page 3867 ]

related crime. I totally support our government's initiative against any abuse or neglect that children suffer as a result of drug- and alcohol-abusing parents.

There is a very specific health care need that our ministry still meets, and of course that's heroin addiction. Our methadone treatment program has doubled over the course of the last few years. The people enrolled as well as the number of doctors providing methadone treatment has almost doubled. We have now, I think, the biggest program in all of Canada. We are looked to as a model, as well. The College of Physicians and Surgeons delivers that program.

It's a hard time to engage in a socio-economic approach to problems in this kind of forum, but very shortly our provincial health goals will be released -- I look forward to discussing them with the opposition -- where we not only talk about health goals and health outcomes, but we also make it very clear, from a government delivery point of view and a society point of view, how best to meet those goals. I anticipate some very positive input on that matter from members from the opposite side.

M. Coell: With regard to that, the reason I mention the statistics for overdoses and drug abusers that end up in the emergency wards and use the ambulance system is that those records are not necessarily passed on to the Ministry for Children and Families at this point. Someone could go for an ambulance ride to emergency because of an overdose of narcotics, and that may not be part of the system. I think that is important for two reasons: for the recovery of individuals and also for the protection of children and other family members.

I agree that the methadone program the minister has outlined has helped to get people into the recovery program. I would be interested in seeing any information she has on that, as well. I think the information that I've asked for will help.

The other area that I would offer some opinion on is the need for a temporary or permanent emergency room in downtown Vancouver that maybe isn't part of a hospital. There is a need in that area for detox and beds for youth. There is also a growing need for some services for people who are overdosing and are involved in criminal behaviour, which might relieve the emergency rooms in the Vancouver General and St. Paul's.

So I think there's a number of other options that. . . . People addicted to narcotics in the larger centres -- Vancouver being the main one -- could be served better with a storefront emergency room that would have the staff necessary to deal with potentially life-threatening overdoses. I wonder if the ministry has considered that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we not only considered it after consultation with the community, but in February or March of this year -- I'm sorry I can't remember the exact date -- I announced a $3 million program directly targeted to intravenous drug users -- a harm-reduction strategy. Clearly, the days are gone where us promoting complete abstinence. . . . It's simply not working. So I announced funding of $3 million for the community. Dr. Penny Parry, who just recently left her job as the child advocate for the city of Vancouver, is managing community consultation and community input for how to best spend that money. She's consulting not only with the service agencies but with the clients themselves and the hospitals. The Vancouver-Richmond health board is involved as well. We have a very effective health unit in the downtown east side that meets the other health needs of drug users each and every day. She's actually completing that process as we speak, and I expect that the member's suggestions may be the same ones the community has.

There is no question that a different delivery of health care services is required for people who are intravenous drug users. We need to take a different approach, not only for the benefit of the drug users themselves and their families but also for the community -- including a reduction of crime.

M. Coell: I appreciate that and look forward to seeing that report when it comes out. I suspect that some of my concerns have probably been addressed, because my concerns have come from the community as well.

The other area in your budget that is of some concern to me is street youth who are involved in prostitution as well as drugs. Possibly you're going to tell me that the capital health board or the health board would be the vehicle to provide programs. There seems to be a continual cry for treatment facilities once those young people are identified. Usually they're identified by a visit to emergency and through the court system, as well. Do you have any plans for programs this year dealing with youth, specifically street youth, who have problems with drugs and who are involved in prostitution and who end up in your hospitals?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm so tempted to answer this question, because it is from my previous responsibility that we did so much work. It is under the purview of the Ministry for Children and Families. I should just leave it there.

The Chair: Minister -- or member.

M. Coell: I thank you for that promotion. That's very kind.

What I'm concerned about is the coordination between health care and the entrance of people with drug and alcohol problems. I know the responsibility for programs. Your ministry is going to be the initial contact for a lot of these people who will end up in the Children and Families ministry. I just want to make sure that there is a transition and that there is money in these estimates to cover that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely. There will be coordination with the regionalization of health care, actually, and there will be coordination through the health authorities. I know already that coordinated activities are taking place, particularly with the Vancouver-Richmond regional health board, around street-entrenched youth. I also know that an institution such as St. Paul's is already doing a great deal of outreach through their dusk-to-dawn safe house for street-entrenched youth. We also have in place formal protocols around public health initiatives that will be delivered to children but are coordinated with other public health initiatives.

Hon. Chair, I move that we recess for ten minutes.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 3:45 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: I know one of the other members wanted to bring up another issue, but he's not here, so I'll start. For the information of the minister, I will be discussing the B.C. 

[ Page 3868 ]

Ambulance Service. Just for a start, I wonder if the minister can tell me what the administrative structure of the Ambulance Service is, starting with the executive director, and how it functions all the way down.

Interjection.

The Chair: I'll recognize the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Yesterday I was remiss, when I went over some questions with the minister about health care in Fort St. John, in not discussing the issue of rural health care travel. It's something that is high on the agenda and the minds of many in the north -- across all of rural B.C., actually.

Before I ask the questions, I want to assure the minister that the people of Peace River North -- in fact, the north in total -- appreciate the dedication that you've put towards bringing some kind of resolution to health care travel for rural residents. They're appreciative, and so am I, that she is the first health care minister who has really gone far in trying to organize something where rural residents can access specialized care in the lower mainland. I will put on the record that the Ministry of Finance has appointed two people to work with our caucus on the issue, and your ministry is also committed to putting some people to work on it. For that I am very happy. We're finally going to get somewhere.

We've been in touch with Mission Air on our studies. The minister will know that the last submission I have from Mission Air shows '94-95, and it shows productivity by province. In British Columbia, 160 patients with 109 escorts were moved via Mission Air. Those 109 were probably youngsters or maybe older people who needed an escort. So Mission Air was substantially well used in British Columbia.

Mission Air, the minister will know, is a non-profit organization out of eastern Canada, headquartered in Ontario. We use the system from Ontario, and it's basically funded by private donations, by travel points that are donated through the Canadian Plus Foundation to Mission Air. They have a large network of corporations that participate with them in carrying passengers around all of Canada.

I don't think there are a lot of people in British Columbia who know that Mission Air operates or know about the good service Mission Air gives. It came as a bit of a surprise that we used to, as a province, contribute dollars to Mission Air. Mission Air went into service in 1986 or 1987, and according to the records that I've been given, we have contributed $6,000 a year. Every province except two across Canada has contributed that. It's not a huge amount of money, but I guess it obviously helps their overhead.

The last payment made by British Columbia to Mission Air was $6,000 in 1994-95. I was surprised by the information, to be quite honest, and I would imagine that the minister probably is, too. Given the amount of people that are flown in British Columbia for health care -- as I said, 160 patients and 109 escorts -- the savings for people was $71,000 in health care travel, so it's actually quite substantial.

I just wonder -- if the minister doesn't have the information now, that's fine; she can get it to me later -- why we would not fund them the $6,000 anymore that all the other provinces fund -- except one other, and I don't know which one it is. Why would we discontinue funding them the $6,000 a year, especially with a budget the size of the Ministry of Health's? Six thousand dollars -- I know they're scarce; I appreciate that. But for something that is as well used as this and something that we are collectively trying to tie into somehow, so that we can provide that service for British Columbians. . . . If there's some way we can find to reinstate ourselves with Mission Air. . . .

I want to also say that Mission Air is not asking; I'm asking. They're not asking at all; they're quite happy. They're not making the issue at all; it's coming from this member representing rural residents, asking if we could again get back to donating the $6,000. You never know: in time we may finally get to that point where we have a working agreement with this organization, back to where a lot more residents can travel from rural B.C. to the lower mainland to specialized services. I'd be interested in the minister's response to that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will undertake to get that information. It sounds to me like a discretionary grant, so I will undertake to get that information for the member about whether that decision was made -- I take it that it was -- and why and what we can do about it.

Just before the member leaves to go back to his riding or whatever. . . . I'm just kidding. I just want to give information around the regional hospital district issue that the member raised yesterday. The Deputy Minister of Health has met on this, and I am assured that it will take a little bit more time. I can make this commitment to the member: what the people to whom he is talking wish will be achieved, but it will take a little bit more time.

R. Neufeld: I'm appreciative of that -- getting back that quickly. I appreciate that very much. Can you expand a little bit on "a little bit more time"?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The holdup is that there is a legislative implication that will be dealt with in this session.

[4:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. We've got the executive director -- Val Pattee, sitting to my left -- the director of provincial operations, the director of employee and management support, and then staff reporting to that team. Then there are regions, and I will outline the regional structure. Region 1 is Vancouver Island, and there is the regional director, then the superintendent, then unit chiefs and paramedics. That's repeated for each region, so I'll just go through the regions. The second region is the greater Vancouver regional district, region 3 is Kamloops, region 4 is Prince George and the north, and then there are three dispatch centres and one provincial Airvac dispatch.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me what the levels of paramedics are and if each region has. . . ? What are the different levels of paramedics? I know they train at the Justice Institute. Could you just outline that for me?

J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Kwan: In the precincts today are some 50 grade 6 students and adults from Chimacum Elementary School in Chimacum, Washington, and they're led by their teacher Mr. Olafsen. I ask the members that if they should see them in the hallways, please make them welcome.

[ Page 3869 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The classifications for emergency medical assistance are EMA 1, 2 and 3 -- 1 and 2 are basic life support and EMA 3 is advanced life support. All three levels are employed in each region.

S. Hawkins: How is the decision made for what level of EMA will be in a region?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll start back from EMA 3. Advanced life support is employed in large urban centres. EMA 2s and 1s are employed throughout the regions. Basically, the decision about the mix of staff is contingent upon the type of service that is demanded from the community.

S. Hawkins: Do the communities have input into what kind of service they need or is provided to them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, what I meant was the medical need of the community -- by virtue of what the demands for medical needs are.

S. Hawkins: I think my question is still the same, because I know there are communities across the province -- and I know the ministry is aware of this -- that feel that they don't have the level of paramedic that they require, or enough paramedics now. Does the ministry consult with the communities? And how do they respond to those kinds of questions and needs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we have dialogue with all of the communities, and that dialogue is regular and ongoing. I recently participated in a UBCM forum where this issue was a major topic. I am well aware that each and every community would like more.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can tell me how many front-line workers there are in the BCAS, and if this is an increase or decrease from the level of the last five years.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are approximately 3,300 employed in the B.C. Ambulance Service -- and those are people, not FTEs. We can confirm that it has increased over the last three years. It has increased over the last five years, but the figures over about the last three years are that in the full-time area, they've increased by about 100 employees.

S. Hawkins: A few minutes ago the minister stated that ALSs, the advanced life support paramedics, were in urban areas. How is urban defined? And how big does a community have to be to have ALS staff?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can list the urban centres where the advanced life support staff are: GVRD, Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo -- not Nanaimo, sorry. Did the member ask what the criteria are for determining this? The criteria are currently under review. The medical profession wants input into advanced life support. That's currently under review, but previously it's been literally the large urban centres.

S. Hawkins: The minister can appreciate that as I did my travels through rural and urban areas, the rural ones always feel that they're understaffed. And there certainly is a difference in equitableness between the urban and rural ambulance service. There's a difference between the kind of staff they get. There's a difference between the level of staff they get. There's certainly a difference between the level of service that they expect and they get. So it will be interesting to review the review once it is completed. Will the minister make that review public?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I don't have any hesitation in making it public.

I just want, though, to acknowledge at the very beginning that I fully appreciate -- because I too have toured the remote areas -- that the Ambulance Service is also the first line of medical care that people in rural and remote areas receive, and therefore it is extremely important in health care delivery. We are working very hard to train our staff to a level that meets the needs of the community as the first line of health care delivery. We are working very hard to manage staff delivery in such a way that there is full-time service available, or that the staffing complement allows for service delivery absolutely immediately. I'm sure the hon. member is aware that there's a historically high level of part-time employment in ambulance services across the country.

I am also aware of the concerns of rural and remote communities. We have gone a substantial way in the last few years to meeting those concerns. But I have no hesitation in putting on record that more needs to be done, and that's why the budget goes up each and every year. But at the end of the day, we always have to manage within the resources available. But the commitment is there to continue to expand.

S. Hawkins: As I said before, it will be interesting to get the review once it's done. The minister mentioned that staffing has gone up in at least the last three years within the Ambulance Service. What we'd like to know is: has it gone up in urban or rural areas? Can you split out the numbers and tell us. . . ? There are apparently 100 more full-time people. Where did they go?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The main area of increase has been in the lower mainland. There have been a few increases in the rural areas, but the main increase has been in the lower mainland.

S. Hawkins: I also want to know. . . . The minister mentioned the staffing increase in the lower mainland. With the 100 staff or the majority that went there, what level of paramedics were they?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Mainly EMA 2.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: We're joined today by 27 students from Seaview Elementary School in my riding of Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. They're grade 7 students interested in learning about the legislative process. They are joined by their teacher Mr. Kore, and seven adults are also accompanying them: Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Page, Mrs. Cucek, Mrs. Muiji, Mrs. Keogh and Ms. Graham. So I hope the House will make them welcome. This is the first visit from students in my riding. We're looking forward to many more.

[4:30]

[ Page 3870 ]

of the B.C. Ambulance Service. How many communities are there right now that are outside, where the ministry is negotiating to bring them inside the system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All communities are now under the purview of the B.C. Ambulance Service as per the act, with the exception of one community, which is Kitimat. I don't use this in a pejorative way, but it's a company town and the ambulance service is actually provided by the company.

S. Hawkins: I understand that there is a realigning being done of the services across the province. Can the minister tell us how many ambulance stations have closed in which communities in the past five years?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No ambulance stations have closed.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister can tell me the status, then, of the station that was in Summerland.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's there. Does the hon. member have evidence that it closed or. . . ?

S. Hawkins: I understand that it's being. . . . Maybe I should phrase the question another way: how many of the stations that were running at capacity have had their services trimmed back, and why? I understand that Summerland was one of the stations. Is there a plan to trim it back or close it? I understand that's a concern for the community.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe I'll take a few moments and go over the staffing plan, because I think this is what the member is referring to in terms of a reorganization.

There was an agreement reached on rural staffing with the workers, and there's now a process in place of transfer of full-time staff from those stations with staffing in excess of the agreed-upon level. So over the past year, 13 positions have been relocated from a total of 51 positions identified as impacted in 34 non-metropolitan communities. I just want to say that Summerland is one of the communities in which the staffing plan has been implemented, but the station still stays there.

The issue of staffing was an issue around where efficiencies needed to be achieved in terms of what is the best value from employees in delivering the service to the community. It arose out of the historical fact that the Ambulance Service was in large part delivered by part-time workers, and we're moving toward a professional, full-time Ambulance Service. So we needed to balance the fact that a call-out component may be needed in the community with the fact that full-time staff are needed in some communities. In other communities, the workload is really of a part-time nature. So the training and skill levels of part-time paramedics have increased, and they will continue to be enhanced through an improved training system which is part of the staffing plan. This training emphasizes continuous medical education and skill development, and it's accessible now to local paramedics because we've regionalized the training centres.

There are now 15 regional training centres located across the province. If they're not in place in all communities now, we're on the verge of putting them in place. I can list those training centres for the member. They are or will be in Campbell River, Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Prince George, Smithers, Trail, Cranbrook, Hope, Kelowna, Port McNeill, Sechelt, Terrace and Vancouver. There are almost two dozen communities where the staffing changes have been implemented according to the staffing plan, of which Summerland is one. I have the other communities here.

S. Hawkins: In the mix of staff BCAS has now, can the minister tell me how many of the 3,300 employees are full-time and how many are part-time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Eight hundred and seventy are full-time and the balance are part-time, which would make it just a little over 2,400.

S. Hawkins: On average, how many hours of work do the part-time staff get?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The part-timers are employed on a demand basis, so there is a huge variation in the hours of work. But I could attempt to get the payroll and figure that out. I will undertake that.

S. Hawkins: I would appreciate some statistics on that, because I understand that in some communities, the part-timers are working almost full-time hours. If the stats show that, is that community then staffed with full-time people, or is there a move to get away from full-timers and into part-time staff?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there's no initiative at all to convert to part-time work where full-time is necessary. In fact, where there has been close to full-time work, the position has actually been converted to full-time.

S. Hawkins: What is the benefit package for a part-time and a full-time employee in the BCAS?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll make a copy of the collective agreement available, but let me just give you a quick answer. There is a pay differential between part-time and full-time, with part-time receiving less. Benefits are awarded on the basis of how many hours per year a person works, with the full package of benefits being paid at 1,100 hours per year. We have calculated the compensation package on an average, but this is just regular salary. For full-time, the average hourly rate is $27.80, and for part-time, it's $18.50. That's salary.

S. Hawkins: For ongoing training, how often do the staff who are working get update training? How much is budgeted toward that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Ambulance Service spends about $5 million per year in training. Licensing takes place every five years. Part of the staffing plan is to implement a continuing medical education over the course of the full five years, but that's being done as we speak.

Could I just offer to the. . . ? The member may want to ask some questions on the issue of drug- and alcohol-related patients and ambulance service, so I'm going to send that across to the member in case. . . .

S. Hawkins: How does the ministry ensure that the ambulance paramedics are up to date in training? Is credentialling done for procedures for the different levels on a regular basis? What is it, and how often is it done?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The licensing takes place every five years, and they are tested on the full range of the services of their practice every five years.

[ Page 3871 ]

S. Hawkins: Given how medicine changes and procedures and different drugs change, I guess what I'm getting at is how often the actual front-line workers have access to programs that update their education level so they stay current. I understand that there are some concerns within the service about training and getting updates, and I'm wondering if the ministry. . . . Obviously the ministry, hopefully, is aware of this. How are they dealing with it? How can we ensure that these front-line workers, who provide a very critical service for pre-hospital emergency care, stay up to date?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the service is well aware of that, and that's why they're moving to the regional training centres and the continuing medical education model -- indeed to meet exactly those concerns.

S. Hawkins: Can we perhaps find out how soon we're going to actually be into that model? Then we can assure that the folks who work in the service and who are concerned about this will actually have training programs and will be able to keep updated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The pilot project will be up and running this summer. It's actually going to be in the Okanagan and hopefully will be assessed to a conclusion within a year and then implemented after that.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the ministry, because of a review that was done earlier this year, has now. . . . It was recommended that a new computer dispatch system be implemented. Where are we with that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm a bit at risk by speaking frankly about this issue, but it's very important because the controversy around this matter is publicized, and so I need to speak frankly in the House about it.

Yes, we have the money in place. It's confirmed. The expenditure for the computer-assisted dispatch is confirmed, and we are moving forward on it.

[4:45]

At the same time, prior to the proposal put forward by Vancouver for the EOCC, we had made a decision to develop our own dispatch centre for the B.C. Ambulance Service in the lower mainland -- Burnaby. I have put that decision to build our own centre on hold, and am working with the emergency operations and communications centre to move forward with us joining that centre. It's controversial. The final decision has not been made, but it is imminent.

Let me be frank about why it's controversial. It does require a change in the way that people work and a change in protocols amongst emergency personnel. We have to make sure that indeed the technology offered is the technology that's absolutely what the Ambulance Service needs, and we have to make sure that we live within the requirements of other agreements that we've entered -- collective agreements, service agreements.

I just want to bring to the House's attention that it's not just the Ambulance Service that's going through this discussion; it's the RCMP and police services as well. So an announcement is imminent in this area and, frankly, either way the decision is made will be controversial amongst workers.

S. Hawkins: We'll await that decision, as well. How is dispatch run right now, then? Obviously, with the report of the ambulance and emergency department review, there was a concern about that system. What has the ministry done to improve the system? It's not computerized, as recommended in the report now, because of the decision that's imminent. What has been done to make improvements since the report came out, and how is dispatch working now?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have made changes to the current system. It is a manual dispatch system, though, in the lower mainland. Maybe what I can do is just go over what the system is, and then the improvements.

The manual dispatch system is. . . . We can go over that if we want; it's quite detailed. But these are the improvements we've made. There's a new call assessment training in place. It allows dispatchers to make more effective determination of a 911 caller's needs and enables them to send the proper help in a more consistent way. The new call assessment system is actually premised on quality assurance and improvement in the current dispatch centre. We are actually reviewing the dispatch systems and have reviewed 3,500 other dispatch agencies using this medical priority dispatch system, and we have benefited from all of those improvements. It is in place; it is working.

The next step that we are moving toward imminently -- like, literally imminently -- is the putting in of the computer-assisted dispatch.

S. Hawkins: It's very encouraging to know that that's happening, because as you know, there have been errors made in the past. I gather from anecdotal stories from people working on the front line that sometimes people don't know where the closest car is. With the computerized system, hopefully, it will go into a memory bank and when the call comes in, the right car will be sent to the right scene.

I want to talk about response times at this time. We know from the last few years, and from documents that we've received, that there has been a problem with response times within the B.C. Ambulance Service. Certainly that was what culminated in the review that was done earlier this year and reported to the ministry in late February. As far back as December of 1994, the documents that we've received document that there have been numerous unacceptable delays in clearing ambulances that transport patients to emergency -- because of problems like there not being enough emergency beds or not enough beds in the hospital, so patients who come into emergency can't be admitted into hospital. The cars that are bringing emergency patients to the hospital cannot just leave their patients there unattended, so it also stalls them from getting back out into the community and answering calls.

We read examples in question period; the minister is aware of some of the memos that went back and forth. I want to know today what the standard response time is, what the 

[ Page 3872 ]

acceptable response time that the B.C. Ambulance Service accepts for their cars is, and if there is a difference between urban and rural.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just so we know, the external review identifies the industry standard as 90 percent compliance within eight minutes and 59 seconds -- just a second under nine minutes. It was recommended that the Ambulance Service move toward this new industry standard. The old way of measuring was the average response time statistic, so there is a new way of measuring average compliance. We accept that, and again, I'd just reiterate that it's 90 percent compliance at eight minutes and 59 seconds.

The B.C. Ambulance Service is now moving toward it, but under the old statistics -- and I accept that it is comparing apples to oranges -- the measured average response time in the lower mainland was five minutes. And yes, there is of course a difference: the average response time is different depending on region, and it is higher in rural areas.

S. Hawkins: The minister, I know, publicly stated in this report that the review committee that did the report didn't recommend resources insofar as increasing staff or hospital beds. But when I look at the terms of reference that this review team had to follow, there's nothing in the terms of reference that say they can do that. There's nothing in here that says they have the following objectives. One of the terms of reference was: will you decide if we need extra resources in the way of patient beds or more staff or more cars in the area? That wasn't recommended in the terms of reference, and I'm wondering why it wasn't in the terms of reference. Perhaps the minister can comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, there was no preclusion to the industry making recommendations on that basis. They were free to do that, and they reached their own conclusion about resources. They addressed that issue. But regardless of the report, there has been an increase in resources as a result of this budget. The ambulance service budget increased this year by more than 10 percent, an almost $12 million addition. Acute care hospitals received a 2.8 percent increase as well, with some hospitals receiving targeted funding.

S. Hawkins: Again, this problem was not new, and it certainly appeared. The impetus of this review was probably the very unfortunate, tragic death of a child that was made public by the media. In that case, the child was only two minutes away from a hospital. An ambulance was waiting at that hospital that could not respond to this child's choking emergency because they were held up in an ambulance bay. They couldn't get their patient into emergency because there were no beds.

The report that was done also points to that question. It says that in-patient bed capacities have fallen, lengths of stay have been shortened, and a number of long term care patients inappropriately occupy acute care beds in nine selected hospitals.

The minister also has a review of bed utilization. It's flawed in some ways. It's retrospective, and it uses an American index to judge the times and stuff. It also points to the fact that beds in hospitals are being taken up by long-term patients. Everything sort of impacts on each other, and this is possibly one of the reasons there are long delays in hospital ambulance bays: patients are plugging up beds in hospitals. What has the minister done about that problem?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is my understanding that each and every regional health board has accepted both studies and are working with their acute care hospitals to make the best use of admissions and bed utilization. The report clearly indicated that there were management issues in the way beds are utilized and in the way patients are admitted. There was an indication about patients with mental illness being left in emergency wards. We immediately directed Riverview Hospital to change its admissions policy. We've discussed that at length here.

A committee of administrative, medical, nursing, mental health, community and ambulance services experts is monitoring the implementation of the ambulance services and emergency room review report. Over and above that, regional health boards are also doing an assessment. My own regional health board has done an assessment of continuing care beds and is now doing it of acute care beds, and they are making the appropriate changes.

S. Hawkins: The problem of patients being stuck in hospital beds is not new. That is something that health care workers and front-line workers have been saying for years. In fact when I toured hospitals, they showed me whole wards of acute care beds that were being filled by long term care patients because there was nowhere for them to go. That's another key finding of the committee that reviewed the ambulance problem. They said that patients were being admitted to hospital because there were no community resources for them.

[5:00]

I understand that the regional health boards are now being handed that problem, but it's not a new problem. The regional health boards are fairly new in their roles. They're still trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing administratively: setting up their committees, and trying to understand their budgets, how services are to be delivered and the needs of their communities.

This is not a problem just for regional health boards; it's a provincewide problem. It's certainly a problem that is affecting the ambulance service. I understand that the problem of ambulances being backed up in emergencies is still there. From the freedom-of-information documents we've received, I understand that the waiting periods at some hospitals were two or three hours. That is totally unacceptable for an ambulance that's supposed to be attending and available for emergencies out in the community.

If there has been improvement from March until now, can the minister tell us what improvement there has been in making sure that ambulances aren't backed up in emergency departments? And if they are, can the minister tell us what's being done? Are we tracking this? Is the B.C. Ambulance Service actually tracking this to see what the waiting times are? How are they doing this?

[ Page 3873 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll answer the questions in reverse order. Yes, the Ambulance Service has taken action to meet the needs of the recommendation of the report. In fact, in order to avoid ambulance EMA workers having to remain at the hospital until their patient is discharged, they've actually put extra crews on what is called "on the street," where they go to hospital and look after the patients while a crew needs to be dispatched. That is working very effectively.

Let me just address a couple of things. I accept sitting here and listening to complaints made about the system -- how we've known about these problems for ages, and why haven't we done anything about them. Well, we have done something about them. That's what the regionalization of health care is all about.

Is British Columbia remiss and the worst possible jurisdiction in the world dealing with the shifting focus of health care? No, not at all. In fact, we still have a federal government that thinks the only way to deliver health care is through hospitals and doctors. And, frankly, a large portion of the population thinks that that's the only way to get your health care needs as well.

Yes, I accept that the system is a giant system, and it takes a long time to make change. I understand the change is controversial. Look how controversial the Better Teamwork, Better Care approach is, where we're actually saying for the very first time: "Continuing care, you have to work with acute care. No longer are you, Vancouver Hospital or Summerland hospital or McBride hospital, allowed to just operate as a separate entity. You actually have to work with your community to plan the nursing home facilities; you have to work with your community to plan your day programs; you actually have to treat mental health patients in the same way that you treat acute care patients; you actually have to work in your community with the public health system."

And it is working. The system. . . . There are regional health boards that, while they have just recently received the authority, have action plans ready to go. Community health centres: we've discussed community health centres at length. They're controversial as well. In this House, they have been described as. . .or that we should proceed cautiously. I accept that. All of the advice our government receives for change in the system is to proceed cautiously. In some areas we do, and in other areas we don't.

The issue of bed-blockers is not new. That's absolutely correct. In many, many areas where there is high population growth and where there's a change in the demographics, we are investing almost all of our money in continuing care and not in acute care. But then what happens? The criticism comes back: "We need more money in acute care." So we scramble to answer those questions, as well.

The system is changing. The system is much better coordinated than it was ten years ago. The system is going to be forced to be better coordinated from now on because of fiscal responsibilities in the future. No longer is anybody in the health care community going to be allowed to work in isolation. But I also know. . . . And, you know, I'll sit here and accept the criticism; I will sit here as long as we want and accept the criticism. Change comes about with a great deal of difficulty. That's a fact of the system. Do we say every day: "Do we spend all of our time pushing the system toward meaningful change with the best health outcomes?" Yes. Is it quick enough? No.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: Yes, I accept that change comes with a lot of difficulty. But I think the people in British Columbia expect positive change. What they've seen the last few years -- what they perceive -- is that the changes haven't been positive. What they perceive is that the changes have been negative. They feel that the front-line. . . . And certainly the front-line workers that communicate with us feel that they're doing more and more with less and less. And yes, there's health care that perhaps is nice to have, but there is health care that has to be prioritized. There are priorities.

I would certainly say that emergency care is a priority. It's critical; it's absolutely critical. What we're seeing and what we have seen are problems that have been reported to the ministry for the last few years that seem to have gone unattended, that seem to have been ignored. The study that was done -- and the minister's press release alluded to it -- said that the review found no definitive evidence that the backlog of ambulance service has a correlation to the B.C. Ambulance Service's ability to respond to emergency calls.

But it goes on to say -- and this is what the minister didn't put in her press release -- that, in part, this relates to inadequate information being available to the reviewers, and to the B.C. Ambulance Service efforts to release crews from the emergency department when call volumes warrant and to their use of cars from surrounding communities to buffer their peak periods. They never had that information.

We just got that information through FOI, and what we got through freedom of information is that there have been problems. They have been documented; they have been recurring. There are problems that probably -- I would think -- are critical, when we talk about delays of two and three hours in emergency departments where crews cannot release their patients to emergency and get back out in the community to answer calls. And when we have stories, and certainly documentation through freedom of information. . . . We've got reports that went to the B.C. Ambulance Service that say: "Do something about this, because patient safety is being compromised and lives are in jeopardy."

When we see letters written by the ministry's officials that talk about these problems -- as late as December 3, which unfortunately culminated in a tragedy three weeks later -- I would say emergency care is a priority. And I would say that the ministry failed very miserably in not attending to that concern when it was first. . . . Well, I don't know when it was first realized, but our documents of it being raised go back to 1994. It was not addressed at that time; hopefully, it is being addressed now.

Unfortunately, it seems that some of it is being downloaded onto regional health boards, which are still in their infancy in trying to figure out what they're going to do. I would put it to the ministry that this is a provincial problem and that it should be managed at a provincial level. As far as trying to find out strategies, there should be leadership from the ministry to the regional health boards on how to deal with this. That's where the responsibility lies, and that's where the responsibility should have been for the last few years. Part of the problem was all the Health ministers revolving through the ministry, with no one really taking the leadership role. It's unfortunate. We will be watching this area very carefully.

I understand that Seattle -- which I would say is a city comparable to Vancouver -- had problems with response times and that it had the same kinds of problems several years ago. They have considerably improved their response times, and I understand that they've done very well. I wonder if the ministry does look at other jurisdictions and tries to find 

[ Page 3874 ]

strategies, and if it has been since March. . . . Hopefully, they haven't in the last few years, because I understand that the response times in Vancouver -- and the minister admitted it herself -- are not reasonable. We're getting there, but they're not ideal. They're ideal for part of the time, but there's always room for improvement.

Does the ministry look at cities like Vancouver, where they need to improve the response times and look at comparable jurisdictions for help? Do they consult and see how they can improve those times?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The committee that was struck to do the review had experts from across the country. I've already read into the record that the B.C. Ambulance Service has looked across the industrialized world -- I'm just trying to look at where the stat is here -- at 3,500 different dispatch agencies, examining their successes. The fact of the matter is that this problem is one that jurisdictions struggle with across the western health care system. We continue to examine all the best practices, and we implement them where the best practices are determined.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us from 100 Mile House -- precisely, the 100 Mile House Elementary School -- are some 16 or so students with their teacher, Patrick Adams, and some of the adults accompanying them. Please make them welcome.

M. Coell: I'd like to thank the minister for supplying me with the information on usage of the ambulance services in alcohol- and drug-related incidents. It's very interesting, and I have some questions on those figures. In your estimates, the estimate for emergency health services is $128,114,000. I wonder if you could tell me how much of that is for ambulance service, or is all of that for ambulance service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is the ambulance service budget.

The Chair: I remind the hon. member to address the Chair.

M. Coell: In the figures that you have given me, you have the total number of patients who used the ambulance system in the year '96-97 at 15,496. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I gave you my only copy; that's how trusting I am. So I don't mind going over. . . . We can have a full explanation by the. . . . You asked for drug- and alcohol-related figures. I can have staff walk through it with you, explain it to you, and then you can quiz me further and give me my own copy back.

M. Coell: I appreciate your trust, uncommon as it is in this chamber.

The Chair: Hon. member. . . .

M. Coell: Through the Chair, I appreciate your trust.

The Chair: Thank you.

M. Coell: If your staff has the opportunity right now, I'll take leave and have them explain and then make a copy of your report for you.

[5:15]

R. Neufeld: Just a couple of brief questions to do with part-time and full-time ambulance. How is it determined how many full-time and how many part-time ambulance personnel are used in a community? You can use the community of Fort St. John as an example. The question was asked earlier but it wasn't answered. I'd just like to know how that determination is made.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, did you ask how full-time is determined? If there are 600 calls per year, a full-time person is assigned. If there are 1,200 calls per year, two full-time people are assigned.

R. Neufeld: I take it by that, then, that it goes completely by ambulance calls. It has nothing to do with the size of the area serviced or the population. I'm referring again to rural and urban together.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume what the member is getting at is that there's a difference in the way a call is delivered. But after close examination of this, it has been determined that even within the variations of the community -- whether it be a retirement community, industrial community, an urban centre -- the calls are a legitimate reflection of the workload.

R. Neufeld: The second question I have is about the dispatch that you touched on briefly earlier, and about going to a new dispatch system. You talked about the 911 service and said that computers will take over some of the work. I don't have any problem with new technology, but I wonder how that technology coordinates with rural B.C., specifically in my constituency, where the ambulance services a huge area, many without addresses. There are no house numbers. There may be a road number, but in many cases a lot of people don't even know what road they are driving on because it's such a vast area. If they are new to the area and they come across an accident, how do they phone in and let the computer know where they are?

The 911 is a serious issue too, because not every part of the province is covered by 911. We have a pretty antiquated phone system in the north, in the rural part of British Columbia, where we still have numerous party lines -- all kinds of them. So I just wonder how that's going to integrate with this new system.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I didn't mean to say that it's because of the 911 that we're using the new assessment system. The new call assessment system is in place for every call received. I used the example of 911, and I shouldn't have done that, because you're right, there are some communities. . . . The nature of what the dispatcher does after the call is received remains the same. It's not affected by the computer-assisted dispatch. The technology speeds up the system. If there is an address, it's logged, but otherwise the same identification procedure for the location of the call occurs.

B. Barisoff: I beg the minister's indulgence. Some of these are just local questions that probably don't pertain to the ambulances. One is a capital project that I know the minister has granted planning funding for: the Keremeos multicare 

[ Page 3875 ]

facility. I was just wondering whether she has any idea when that will actually be going to tender. They've been waiting for it for some ten years.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I didn't hear the project name, but I would just say that capital projects will be announced very shortly. The expenditures of the capital budget for Health will be announced very shortly.

B. Barisoff: I imagine that it would be when the estimates are over, so we hope soon. The project is the Keremeos multicare facility. It's one that you just announced the planning funding for earlier, and we're hoping for it.

These are just local ones. One of the problems that we had at the Grand Forks Hospital was that the drug formulary was limited. What took place there was that people from Grand Forks were ending up in the Kelowna hospital, and they could get drugs there, but when they got transferred back to Grand Forks, they couldn't receive the same drugs. I don't know enough about it, but maybe the minister could explain a little bit to me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll certainly look into it if the member will provide me with the specific details of this situation.

Let me just make some general comments. Each hospital does provide a group of drugs at no charge when a patient is in the hospital. The hospital determines what is called the "formulary," the list of which drugs are provided without charge while in hospital. But when a patient is discharged and receiving care back in the community, the coverage is then according to Pharmacare and the provisions of Pharmacare.

Is the member saying that if the patient were admitted to Kelowna hospital, her drugs were paid, but if she were admitted to the Grand Forks Hospital, her drugs weren't paid? Yeah? Well, that's probably as a result of hospitals having a different list of drugs that are provided free of charge. But I'd be happy to look into the particular situation.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly what I was. . . . I think the concern was that some of the bigger hospitals, I guess, probably have a bigger list of drugs in their formulary, so what was taking place was that they didn't have access to them when they got transferred back to a smaller hospital.

My last question -- and I know this falls under the Health ministry -- is in the rural areas, where they have a certain size for septic fields. What they're looking at is a self-contained system that they can put on a smaller lot. It's something that's been proven and tested everywhere else, except they haven't allowed them in the province of B.C. for some reason. I was just wondering whether the minister could comment if that's being looked at.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, this will require different staff. I can take it on notice, or we can wait for staff.

B. Barisoff: Yeah, if the minister just wants to get it to me, it doesn't matter when. I just want to have it on record. If I could just know what's happening in that particular area. . . . I thank the minister for her indulgence for allowing me to slip away from where it was.

M. Coell: Through the Chair, I've provided the minister with a copy of her briefing note, which she graciously loaned me. It's a. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a fast-tracked FOI. I can't even call it a leak; I know that.

M. Coell: This was leaked directly from the minister's office.

I wonder if I might ask again about emergency health services. I was looking for just the ambulance service; I don't want to get confused with whether this is the government airplanes as well. I'm looking at just the ambulances.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My gosh -- it's just ground calls!

M. Coell: The report that you've given me shows a total of 15,496 ambulance rides, I would presume that is, or clients using the ambulance to get to the hospital.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This whole chart is dealing with drug-and-alcohol-related patients. The information that the member asked was how many calls are related to drug and alcohol abuse -- for lack of a better word. The total is 15,496 patients with drug- or alcohol-related services. The annual calls per year are about 390,000.

M. Coell: The percentage of patients. . . . The primary diagnosis and secondary notice together is the 15,496. And your total number of calls, where you actually take someone from their home, or wherever, to the hospital, is 390,000. That's correct? Okay. The other questions that I asked regarding emergency entrance for people with alcohol and drug problems would be over and above this 15,000. I would imagine that some people get there on their own -- their friends take them or whatever. The minister was going to get back to me on that and I'm satisfied with that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: I want to get back to the question of call volumes because from a question that another member asked, I understand that staffing for full-time or part-time is determined on call volume. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Can the ministry advise us how they track call volumes? What kind of calls do they use for their tracking? Those two questions first.

Hon. J. MacPhail: A call is when an ambulance is dispatched.

S. Hawkins: So there's no distinction between an ambulance being dispatched for an emergency and an ambulance being dispatched for a transfer. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For determination of staff levels, both types of calls are included in call volume.

S. Hawkins: There is a concern over staffing in different communities around the province, and there's a concern that areas that. . . . Well, there is a concern; let's leave it at that. Can the minister tell us: do they then divide the emergency calls from the transfer calls, and perhaps. . . . Let's say for the city of Vancouver, how many calls for each in the past year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Ambulance Service does distinguish between calls. The emergency calls are pretty consistent across regions as a percentage, as are. . . . Transfer calls vary a bit. But emergency calls are approximately. . . . The 

[ Page 3876 ]

service keeps track of it across region, but emergency calls hover around 40 percent. The transfer calls vary a bit more by region. But they are kept track of separately.

[5:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the Ambulance Service has plans for this. There has been a trial in the Victoria area for a dedicated transfer fleet. Now they are going to be implementing that in the lower mainland. But just for the information of the House, when an emergency call comes out, a transfer is delayed until that emergency call is completed.

S. Hawkins: A transfer might be delayed. But a car might be already in transit with that transfer; that leaves that car unavailable for answering that emergency call.

Why is the B.C. Ambulance Service in the business of transferring? Has the B.C. Ambulance Service thought about contracting out that service? These transfers aren't necessarily emergencies at all times. If we're looking for bang for the buck, why are we using ambulances for transfers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I take under advisement the advice about how to run the Ambulance Service in terms of contracting-out. It's an interesting proposal by the opposition.

However, in the transfer. . . . They're not emergency transfers, but patients do require medical care during the transfer in terms of emergency medical care, as well, and delivery. . . . They're on IV support, for instance.

S. Hawkins: Then, if the minister has that kind of information, when they track the emergencies or the transfers in the transfer percentage, do they keep track of what kind of medical care those transfers require? Do they assess them on a certain level? You know, are they a critical transfer? Are they just an ordinary transfer? Is there some kind of record kept as to what kind of medical attention -- or any kind of attention -- that transfer needed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The crew gets the information about the level of medical care from the physician. They fill out a patient care form at the other end. I would be more than happy to provide a full briefing of the way the Ambulance Service operates to any member who wishes.

S. Hawkins: It's interesting that there is such a high percentage of transfers involved in vehicles that are supposed to be in the community for emergency care or pre-hospital care. So yes, I would appreciate a briefing, and perhaps this year I might get one.

I'm also interested in air ambulance. I'm wondering what's been budgeted for air ambulance in this year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $17,309,187.

S. Hawkins: Is that an increase or a decrease over the past year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a $1.5 million increase from last year.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister just give a brief overview of this service? I believe this service is contracted out -- is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have a small number of fixed contracts for delivery of service, generally, but there are over 100 smaller contractors that provide service as needed.

S. Hawkins: What is the staffing of this service? What level of training do they have, who trains them and who provides the staff for this service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The crews of the air ambulances are BCAS employees. They have advanced life support level of training plus they have training over and above that in Airvac. The contracted services are for the pilot and the plane, but the crews that staff the air ambulance are BCAS employees.

S. Hawkins: What are the contracts for the actual air ambulances, the planes? Who pays for that, and how much of that budget goes into that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The B.C. taxpayer pays for it. It's $12,816,168 for the charters.

S. Hawkins: I was also interested in. . . . I know there have been discussions with the fire departments around a first-responder program. How is the B.C. Ambulance Service dealing with that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have first-responder protocols that are in place across the province. In fact, we continue to work with fire departments across the province to continually improve on first-responder protocols.

I know in my own area, Vancouver, where there have been historical issues around the first-responder program, there have been vast improvements in recent months. It's working very effectively. There's been significant progress recently in first-responder protocols. The protocol ensures that the patient receives the appropriate emergency medical response from all agencies involved in the provision of such care.

There's a provincial first-responder coordinating committee. People who sit on that committee. . . . The organizations that are represented are the Fire Chiefs Association, the police, the Ambulance Service, the EMA licensing board and the B.C. Paramedic Academy.

S. Hawkins: I just want to go back to air ambulance for a minute. I understand that this government was the one that privatized the air ambulance service. I'm wondering if there has been an evaluation done on how much has been saved by doing this, and if the service has been improved as a result of this.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am reluctant to actually answer this question, because it will encourage the Minister of Employment 

[ Page 3877 ]

and Investment to whine about the fact that Government Air has gone. But even in light of that potential for him to whine about that, the evaluation was done to not have our own government airplanes. It was deemed to be much more expensive at the time. Over 60 percent of the services were not provided by Government Air anyway. But I can give you the information about what the. . . . No, I'm sorry, that's air miles.

S. Hawkins: As far as the air ambulance service, then, since it was privatized, is there a difference in response times? Does the government have an evaluation of response times, and have they improved?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just answer it this way. In terms of the response times, we continue to meet the needs, because the contracted services are for immediate availability. The contract is a dedicated service so that when the call comes in, there is the plane available.

S. Hawkins: I'm just wondering if the ministry is still paying for the pilots that the government hired and then eliminated, along with that air services branch?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, that was done about four years ago, so it would be part of public accounts. But it wasn't the Ministry of Health anyway. Government Air was covered by another ministry.

S. Hawkins: There have been reports that vehicles are dispatched that break down while they are in transit to emergencies. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the age of the fleet is and how often it is updated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The size of the fleet is about 400 ambulances. It is extremely rare that an ambulance breaks down in the performance of duties. But our government is committed to the provision of a safe and effective ambulance service, and that's why over the next four-year period our government will replace half of the current fleet. The Ministry of Employment and Investment, the Purchasing Commission and the BCAS are working very closely to determine if there is a competitive, effective and made-in-British-Columbia supply solution that warrants consideration.

The age of the current fleet ranges from about ten years old to brand-new. For instance, we acquired 35 new vehicles last year.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister could advise on how frequently vehicles do break down in transit. Is that tracked?

[5:45]

S. Hawkins: I'm also interested in the capital budget for the BCAS. There's obviously equipment that's on the cusp, and I'm wondering what the capital budget is for the BCAS for this year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is not a separate capital budget. Any institutional structures come out of the overall capital budget for the Ministry of Health, but capital equipment such as vehicles and the computer-assisted dispatch are out of the overall budget. For instance, for vehicles, there's a $4.7 million budget; computer-assisted dispatch is about $5.5 million. It's part of the $128 million budget.

S. Hawkins: How often is equipment that ambulances need replaced? How often is it checked for replacement?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The equipment is checked every day and replaced as required.

S. Hawkins: I am also interested in the kinds of equipment that the paramedics have to use. In a couple of the stations I went to, there's no fax machine. They're bringing in their own computer; they're trying to keep track of supplies. I'm wondering if the ministry is working toward some kind of a system where they will have the resources they need to run their station. It seems kind of in the dark ages when you have. . . . I'll give you an example. The ambulance station in downtown Kelowna doesn't have a fax machine or a computer. The paramedics brought in their own computer to help keep track of the supplies that they use to stock their ambulances. So is the ministry moving ahead to bring these offices into the twentieth century?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our first priority is, of course, the ambulance and making sure that the resources go into patient care. That's our priority. As resources become available, we will provide computers for training, etc., but it is all about priorities, and patient care is our first priority.

S. Hawkins: I also agree patient care is a priority. I also agree that if we're going to get our best bang for the buck, we have to be able to manage effectively as well. Certainly there is a need to make sure that supplies, equipment and information are being kept track of. I understand a lot of this is being done manually; that takes time. It's just a suggestion that equipment could be used to make life a little easier for these paramedics in terms of communication and keeping track of what they need in their offices.

I'm also interested in just canvassing a bit about what I understand is a policy in the BCAS that doesn't allow paramedics to speak to the media. And I'm wondering if the minister can explain to us. . . . There are guidelines to speak to the media, and there's apparently retribution for doing so without permission. I'm wondering why that policy is in place. Perhaps the minister can explain.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are public service guidelines that exist across the public service that are well-established and agreed upon with the employee representatives.

S. Hawkins: I know that there have been serious concerns raised by paramedics. Many of them speak to me on the premise that I won't divulge their confidentiality -- and I won't. But there are serious, serious concerns in the Ambulance Service over patient care -- certainly over some of the situations that we reviewed earlier today and with respect to what culminated in the ambulance review study that the minister initiated earlier this year.

I can understand guidelines that are reasonable, but when it comes to concerns about patient safety and care, and it comes to the point where they feel that they can't get a response from the ministry or the officials that they talk to. . . . It seems to be a little unreasonable that they can't convey those concerns any other way without retribution. And I'm 

[ Page 3878 ]

wondering. . . . I recall part of a letter, or a story about a letter that was published in the Province several months ago. It had to do with a paramedic who actually wrote to the paper and said how grateful he was that bystanders stopped and assisted at the site of an accident. And apparently he was disciplined for that. He couldn't do that. I can understand it if it's divulging the confidentiality of a patient or whatever, but to be disciplined, to get a letter on file for thanking a bystander. . . . I think that's a little bit unreasonable.

Other provinces have legislation called whistle-blower legislation when it has to do with safety and concerns of public safety. Has this government given any consideration to introducing that kind of legislation for employees like this, who feel that they have significant concerns they want to report but can't because they fear disciplinary action or loss of their job? Has this government considered anything like whistle-blower legislation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I'm sure you were just about to remind the member about future policy considerations, as well. And that's a future policy consideration. But I must also just advise the member that labour relations matters. . . . There are ways of dealing with labour relations matters that are not part of estimates. Public service guidelines have been well-established and agreed upon with worker representatives, and there are indeed all sorts of whistle-blower clauses that exist throughout legislation that our government has introduced.

S. Hawkins: I think part of the problem which culminated in this study was the fact that paramedics were afraid to lose their jobs, and they tell me that right now. They write me letters and they phone me and talk to me, but they will not go on record. They will not go on record and, in fact, understand that there are other lives in jeopardy. I feel for families who have gone through this.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, they do not want. . . . They feel that they've addressed their concerns. They've brought their concerns to the ministry and they haven't been dealt with. And I get very, very sad letters saying that there are lives in jeopardy and that the ministry is not listening. In fact, the reports that we got around Christmas and earlier this year are all related to that. Certainly the FOI documentation shows that over the last few years paramedics have brought to the B.C. Ambulance Service their concerns about patient safety: about response times, about ambulances not being able to get out to calls, and about staffing and training difficulties. They're not being heard. And when we see gag policies like this, it certainly doesn't make me wonder why they're afraid to go to the ministry for help. They tell me they have kids, they have mortgages, and they need their jobs. There are serious concerns that the ministry isn't dealing with. I wonder if the minister can tell us how many employees have been disciplined for breaching this policy in the past five years.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a ridiculous question for estimates, an absolutely ridiculous question for estimates.

S. Hawkins: The minister might think it's ridiculous, but the front-line workers don't. In fact, they think the policy is ridiculous. They have been trying to get this ministry's attention for some very serious concerns. They warned this ministry and they warned this government that if problems they identified at least three years ago weren't addressed, patient safety and lives would be in danger.

If they bring their concerns out, if they write to the media, if they publicly voice their concerns, they're disciplined. They're disciplined for raising serious patient issues. I think that's wrong. I don't think it's ridiculous to find out how many employees have had to pay the price of speaking up for patients and of concern for patient safety. I don't think that's ridiculous.

In fact, I understand that one of the paramedics who went to the media -- his name was reported accidentally -- almost paid the price. This was the incident with the little girl. I understand that his disciplinary hearing has been suspended. Hopefully, he won't be disciplined for that, because I think what he did was great. I think what he did was great because it culminated in a review of the system; it pointed to the inefficiencies of the system and, hopefully, raised public awareness. It certainly raised the ministry's awareness and their ability to act on it. Hopefully, they will act on it. Hopefully, there are improvements being made.

Other jurisdictions find ways to protect these employees. That's why I give the suggestion to the minister about whistle-blower legislation for employees like this. This has to do with patient safety. It has to do with emergency care and patient safety.

I urge the minister to think about that and certainly give these front-line workers an avenue to voice their concerns. Obviously what they did in the last few years wasn't really heard and wasn't really acted on or reviewed until a tragedy occurred -- a tragedy that they had predicted.

Noting the time and the presence of the Speaker, I can pick this up after the supper hour. 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 move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 3879 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
(continued)

G. Abbott: I just wanted to do a quick review with the minister and his staff of what remaining issues I plan to canvass in the ministry, I guess, in terms of any staff changes that need to be made. Then we'll start where we left off last night. I have completed my questions on restructuring and amalgamations. I gather the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has a few questions on restructuring in an area of concern to him.

After that, the areas that I plan to canvass -- Bill 55, the implementation of that particular measure. . . . I guess we'll briefly tie that into the recent changes to the Local Government Grants Act, as we quite thoroughly canvassed that during the second and third readings of Bill 2 debate. The declassification-of-roads issue, the negotiations surrounding the devolution of B.C. Transit from a provincial to a regional authority -- if that's a fair way to term it -- provincial transfers to local government. . . . Here we'll be looking at things like some details with respect to the small community protection and equalization grants, the future of global grants, sewer and water grants, policing grants -- that kind of thing.

I think the final area that I want to look at is the Assessment Authority and some questions surrounding the Assessment Authority. I hope no one has any particular expectations about when we'll finish. Certainly my expectation is that we will be finished well before closing time this evening, but obviously I don't think the time at which we'll conclude these estimates is something that we can arbitrarily set. I like to ask full questions, and I know the minister likes to provide full answers, as it should be. So presumably the time we finish will be whatever, but we will be completing it by tonight and Agriculture will commence.

With that, I'd like to yield the floor to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to get in and ask some questions. My questions are going to be very specific to Powell River-Sunshine Coast, because there is active consideration underway with respect to boundary redistribution and restructuring. At the lower end of the Sunshine Coast, including the Sunshine Coast regional district, the town of Gibsons, the district municipality of Sechelt. . . . That is an issue that was discussed, debated and in fact attempted in the Gibsons area before Sechelt was successful in their restructuring bid. But Gibsons has not been successful. So my questions are specific with respect to the dollars that have already been put forward for studies in that area, and I'd like to know what their status is.

Secondly, I'd like to know what policy the ministry has undertaken with respect to the provision of voting preferences on a restructuring process, in terms of how such a model will be attempted and whether or not that can be attempted within one jurisdiction. Or does it have to be multi-jurisdictional?

Let me start by saying that I'm aware, and I think the minister is aware, that there have been some dollars put aside for a study in the Pender Harbour area. That area, which is electoral area A, is an area that is perhaps less obviously attached to a restructured single government or one government. I only say that because of its geography, not for any other reason. The north end of the riding tends to be isolated. I'd like the minister to tell me what the status of that funding is and to what extent, if there is a requirement for that funding to be extended into next fiscal year, an extension of those fundings will be possible.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm aware of the issue the member is taking about. I guess what I would like to say at this point is that if the member wants full technical briefing on all the specific details, I can get that for him -- all the specific answers to the questions. Or if the member wants to wait for about 20 minutes to half an hour, I can bring someone in who will be able to answer specific questions that he may have in terms of dollar amounts.

G. Wilson: I don't think we need to delay the business of this committee. As long as that information can be sent, that will be fine.

One thing I think the public would like to hear from the minister in that area is on the question: is the policy that currently exists in Municipal Affairs with respect to the sharing of tax-based revenue under a restructuring model? I know this was discussed earlier on, having had a chance to read the Hansard Blues -- but only very peripherally, I have to say. In this particular riding, in this particular region, the difficulty we have is that we have Port Mellon to the south, which is a very large contributor. We also have industrial landholdings in Pender Harbour in the north, and there's virtually no industrial tax opportunities in between.

What is being anticipated or proposed now by elected members in the regional district and also through Sechelt-Gibsons -- not excluding the Sechelt Indian government district, a very important player that's just in its final stages of concluding its own treaty -- is a proposition for a one-government model. The difficulty is that there has to be some commitment with respect to the share of the tax base for the balance of the area that is not included in that restructured region. I think the people are quite anxious to hear from the minister that the shared tax base will remain a shared tax base and that there can be no provision to capture that tax base through a restructuring process that will work to the detriment of citizens who currently enjoy it. If the minister might want to speak to that, I think the people would be quite anxious to hear.

[3:00]

Having said that, you're right. If in a current situation you have a major industrial tax base in an unincorporated area with benefits being shared with a particular region, and a restructure takes place, it's not right that all of a sudden one community can get full benefit of that industrial enterprise 

[ Page 3880 ]

being incorporated into their boundaries and the rest of the region is suddenly placed at a detriment. I don't agree with that, and I wouldn't support any move that would see something like that happen.

We have examples in the Kootenays where there are a number of coalmines. I think about three communities benefit from the five coalmines. In terms of tax revenues, the revenues from those coalmines are distributed on an equitably shared basis so that everybody shares in the benefit. Everyone shares in the wealth that's coming from the area, not one single community. That's what I can tell the hon. member.

G. Wilson: I think that's the answer the majority would like to hear. I'm delighted that there is an acknowledgement of that problem and that the minister would be reluctant to allow a restructuring to proceed that would alienate a tax base from an area that currently enjoys its benefit; that's good.

That brings me, though, to a second point, and perhaps to the second-most contentious issue, as we start to look at the potential for restructuring. I know that it's well-known that people become attached -- sometimes irrationally, but nevertheless extremely -- to their little piece of turf. If it has a name that has a history, even if it's only a couple of years old, people tend to jealously hold onto that. So there's a lot of fear under restructuring, partly because people feel that a certain level of autonomy may be given up; but, more importantly, because land use decisions and land use policy can be affected by a larger population. Therefore those who feel that they're in the majority. . . . In my own community, there are people who are affectionately known as "creekers," who live in Roberts Creek, and the creekers are a unique group of British Columbians who live in a unique part of my riding and who wish to remain that way. I guess we could get into long discussions of distinct societies.

Nevertheless, suffice it to say that their land use policy, defined in their community plan, has been established through a number of very hard-fought battles at the regional district level, and they want to protect that rural nature. They are bounded on the north by Sechelt, which is rapidly growing, and on the south by Gibsons, which is rapidly growing. An incorporation into this new entity -- whatever it may be called, even if it were called Roberts Creek -- is likely to put substantial pressure on land use changes, which they'll no longer be able to protect against, because where they are a majority, obviously, in their own electoral district, they would be a minority in a larger municipality. So they want to know from the minister what status these land use plans will hold in the event of restructuring, which is actively under consideration, actively being proposed. To what extent will existing land use plans remain sacrosanct in a restructured entity?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Up until the point of incorporation and including the time of incorporation, those land use plans would continue to be in force. And, in fact, until such time as either the new community changes them or the existing regional district changes them, those land use plans would continue to remain in force.

But that's the dilemma. That's why people since time immemorial, when whoever marched in and said, "Oh, don't worry, we're just here to do a little restructuring; everything's going to be the same as it was. . . ." That's why people are nervous about restructuring. Because the fact is that you are creating a new political body that will have a new elected council. And sure, those plans remain in place when they're there and may in fact remain in place for years to come. Once you've created a new sovereign body that has the authority to look at planning within a community or within a given area, they can at some future date make a change to either an official community plan or any plan that affects their municipality.

So there are no guarantees. I think what has to take place, basically, is that the creekers have to become creaky and cranky, in terms of wanting to keep the creek the way the creekers like it. There's an old saying in politics that the creaky wheel gets the grease. Having sat on a city council, I know that the most vocal critics in the community, in terms of wanting to see planning directions take a particular route, quite often are listened to. They've got to make their feelings known.

G. Wilson: I don't think there's any danger of having them fall suddenly silent. These are people who are, for the most part, well informed; they're extremely community-conscious and do an excellent job in involving themselves in the decision-making process. Their voter turnout is generally very high, so I don't think there's a danger there. Where they are fearful is that in the process of restructuring, they are going to presumably be under a ballot system that will be one person, one vote, and they are going to be outnumbered in the decision -- saying yes or no.

I guess this raises a rather thorny issue. I apologize if you've already canvassed this material; I haven't had a chance to read it. Just let me know and tell me to go read Hansard, and I'll do that. Where they are very fearful and where there was the greatest amount of dissension in the ranks of those who restructured in the Sechelt case was around the argument as to who was restructuring. Is it the municipality that's restructuring, and therefore the vote should be within the municipality? Or is it the municipality and the regional district, or the electoral area, and therefore they should each have one person, one vote? Given that the municipality has a greater population by number, if it's in the tax interests of the municipality. . . . It generally comes down to the bottom line. "What's it going to cost me?" is usually the question that finalizes the decision on how they're going to vote. Clearly, if they're outnumbered, it becomes quite an unfair process.

So we have to ask ourselves several questions. Who is restructuring? To what extent do you protect minority interests, who may be in a rural and therefore less organized area, from being swallowed up by larger populations where densities will essentially dictate the response? I mean, 40 percent yes in the city could outweigh 95 percent no in the rural area, if you understand my question. I'd like to hear the minister's thinking on that, because this will become a very important issue as we move to one government on the Sunshine Coast.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member actually raises a very interesting point, because minority rights are important in terms of restructuring votes in a lot of rural areas. I want to make a number of key points. The first is that one of the important things is the restructuring committee, because the restructuring committee makes a recommendation to the ministry as to how the vote should take place. Clearly, they've got to be involved at the local level to make sure that their views are incorporated.

Having said that, there are a number of options in terms of how a restructuring vote takes place. You can do it all across the board, 50 percent plus one; it doesn't matter in terms of population distribution or what have you. If they vote yes, they're all incorporated; if they vote no, incorporation doesn't take place. It's also possible to structure it so that you can have the same result -- you know, the same method of voting; the 

[ Page 3881 ]

majority rules -- but have the ballots in each area counted separately. That is also a possibility, to give some indication of the strength. It's also possible to structure it so that you require an affirmative 50 percent plus one in each area. And if that doesn't take place in one particular area, then they are not part of the restructure.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: The flexibility that exists, then, within the ministry, as a result of whatever recommendations might come from this restructuring committee, is welcome news. It hasn't always been that way under former administrations, as the minister may know. So it is good that there can be an opportunity for restructuring committees to be able to work out a voting response, if I can put it that way, that will accommodate the concerns of each of those regions.

Having said that, I'd just like to conclude with a question and an invitation to the minister. On the Sunshine Coast we are about to embark, I think, upon what will be an interesting experiment with respect to a one-government proposition. We are unique in the sense that we have one of the only self-governing aboriginal communities -- in fact, I think it is the only self-governing aboriginal community in the province of British Columbia, a very successful self-governing aboriginal community. The Sechelt Indian band, through the Sechelt Indian government district and the amendments to the Municipal Act, has been extremely successful for over ten years, and I think they are in the final stages of concluding what will be a historic treaty. And I think it is one that will be in the best interests of first nations, as well as non-aboriginal people on the Sunshine Coast. What we are attempting to accomplish now is the establishment of a new model of municipal government, essentially, which will bring together these communities in a one-government structure.

What I'm hoping to hear from the minister is that the minister will look favourably upon local politicians who, for the very first time. . . . I was elected there, municipally, and at the regional district level for some time, so I can say with certainty that for the first time, the parochial sort of local community feelings that have entrenched local policy-making -- and I think it very expensive and sometimes very divisive in the community -- are dissipating. And people are embracing the idea that we can come together with a rather new experimental model of municipal government. It may or may not work in other parts of the province, but I think it probably will work for the Sunshine Coast regional district. We're not quite ready to move yet, but we're getting very close.

I think what we'd like to hear from the minister -- if I could just ask the question -- is whether or not the minister would welcome that kind of proposition. If we can advance it in a form that has basic community support, will the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be supportive of it? Because it's going to require a good deal of assistance from staff in your ministry in order to make this thing work. And whether or not, when we get to the point where we're going to have to ultimately do this restructuring study, the minister could see his way to suggesting that there would be high priority given, given the fact that we're very close to having those funds in place. . . .

If the minister could answer that question, I would also extend to the minister an invitation to come to the Sunshine Coast, to have an opportunity to travel the area that is under consideration for restructuring and meet with the local mayors, if he hasn't already. I know that he met with a number of them in Powell River and the AVIM, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that, but to meet with some of the local councillors on their home turf to see how positive the feeling is now toward the proposition of this new experimentation in local government. . . . I think it's a very exciting proposition. If this House should ever adjourn this summer, that would be an opportune time for the minister to come.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm aware of the proposal, and I think it is very timely. So I would encourage the work to continue. Clearly, this is the type of thing that I think needs to be taking place: local governments working together. I've been very encouraged by what I hear, so certainly I would be prepared to look at any proposal in a very positive light and see what assistance I can give in terms of staff and things like that. I give all my encouragement, and in terms of a priority, in terms of looking at restructuring. . . . I think things like this should get high priority.

Having said that, I would be delighted to come out to the Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: That concludes my questions, and I appreciate the opportunity. I think the minister just overlooked the term "funding," but I'm reading that it's in there somewhere. So I'm assuming that that funding will be there when we need it. I appreciate the opportunity, and I thank the official opposition critic for allowing me this time to ask these questions.

G. Abbott: The questions from the hon. member twigged a question in my mind that I had forgotten about but which kind of turns up like a bad penny every year or two. That's the sometimes thorny question of adjusting regional district boundaries. I don't think the minister will be a stranger to this particular issue, although perhaps it hasn't been an issue during his relatively brief tenure in the office to this point. It's essentially a boundary issue between the Central Okanagan regional district and the Kootenay-Boundary regional district. The area in question is the area of Big White Ski Resort, which, I guess, geographically speaking, is relatively close to the city of Kelowna. I think the Central Okanagan believes it should appropriately be part of the Central Okanagan regional district; but of course, the Kootenay-Boundary regional district values it as an important part of the assessment base of the electoral area, which it forms part of for Kootenay-Boundary.

The question was posed to me informally at a recent meeting of the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association: how do these kinds of situations get resolved? How does the ministry treat them? Does the ministry expect a formal request from one of the parties before that kind of thing is commenced? And should they receive one, how would they treat it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess in the old days you used to have the Kaiser. When they had the dispute over the San Juan Islands -- who gets them? -- they referred it to the Kaiser. He drew a line on the map and that was it.

[ Page 3882 ]

I just dealt with one of these. My predisposition is that communities sit down and try to achieve a settlement before they come here for the ministry to look at it from a ministerial point of view and make a decision. If they come here without having done that, I'm going to send them back and ask them to do that.

Recently there has been a longstanding boundary dispute between Port Moody and Anmore involving. . . . It's amazing how these small plots of land can cause all kinds of friction. It's a dispute that had been doing on for years. They both came, saying: "We want you to give us a piece of territory." And I said: "You have to make an effort to solve it first." It worked in this case. They were able to come to an agreement. It's been solved amicably, and everybody's happy. That's the option I prefer we do before the ministry gets into it and starts doing things. That would be my advice to the two regional districts: to try and resolve it between themselves, before it comes to the minister's desk.

G. Abbott: That's probably judicious political advice for the minister to provide in any event.

In the event that they're unable to reach an agreement, and one of the parties continues to advocate a change, would you review it? Or what would you do in that instance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of things would take place.

There'd be work done in terms of the ministry looking at the issue. What are the implications? What is the current status quo situation? In some cases there can be a difference between unorganized territory, which two competing interests are fighting over, as opposed to a boundary jurisdiction, where you're removing something from an area that is currently within the jurisdiction, and that area is enjoying the benefit of that particular piece of territory that's under dispute. So all those impacts have to be looked at, and then it would come to my desk to make a decision on. In the past, we've done things such as mediation -- that may be something that might be required. That's sort of an idea of the things that would take place.

I can also say that since having assumed the post of Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, this is one issue that has not crossed my desk yet. I'd be more than pleased to discuss the issue with the member to get his views, but at the present time it's not an active file.

G. Abbott: As long as it's not an active file, I don't think that either the minister or I would go looking for trouble there. I was largely curious from the perspective of how the ministry would deal with that kind of instance. I know they do pop up periodically between regional districts and, I'm sure, between municipalities as well. I think that to encourage the parties to try to resolve it between themselves before the ministry becomes involved is a wise way to proceed.

Turning to Bill 55, so we don't have too great a jarring movement here. . . . Bill 55, as the minister knows, is a bill passed in 1995, which I believe had the aim of reducing the amount of municipal and school tax which railways in British Columbia paid. I'd like to begin by asking the minister to restate what, from the ministry's perspective, the goal of Bill 55 was and whether to date, in the view of the ministry, that goal has been achieved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This was complicated in Bill 2 debate, and I don't think it's going to get any less complicated. Having said that, in a nutshell, the goal was to reduce the taxes paid by the railway in terms of bringing them down more in line with the rest of the country. In return for that, there was to be investment by the railways within British Columbia. Third was to see a shift in terms of the valuation of railways for taxation purposes, where they were overvalued in rural areas and undervalued in urban areas, and to bring about a more equitable distribution within the province.

G. Abbott: I got the first two parts. Could the minister please repeat the third goal?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was to bring about a more equitable shift in the valuation of railway property in the province, where there was a rather high valuation in rural areas and a rather low valuation in urban areas, in an effort to try and get a more equitable balance between the two.

[3:30]

Could the minister advise, first of all, whether in fact that first goal of Bill 55 has been achieved? Have railway taxes, in relation to the school tax, been reduced by $7.5 million? Will the goal of achieving $7.5 million in reductions in local government taxes also be achieved in '97?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the school tax, that was brought in fully last year. In terms of the municipal tax, that will occur over the next four years. So in terms of that reduction, one-quarter of it would take place this year, fully one-half next year, three-quarters the year after that, and then the full effect in the fourth year.

G. Abbott: When we discussed Bill 55 last year, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs noted that due to a slight. . .not miscalculation, but just the way in which the reduction came into play, in year 1, the railway's taxation for school purposes had in fact been reduced. I've got the estimates from last year here somewhere, but I believe it was $9 million. So they had sort of been overcompensated. Has that problem been corrected? Is the reduction now in the neighbourhood of $7.5 million as opposed to the original overcompensation to the railways?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have the exact answer for the member, but we can get that information from the Ministry of Finance for him.

G. Abbott: In any event, the original objective remains in place that by the year 2000 the ministry hopes and expects that there will be a reduction of $15 million from the 1996 level of taxation to railways. Does that remain the goal and the expectation by the ministry?

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

G. Abbott: As stated by the minister, the second goal of Bill 55 was that, in return for the reduction in local government 

[ Page 3883 ]

taxation and the provincial taxation on schools to the railways, the province would be seeing a further investment by the railways in British Columbia. Has that goal been achieved?

Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is yes. Employment and Investment can supply specifics for all the exact details. But I am aware of a major investment project that's underway in Pitt Meadows, the community next to mine, by CP Rail because of this agreement.

G. Abbott: When the province made the decision to proceed with Bill 55, it was, as has been suggested, with the prospect of new investment by the railways. Was there a specific schedule of projects anticipated in return? Or was it a more general disposition to invest in the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I would say to check specifically with Employment and Investment for those particular questions. But my understanding is that at the time of the UBCM in 1995, there were a number of schedules that were released as part of that agreement which showed either specific projects or anticipated accelerated projects because of the fact that the railroads were now in a more competitive position vis-à-vis their competitors.

G. Abbott: I think that in terms of the third goal stated by the minister -- a more equitable shift in the valuation of railway properties -- I assume that what we're going to be talking about are issues such as the definition of what constitutes a right-of-way for railway purposes, classification of yards and improvements, and those sorts of issues which roughly fall into the realm of assessment, I guess, but which also obviously come into play here. I'll have some more specific questions on those a little bit later on here, but I'll just ask in a general way whether, in the opinion of the minister and his staff, that more equitable shift in the valuation of railway properties has been achieved to this point, or whether there is still ongoing work being done with respect to the commissioner's rate and that sort of thing.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. In fact, that shift has taken place and all the evidence points to it sort of now having stabilized; what was expected to happen did in fact happen.

G. Abbott: Should I then assume from that response that, for example, the issue of valuation of rights-of-way in an urban situation like Vancouver versus a rural situation in the interior of British Columbia has been resolved and that there is a mechanism in place now that provides that different valuation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to the member's question, I guess, is yes, given the fact that the primary sort of influence in determining the valuation of track and of rights-of-way became much clearer and much simpler once yards were removed from the equation and marshalling yards were treated as business class, as opposed to track and rights-of-way. Once that was done, then basically it became much easier in terms of assessing track and rights-of-way, track and rights-of-way, track and rights-of-way. . . .

G. Abbott: I apologize. I'm leaping ahead a bit here to sort of more technical -- if you can get any more technical than this stuff -- questions later on. I understand that moving yards to business class would certainly have an important effect in sorting out that problem of rural versus urban valuation of rights-of-way. Beyond that, though, are railway rights-of-way -- I think it's under the term "commissioner's rate" -- still the same across the province, whether you're rural or urban?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This may sound a little confusing, but it should also make things straightforward. We've changed the way we measure our assessed commissioner's rate, so we actually feel now that we have a better base in place -- a better system in place. The net effect of this change, however, has been that you still have the same rate in Golden as you would in Vancouver.

G. Abbott: The minister anticipated correctly: it is a bit confusing. I get the part about how the rate will be same in Golden as it will be in Vancouver. I didn't get the first part, though, about how the commissioner's rate had been adjusted to try to resolve that situation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In some ways I hate this stuff, but in some ways it's really quite fascinating. There's a technical change made in terms of the valuation of rights-of-way. It is equal to the land adjacent on the average access across B.C. Now, under the old system, we used to sample, and then take an average of the rights-of-way across the province. Now we take the value of every single parcel and average it. So you get, in fact, a much more accurate and much fairer reflection. So that's the change that's taking place.

[3:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think we could both go on the Bill 55 lecture circuit.

G. Abbott: There is an enormous demand out there, actually, for speakers on this topic, and I'm sure that were it not for our relentless pursuit of the public interest here, we could both make large fortunes on the Bill 55 lecture circuit. I don't think there's any question about that.

Maybe I'll complete this particular part of it before we go on to broader issues. Could the minister advise at this point. . . ? I understand now how the commissioner's rate calculations have changed. The definition of rights-of-way has also changed, so that yards and presumably improvements have now been moved into the business class. Are there any other adjustments that have been made in addition to those, with respect to how, broadly speaking, railway properties are assessed in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is one sort of significant area, I guess we could call it, in terms of assessment. That is that we defined a category of land called a safe operating area. It applies to land or a right-of-way that's usually about 100 feet wide -- 30 metres -- and which may be required because of unstable slopes or because there's something in the area that requires a safe operating procedure related to the railway. 

[ Page 3884 ]

Sometimes, because it could be a slide area or something like that, it may in fact need to be wider than 100 feet. So we use a different commissioner's rate in assessing that. But apart from that one particular category, there have not been any other major changes.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the relative difference in an assessment would be, generally speaking, between the commissioner's rate on the right-of-way and that attached to the so-called safe operating areas?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The difference in terms of assessment is that the land component is assessed not as a right-of-way but in terms of land that has no value. But it's not given a zero value. It's given the lowest value that exists for raw land within the province. So it would be a very nominal amount, but it would not be zero.

G. Abbott: So the safe operating areas would be areas that are unusable for any purpose other than to in some way buffer the railway, from a safety perspective. That may be very narrow in some areas and very wide in others.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct, hon. member.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise, then, the net effect of these various changes -- the commissioner's rate calculations, the transfer of yards and improvements to business class and the implementation of safe operating areas -- on the assessed value of railway properties in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can get that information for the hon. member from the Ministry of Finance.

G. Abbott: Perhaps when. . . . Is there a staff member coming especially for our discussion of the Assessment Authority, or will it be the same staff?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there will be, hon. member.

G. Abbott: The question that perhaps that representative or staff member could answer is. . . . Basically, what I'm curious about is if, for example -- I've no idea what the real figure is here -- the assessed value of railway properties in British Columbia, pre-Bill 55, was $100 million, what has been the effect of the various changes, post-Bill 55, in terms of. . . ? Has the value of those properties net-increased or net-decreased? Perhaps that's a question that the official who is coming a little later on might be able to provide us an answer to.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We can certainly ask at that time, when we're discussing assessment issues. But if we can't, we'll certainly find a way to get the information to the hon. member.

G. Abbott: I'd appreciate that.

Could the minister advise whether, on the basis of a year or two of experience now with Bill 55, there have been to this point any unanticipated consequences from the implementation of Bill 55?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Other than the fact that it's very complex, there have been no really unanticipated surprises.

G. Abbott: Am I correct in assuming that, for example, the inclusion of the sundry utilities that were also included in the class 2 category. . . ? Prior to Bill 55 it was the intention of the ministry to see municipal taxation of those other utilities in that class 2 category. . . . Was it the intention of the government from the start to see municipal taxation on them reduced, as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it wasn't a surprise. In fact, it would be fair to say it was government's intention to see tax rates in terms of utilities come down somewhat in relation to other tax rates. There were a number of cases where some of the secondary utilities, along with the railways, were facing extremely high tax rates.

G. Abbott: The impact of Bill 55 on utilities was quite marked -- or remarkable, in some cases. The one case that I recall in particular was the city of Richmond, where Bill 55, which everyone initially described as a railway taxation bill, had the effect of reducing tax revenues from the railways to the city of Richmond by $31,000, but it also had the effect of reducing tax revenues from utilities by $220,000. So in that case it really wasn't a railway taxation reduction measure; it was clearly a utility taxation reduction measure.

I'm understanding here that this was in fact anticipated by the ministry and was not unwelcome. Obviously, it was unwelcome to the city of Richmond. They complained quite vigorously about it, because it was, from their perspective, an unanticipated consequence of a bill that was intended to reduce taxation to railways.

With that having been said. . . . If there's anything in that brief sort of summary that is at odds with reality, certainly the minister can advise me. Perhaps I'll let the minister advise me and then move from there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think we do need to clarify something. We've been talking, since the implementation of the bill, about whether there have been any surprises. The answer in that sense would be no. Before the implementation of the bill -- and not having been there at the time -- there was a recognition that, yes, there would be an impact on other utilities than the railways in terms of the effect of the bill. Once they were identified -- because we asked for feedback on the effect, and the effects were identified -- we did make a policy change so those impacts would be lessened. The result was that they were only about 25 percent of what the original impacts would have been. So before the bill was implemented, there were a number of issues that had to be addressed, but since the implementation of the bill, there have not been any issues springing up that were not anticipated or that had not been looked at prior to the bill being implemented.

[4:00]

[ Page 3885 ]

Am I to understand that in response to those, there were adjustments made in the formula which reduced the effect of that by 75 percent -- that the consequences to the city of Richmond today, for example, in terms of its reductions in utility revenue, are far less than what was originally anticipated?

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

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me whether the package or mechanism of remedial measures which applies to railway taxation also applies to utility taxation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. Those mitigation measures would apply, except where they apply strictly to the assessment of railway property.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure I understood the minister's response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: For example, if we have to return a railway bridge to the assessment base, that doesn't impact on B.C. Tel. If, for the valuation of the whole. . . . If you're removing property or adding property that relates specifically to a railway, that would impact on the railway, but it would not impact on the other utilities, because they're not affected by it.

G. Abbott: Now I think I understand the nature of the minister's response. And again, I'm sure that because I posed the question in an awkward fashion, it didn't come through as clearly. The question I was trying to address was not where utilities are attached to a railway bridge, for example, but a separate assessment base -- perhaps doing something completely separate from the function of the railway.

Let me just give you an example so you can understand my point, because I think it is an important one, particularly for those municipalities where this is an important assessment issue. In the district of Sicamous -- my proud hometown, which I've referred to a number of times here during estimates -- there is a large railway bridge which has a very considerable value, because it has a span that opens and all kinds of stuff. It actually forms an important part of the tax base of the district of Sicamous. I think it's tens of thousands or perhaps in excess of $100,000 in tax revenue that it used to yield to the district of Sicamous. Because it forms such an important part of the assessment base for the district of Sicamous, in the package of remedial measures, Bill 55 actually has to return most of the value of that bridge to the district of Sicamous, so that in 1997 it doesn't result in more than a 1.5 percent reduction in the overall assessment base of Sicamous.

What I'm asking is: in a different situation -- and we can set railways aside -- where, for example, a transmission line or a utility forms a very valuable part of a community's or a regional district's assessment base, would the same thing apply -- in that most or all of the value of that would be returned to the jurisdiction, rather than seeing it result in a larger than 1.5 percent reduction in the overall assessment base of that community or district?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, you're quite correct. The mitigation factors would apply. They would not result in a more than 1.5 percent reduction.

G. Abbott: And so in an instance where a hypothetical community would have both a strong utility component and a strong railway component, the combined effect of those two things would not exceed 1.5 percent. There would be mitigation to ensure that regardless of the components in the community's assessment base, the effect of utility and railway and any other class 2 assessment would not exceed 1.5 percent of the overall tax revenue. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is absolutely correct.

G. Abbott: Very simple answers to complex questions, and I appreciate that.

Has the issue of joint functions or the issue of non-contiguous specified areas been a problem for the ministry in terms of implementing Bill 55?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that we're aware of.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether at this point railways and utilities and all of those things, which in the pre-Bill 55 era were included in the class 2 group, are still all considered as one group? Has there been any change with respect to that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They're all still considered as one group, hon. member.

G. Abbott: Could the minister outline for me -- and we've alluded to it a little bit here -- the toolbox or package of remedial measures or mitigation for railway-dependent communities facing the effects of Bill 55?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Anything that we can do under Bill 55 we can undo with Bill 55, for mitigation purposes.

G. Abbott: Again, due to limitations of intellect, I didn't fully appreciate the nature of the minister's response. Could he repeat it more slowly or more fully? I didn't really catch it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of measures. Basically, what I'm saying is that the things that Bill 55 says that we should do, we can also undo if we want to, to mitigate things. So, for example, we can remove bridges from the assessment base; we can also add bridges to the assessment base. We can set tax rate limits. We can vary the percentage of the value of land and track. So all those things can have a net effect of reducing taxes paid by the railways. We also have the ability, in terms of mitigation, to ensure that you don't see too big an impact of varying those things.

G. Abbott: Thank you. That was the answer that I was looking for.

One of the reasons I raised the question about the effect on joint functions and the effect on non-contiguous specified areas was because I've never been able to understand, frankly, how this is worked out. If we use the example here of the town of Golden and electoral area A, which is the electoral area that surrounds Golden, both have a very strong railway assessment component in them -- lots of bridges, lots of yards, etc. Particularly for electoral area A but also for the town of Golden, there is a lot of value attached to the railway. So, of course, with Bill 55 there's some considerable influence on those values. What I'm trying to understand is, where there are joint functions between the town of Golden and electoral area A. . . . For example, where the bridges are removed as an assessment item from electoral area A, I would think that would put more burden on the town of Golden, etc., because 

[ Page 3886 ]

there's a whole range of joint functions -- television and the ski hill and so on -- and the boundaries of those functions are not always contiguous; the boundaries of them may vary, according to function and who benefits from them. How all these variables get worked out. . . . I'm asking this question because I don't understand it. It strikes me as an incredibly complex process to try to sort them out. If there is an answer as to how that's done, I'd appreciate hearing it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the simplest way of looking at this, and this is. . . . I'm trying to wrap my head. . . . I'm having as much difficulty with this as you are.

The easiest way to think about it is to look at it in terms of a regional district model and where we have to make requisitions for different services. So we looked at the requisitions that would have existed prior to the bill, in terms of values and that. Then we looked at requisitions with the bill in place. Then we stuffed that into a computer, and it spat out different scenarios for different things -- and that's how we determine it.

[4:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We went through and determined the share that that electoral area would have paid for valuation services for 1996. Then we did it with the bill in place. That's all put into the computer. It came back with a series of what the differences were between the impacts with the bill in place and the impacts without the bill in place. Then we took those differences and applied them against the 6 percent rule. Where the differences were greater than the 6 percent rule, we added up all those differences to bring it down to the 6 percent rule so that no impact was more than 6 percent. The net effect of all those differences greater than 6 percent being added up adds up to the mitigation package required, which, in the case of what we're talking about here, is about $115,000.

G. Abbott: That seems a reasonable and straightforward way to deal with it. The minister used the phrase "the 6 percent rule," and for 1997, at least, the 6 percent rule is 1.5 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct, hon. member.

G. Abbott: From the ministry's perspective, have any problems or challenges been experienced in terms of the implementation of Bill 55?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The regional district portion of Bill 55 did take longer than anticipated. However, the issues involving that have been addressed, and everything is on the rails again, so to speak.

G. Abbott: I want to compliment the minister on that very, very fitting metaphor. I think everyone will celebrate the news that all of those problems with respect to implementation have been resolved.

With respect to reduction in taxation for school purposes for railways, as was mentioned, conceptually the aim was to see railway taxation for school purposes reduced by $7.5 million. I gather that last year they were a little over. I understand that an adjustment has been made to bring it into the realm of $7.5 million. Was part of the objective of Bill 55 to reduce utility taxation for school purposes as well? Or was that something that was confined to railways only?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We didn't limit school taxes. The only effect was limiting the municipal tax rate to what was traditionally classed as the utilities class.

G. Abbott: Just to be sure I understand it, is the minister saying that the effect of a reduction in the tax to railways for school purposes was achieved by putting an overall cap on the class 2 category of assessment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only reason school taxes were reduced was because of assessment reductions. If you reduce the assessment, then correspondingly there is a reduction in school tax paid. So there wasn't a cap put on it. But in terms of the municipalities, the specific provisions that applied to municipal taxes would have accounted for the reduction at the municipal tax level.

G. Abbott: I'm a little confused at this point. Maybe that's quite normal during discussions of this, but I'm sure you can help me out. If I understand what you said, the reduction in the school tax is achieved by a reduction in the assessment. Does that mean that the $7.5 million was and is being achieved by the changes that have been made in terms of definition of right-of-way, transfer of yards and improvements and those things, in terms of the reduction of the assessment base or in terms of the multiples which a municipality is able to use in that category?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's strictly a question of assessments.

G. Abbott: I've got that before, that it's strictly a question of assessment. But I don't know what the hon. minister means by that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is an assessment set for utilities -- for railways lands, for example. Okay? We adjusted that downward -- right? -- which is where they get the benefit from, resulting in the lower tax rate paid. We did that fully in the first year. In the case of the municipalities, it's done a quarter, a quarter, a quarter, a quarter; so it's a phased reduction.

G. Abbott: So I understand, then, that for the purposes of tax for school purposes, the objective of a tax reduction is achieved by manipulation of the assessed values. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct. But that is also the same thing with municipalities. It's just that it's being done on a gradual basis, whereas for school tax purposes it was done all up front, in one year.

G. Abbott: I think I've got that, then.

[ Page 3887 ]

I'd like to turn to the issue of capping rates in the different assessment categories or property categories that exist. I know from experience in regional district government that, unlike the regional district, the municipality has discretion with respect to the manipulation of the variables between the several different categories of property that exist and the residential properties. They can, for example, choose that it should be 3-to-1, 5-to-1, 7-to-1 or 250-to-1 if the municipality deems that to be appropriate. So the municipalities have that flexibility -- or at least did in pre-Bill 55 days -- to change the multiples of those categories in relation to residential. Regional districts, to my understanding, have never had that. So the relationship of all those categories to residential is set by the province; the regional district cannot manipulate it. My understanding of what occurred with Bill 55 is that for the purposes of the class 2 category of properties -- i.e., railway utilities, etc. -- that flexibility or ability to manipulate class 2 in relation to residential was removed. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In part that would be true. If the rates were below $40 per thousand, then there's no limitation. Above $40 per thousand, then yes, there is a limitation in accordance with our current policies.

[4:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is that it's about 3.5-to-1.

G. Abbott: With the rate cap in place -- at least for those over the level the minister mentioned, at $40,000 or whatever -- does that roughly equate to 3.5 as well for municipalities? Is that roughly the limit now for them as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On average, it's probably greater than 3.5, because we don't limit it in relation to residential. We limit it in relation to business.

G. Abbott: Somewhere in the materials I have on Bill 55 and its impact on the assessment rate for railways and utilities for municipal purposes there's a reference to a rate cap being customized for each municipality. Could the minister explain what that means?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In order for what you're talking about to apply, you have to meet a number of criteria. One, you have to be eligible for mitigation. Two, the rate has to be above $40. So with those things, then you may be able to look at having it customized.

G. Abbott: To bring this around to the pre-Bill 55 world and some of the concerns -- which I think were justifiably evident -- about the way in which railways were being taxed by some municipalities, in my recollection, in some cases there were municipalities that, for example, would tax railways at a multiple of 30-to-1 or greater in relation to residential property. Some saw railways perhaps as a kind of cash cow, where the railways weren't like Joe's store or Mrs. Jones's house. Those taxpayers were part of the community, whereas the railways sometimes were viewed as easterners who came through and who were relatively easy to tax more aggressively because they weren't citizens of the town, generally speaking. There may have been some railway workers that were. But some of those railway workers didn't have a lot of sympathy for the railways, either. So some municipalities, I think, abused the opportunity to set their multiples higher.

The point I'm coming around to here is that with the system that has been put in place -- which I don't quite understand yet, but I've set the objective of understanding it some day -- of how the province hasn't set a firm cap but has said it has to be within a certain level or there will be a cap, does this have the effect of taking away the ability of municipalities to overtax? Is that the effect of the new system that's in place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

G. Abbott: And this -- I'm sure to the great relief of yourself, hon. Chair, and perhaps to others -- pretty much concludes the line of questions I have on Bill 55. But I want to leave with a concern I had with Bill 55 when I first heard about it back in 1995, as a regional district chair. And that is: if the province was prepared to step in and limit or cap the amount which municipalities could tax railways and utilities and so on, keeping them down to a certain level, would it perhaps have been as effective -- certainly less definable on a quantitative basis but perhaps simpler, easier -- to simply cap what the municipalities could do with class 2, as opposed to going through all the combinations and permutations associated with Bill 55? Could the same objective have been achieved, and in fact, could it have had the additional benefit of really limiting the ability of some municipalities to overtax railways?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You might well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

G. Abbott: An interesting response, hon. Chair. I'm curious as to why the minister couldn't possibly comment on that proposition. It seems like a fairly straightforward one to me.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm just joking. After, I think, two hours of debating Bill 55, right now I just can't put my head around another form for having done this.

G. Abbott: I am actually just fascinated by Bill 55. . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's totally fascinating.

G. Abbott: . . .and I know the minister is, as well. In fact, I had hoped that if we were to get together for a beer sometime, this would probably be the topic of conversation, because it is pretty fascinating stuff. But we'll leave it. Although I know the minister has been fascinated by this whole question since I first raised it and feels very comfortable discussing all the propositions associated with Bill 55, we will leave it. I think we've probably ventilated it adequately -- for our 1997 estimates, at least.

What I'd like to do is move along. Perhaps we can talk for a short time here about the devolution of B.C. Transit to the greater Vancouver regional district -- and that may not even be a fair way of posing the question. I understand that there are discussions, negotiations, underway between the province, through a combination of ministries, the greater Vancouver regional district and perhaps others in relation to some devolution of authority over B.C. Transit to that regional 

[ Page 3888 ]

level of government. Could the minister begin by outlining who's involved in those negotiations or what the objectives of the negotiations are, the deadlines and so on, in terms of the development of that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. As the member is aware, those negotiations are currently underway. They are between the province and the regional district. There are a number of ministries involved, although the main minister and the one who's responsible for it is the Minister of Health, who's responsible for B.C. Transit as well. So she is the lead minister on this.

What I can tell the member is that we have signed an agreement with the GVRD to negotiate the potential devolution of Transit. Currently, we have named our negotiators; they have named their negotiators. My understanding, in terms of a time frame, is that September is the goal for both parties. Currently the negotiators are looking at determining the scope, breadth and all the issues around negotiation. That's pretty much what I can tell the member at this particular time.

G. Abbott: At times in this House we see the impact or the consequences of the fact that the government of British Columbia takes a kind of dominant role with respect to the operation of B.C. Transit -- at least in some respects. I'm sure in some respects the regions have very important roles, as well. But in terms of the appointment of the chair of B.C. Transit and, I presume, some levels of funding and that kind of thing, the province appears -- at least from what I know of it, and I don't know a lot -- to take a dominant role at this point in time with respect to many aspects of the operation of B.C. Transit.

Is it, from the minister's perspective, the objective of the province to see a devolution of authority, whereby many of those issues which are now charged to the province will become the authority of the regional district?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess that is what is up for negotiation right now.

As much as I'd like to. . . . I think the questions are, in that sense, probably more appropriately directed to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit.

G. Abbott: Perhaps we'll leave it at that. Given, as the minister has suggested, that the minister responsible for B.C. Transit is taking a leave with respect to those negotiations, I'll leave that for now. If I or one of my colleagues want to canvass that in the pending estimates of B.C. Transit, which I gather are coming up next in the other House, they can certainly do that.

I'd like to talk a little bit at this point about the issue of the declassification of roads. I guess there's a range of issues that need to be discussed. Let me just find some of my materials here. We did discuss the issue superficially when we were talking about the joint council. As I recall from that superficial discussion, the minister indicated that the declassification of secondary roads was a matter which had come before the joint council and which remains under the consideration of the joint council. Is that correct, or is there a process ongoing, quite apart from the joint council, with respect to the declassification of roads?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue of arterial roads has been brought before the joint council by members of the UBCM. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has responsibility for that and has taken that back. There is a process in place, and it is under active discussion at the joint council level.

[4:45]

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As much as I endeavour to answer just about any question that the member gives me, I do have to decline from time to time, not for the reason that I don't wish to answer, but because the particular question or topic really comes under the purview of a different minister -- in this case, the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It would be extremely bad form for me to attempt to answer on that minister's behalf.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's caution with respect to that. I suspect that one of the last things he would ever want to do as the Minister of Municipal Affairs is to in any way impinge on the authority of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm sure that there can never be too much care taken with respect to avoiding a situation like that.

The question, though, remains, and I think this does properly fall within the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is my understanding that a council can only undertake the maintenance of a secondary road through the ratification of a bylaw, and that the reverse can only occur through the ratification of a municipal bylaw. Is that the minister's understanding, as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now it's my turn to say that perhaps it's my inability to grasp certain concepts. If the member could clarify his question, it might make answering a little easier.

G. Abbott: A little earlier this year, the Union of B.C. Municipalities secured a legal opinion from Lori Staples with respect to this issue of whether a bylaw was required to move in and out of the function. I'll read her opinion, as that may express it more precisely than I ever could:

"The Minister of Highways cannot unilaterally remove the secondary highway classification once it has been made. The minister must first obtain the agreement of the municipal council, and council must ratify that agreement by bylaw. Only then can the minister declassify the highway and submit the map showing the change in classification for an order-in-council approving it, and then publish it in the Gazette."

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of how the question relates to a local municipality, in terms of what is specifically required, we can get that information for the hon. member. In fact, it occurs under the Highway Act, an act which falls under the jurisdiction and the purview of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. So I would say that those questions relating to provincial terms are also probably better addressed to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

G. Abbott: Of course, the situation that I would strive desperately to avoid is where the question is posed to the 

[ Page 3889 ]

Minister of Transportation and Highways, and she says: "Well, I really shouldn't comment on what is required of a municipal council. That really falls under the purview of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs." Am I to understand that there is no reference to this obligation in the Municipal Act, that it's something that is referenced only in the Highway Act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct. It does not occur within the Municipal Act. My understanding is that it only occurs under section 31(2) of the Highway Act.

G. Abbott: Apparently there is a tie-in between the discussions surrounding the declassification of secondary roads and the discussions surrounding the devolution of B.C. Transit and associated issues.

I have a document from the city of Burnaby with respect to some of these issues. I'm not sure what page it is in the document. It's under "Current Status of Declassification," and the reference is as follows: "The GVRD proposed that the declassification of provincial highways be included in the negotiations on transportation governance and funding, with the following objectives" -- and it goes on to list them.

Are the discussions surrounding the devolution of B.C. Transit. . . ? Is that what's being characterized here as the "negotiations on transportation governance and funding"?

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

G. Abbott: It would appear, then, at least from the GVRD's perspective and perhaps from the province's perspective as well, that the issue of declassification of roads has become one in a much larger negotiation involving B.C. Transit, involving the Livable Region Strategic Plan -- the idea of planning, constructing, maintaining, operating and financing a regional road network, and so on. Is that a correct characterization of the issue, that declassification has become one in a series of, not larger issues necessarily, but a package of other issues that are tied up in these negotiations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that is correct. The models may in fact vary within the province. One of the issues that I know has been raised and discussed around declassification of roads is that if you come to an agreement with a municipality and only six months later you have an agreement with the regional district in Vancouver to come to some sort of regional transportation authority or wherever the negotiations end up, it doesn't make sense to start transferring roads for a second time from the municipality to, say, some sort of regional authority, if that is what ends up being created. That's why the roads have been included as part of the devolution negotiations.

G. Abbott: Does the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have representation on the negotiating committee in these negotiations, or is it exclusively Employment and Investment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, we do not. But there is a deputy ministers committee which monitors and is involved sort of peripherally -- not at the table -- and we do have representation on that.

G. Abbott: One of the remaining concerns that I have with respect to the declassification of roads -- quite apart from the lower mainland region, which obviously now is in hand in terms of being a part of broader negotiations. . . . I have particular concerns, however, for very small communities in British Columbia that were, perhaps because of a lack of forethought on the part of the province, included in the schedule of roads to be declassified. I'm thinking here in particular of the village of Sayward, which contacted me some time ago about their concerns. I don't have the letter with me, but as I recall, Sayward is a community of 500 to 600 people and obviously would have a pretty limited assessment base. As I recall from their letter, as well, they don't currently have a road maintenance program, don't have equipment, that kind of thing. They were very much concerned, naturally, with the possibility. . . . Not the possibility; they were being advised that in fact they were in receipt of the boundless opportunity to maintain a piece of road that they had never had to maintain before, because the province had.

Given that on the urban side, things seem to be in hand, how is this issue going to be worked through for villages like Sayward and small communities with limited resources?

Hon. M. Farnworth: At the joint council, the Minister of Transportation and Highways did announce a process that would involve consultations specifically with small communities.

G. Abbott: The Minister of Transportation and Highways advised them at joint council -- UBCM -- that a process would be put in place to include the small municipalities in that. Good.

I would urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs to pay particular concern to the situation as it involves these very small municipalities. I think there's a huge difference between the ability of a community of 30,000 or 300,000 to take on a piece of road and the ability of a community of 300 or 500 or 1,000. I do hope the minister will pay particular attention to how that is worked through the system, because I think there will be a very considerable hardship imposed on these very small communities if the original plans of the province are followed through.

I don't think there was quite as much common sense applied to the declassification of some of those roads as there should have been. Even though the fate of things rests with, I guess in large measure, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, nevertheless I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has an opportunity and a responsibility to try to ensure that no small community is unfairly penalized at the culmination of this process.

The minister is nodding his head, which generally signifies that he's in general agreement with me, and that's good.

Before we leave it, just another question related to this. This comes from a newspaper article from Burnaby. I gather that the Burnaby council had discussed this situation. They're very concerned that the Ministry of Highways' projected cost for maintaining the declassified roads was around $1.1 million. According to this article, the city's director of engineering says that a realistic estimate for the cost of maintaining those declassified roads is in fact around $7 million annually. The suggestion that he made is:

"The province equated the declassification of highways to be equivalent to a cash grant reduction of $1.1 million per annum, while in fact we estimate the costs to be significantly more. Based on this figure, it would be better financially for the city to accept the grant reduction than accept the declassified highways."

[ Page 3890 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Those were some of the issues that were raised at the joint council, and it's precisely why the process was put in place -- to address issues such as those raised by the city of Burnaby and other communities. That's exactly what's happening.

G. Abbott: I think that that concludes the questions I have with respect to the declassification of roads and the devolution of authority. Again, I suspect these issues will come up in the coming estimates of Transportation and Highways and B.C. Transit. I'll be glad to leave any residual questions until then.

[5:00]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Yeah, that's a good idea. Could we have a brief recess? Thanks.

The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.

[F. Gingell in the chair.]

The Chair: The member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. You look very distinguished in that particular role. It's with profound regret that I note that we're not on television, because I think you would look even more distinguished were this to be broadcast into households across British Columbia.

Interjections.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I note with regret that my colleague from Delta South had a remarkably short career as committee Chair.

The area I'd like to go to now is the post-Bill 2 world of municipal government grants -- and not with the objective of reliving those golden moments of debate on Bill 2. I know the minister sat in rapt fascination for hours. . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: And hours.

G. Abbott: . . .and hours as we relayed the many difficulties that were being posed by the repeal of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act. We won't go there, particularly, but I do want to get some explanation of how the new programs work. I guess we can begin here, with the small community protection grant. Could the minister outline how that works, who benefits, etc.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically, it works this way. There's a base amount of $100,000, which is multiplied by an assessment factor based on a per capita formula, which impacts up until a population of 7,500 people. After you pass the 7,500-person threshold, there's a reduction on the basis of $1 per capita. It impacts about 130 municipalities, and they receive between $50,000 and $160,000.

G. Abbott: The small community protection grant, then, can continue to benefit municipalities that are considerably larger than 7,500. One suggestion I have is that even communities as large as Port Coquitlam could continue to benefit from the small community protection grant. Is that correct? Is that more or less the top end of who might benefit?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not sure what the exact population figure is, but it's definitely somewhere up around 60,000 or 70,000. So, in that case, Port Coquitlam would qualify.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what certainty or continuity there will be with respect to the $18.3 million figure for this program for 1998? What certainty is there for small communities that in fact this program would continue into the future?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the programs are as definite as programs can be. The budget amount will be decided by the Ministry of Finance. In terms of allocation, the issue will be discussed at the joint council. One of the things we committed to was that if they wished to change the formula or if they have recommendations in terms of the programs that are in place, those are things we'd want to talk about. So as of right now, those programs are in place. I haven't heard an indication yet from municipalities that they wish to see either the programs changed or the allocation changed. That may very well. . . . That will be the subject of discussions at the joint council.

[5:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the overall amount would be decided by cabinet -- you know, the total money available for grants. But clearly what would take place at the joint council is discussions around that amount, and whether or not the joint council of municipalities thinks the priorities should be in terms of small communities protection, or if it should be allocated on some other basis. It would be decided that way. The final decision would be made by cabinet, but clearly what has been discussed at the joint council and how those discussions have gone would have a great bearing on that.

G. Abbott: The short answer, I deduce, is that the final determination would be that of the province in consultation with the joint council.

The municipal equalization program, then. I have a very brief outline of how the municipal equalization program works, but I would certainly appreciate a more detailed explanation of how it works. I gather there are two primary factors that enter into the size of the equalization grant that a municipality would receive: one would be revenues of the municipality, and the other would be taxes received by the municipality. Could the minister explain how the model for municipal equalization grants is constructed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd be pleased to share how the model is constructed and how the formula works. It works the 

[ Page 3891 ]

following way: municipal equalization, ME, equals total program reductions, TPR; minus the small community protection grant, SCPG; plus impact limit. And impact limit is the lesser of a maximum of 3 percent of the total 1995 revenue or 5 percent of the estimated 1996 property tax payments in lieu of property tax. To put it in a form that perhaps accountants would appreciate, ME equals TPR minus SCPG plus IL. I hope that is clear but if it's not, I'd be more than willing to explain.

I guess the two key things are in the impact limit, which is the lesser of 3 percent of the total 1995 revenue or 5 percent of the estimated 1996 property tax payments. Those are the key ones required -- along with total program reductions, what the total grant reduction was, and then that small community protection grant.

G. Abbott: I'm so glad I asked that question, because I got a response that confused me far more than I was initially confused. What I was really hoping for from the minister was something not quite as technical and initial-oriented as what he offered. Could the minister, perhaps with the assistance of staff, conceptualize how the model is constructed in terms that even a layman like myself might understand?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In very simple terms, what's taken into account is a calculation around the small community protection grant. So that's calculated on the basis of the formula that we have already discussed. So you come up with a figure there. Then you add on to that the total program reductions; for example, what the scale-back in the grant reduction was previously. And then you also add in additional impacts such as Bill 55 -- because that has an impact as well. You add those together, and then they have to meet a test in terms of whether it's 3 percent of revenues for 1995 or whether it's equal to 5 percent of taxes for 1996. And whichever is the lesser, that is the maximum total reduction that a community can face.

So let's say that last year you got $1 million, and let's say, for the sake of argument, that the small community protection grant program gave you $150,000. So that would leave $850,000. Let's say potential impacts added up to $500,000. What you do then is take that $500,000 and see whether it is greater than 3 percent of revenues or greater than 5 percent of tax revenues, and if it is, then the maximum. . . . That would be reduced further, so that the corresponding reduction would be no less than either 3 percent or 5 percent.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that explanation. It does help a certain amount in understanding that.

In terms of unconditional grants, are those the two sole unconditional grants at this point in time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that applies to the regional districts. There's about $3.2 million -- $110,000 per regional district -- and there's been no change to that.

G. Abbott: I think that takes care of unconditional grants.

Turning to conditional grants. . . . There has been some reduction, as I understand it, in conditional grants. Could the minister outline, first of all, the conditional grant programs that exist, and to what level the funding for those conditional grants has been expanded or reduced?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The money in this vote is to fulfil prior commitments, so it's not actually a reduction.

G. Abbott: I hadn't necessarily been indicating that it was. What I wanted to start out with is: what are the different conditional grant programs that exist in the ministry? What is the level of funding which will be attached to those in 1997?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of what the different grants are, they are: planning grants, implementation grants, infrastructure planning grants, community planning grants, regional growth strategy planning grants, special provincial planning grants, restructure planning grants, sewer and water infrastructure grants, transportation infrastructure grants, municipal restructure assistance grants and restructure implementation grants -- and special grants, which fall into two classes. If you want me to explain them, I will.

G. Abbott: We discussed the special provincial grants the other day, so I don't think we need to do it again. Actually, we discussed some of the other conditional grants, on reflection, as well. The ones that I think would be of particular concern at this point in time to municipalities and regional districts across the province are the sewer and water grants. Could the minister advise me of the level of funding that will be available in those two areas in 1997?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's approximately $55 million this year. However, I would advise the member that it's all committed at this point in time.

G. Abbott: The $55 million is for sewer and water -- that is, for both? Is there a breakdown between the two?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, there isn't.

G. Abbott: If we think back to our discussion about the Infrastructure 2 program, one of the points that was made by me and, I think, by others was that in assigning roads and transit such an important role in the Infrastructure 2 program, there was a great backlog of sewer and water projects across the province that wasn't going to be addressed by Infrastructure 2. The minister has indicated that the $55 million for sewer and water projects for 1997 is fully committed. Does the province anticipate any expansion of that $55 million in 1997, given the situation that exists across the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not for 1997, but I am sort of hopeful there will be for 1998.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry if I said 1997; I'm living a year in the past, I guess. I really meant 1998. The minister has indicated that he hopes to see an expansion of that in 1998. That's fair enough.

One of the issues that I've been receiving a fair bit of correspondence on, I guess because I'm the Municipal Affairs critic -- and I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs receives all the same letters. . . . There are a number of letters from residents in north Campbell River, who appear to be very concerned about a project which they refer to as the north Campbell River and Quinsam sanitary sewerage project.

From what I read in the letters, there appears to be the explicit suggestion that at some point the people there had been promised, politically or otherwise, a sewer system. For whatever reason, it appears to have come off the rails. Can the minister advise me of that situation -- what's going on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess what happened -- this is a number of years ago -- was that a restructure took place. Part 

[ Page 3892 ]

of the restructure was that there would be an extension of sewers into the newly incorporated area that was brought into the boundaries of Campbell River. It was not set out in a specific agreement, in that this much -- this length of sewer, this length of sewer or this length of sewer; this area, this area or this area -- would be done, but rather in a sort of standard agreement, which was that as conditions and as finances allowed, we would be extending the sewer.

I think we currently have extended about $15 million of sewerage into this area. We have commitments in this phase to extend, I think, $3.4 million this year. I have indicated that in terms of what's available next year. . . . We can't commit beyond that. We can't commit to phase 4 and phase 5, and that's where the disagreement is. I think there's a feeling that we committed to do the whole thing, one right after the other, whereas the province maintained in the original agreement that was signed that it was on the basis of: we'll do this, but as funds permit.

To date, I think we've done phase 1 for $15 million. We're looking at $3.4 million this year, and certainly I want to see it extended. But, at the same time, it has to fit within the requests that come from across the province. I've been made aware of the issue by the member for North Island. The hon. member has made me aware of the issue, and the mayor and council have made me aware of the issue and that they attach a very high priority to that. I'm listening, and I hope that we'll be able to get it done.

[5:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's 50 percent provincial funding.

G. Abbott: As I understand it, 50 percent would be larger than the typical provincial grant, would it not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, that's pretty standard, hon. member.

G. Abbott: I'll leave that point, then. Obviously the minister is well aware of the issue. I'm not intimately familiar with the situation that exists there, but I'm satisfied that the minister is aware of the problem and is seeking to address it as time, money and circumstances permit. That is probably a reasonable way to deal with it.

I have a small issue in my own riding. This is in the city of Enderby in the North Okanagan -- the Shuswap constituency, but in the North Okanagan. The city of Enderby, I guess on the basis of what they understood to be a promise from the former MLA for Shuswap, proceeded with a water extension. I have to admit I haven't taken the opportunity to phone the staff at Municipal Affairs recently to see whether that project has now in fact been approved. But could the minister -- who I see has his staff checking -- see whether that extension has secured funding? I'll give him a moment to see whether that's the case.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not aware of any sewer commitments to Enderby, but if the member has the details of the project, I'm more than willing to look at it and find out all the details and everything for him.

G. Abbott: It was actually a water extension rather than a sewer extension. In any case, I won't occupy the time for estimates with that, but I will take it up with the minister. It's one of those rather difficult situations where they obviously had one understanding of what to expect from the MLA of the day. . . . I think what happened was that they ran into a crunch with the reduction in the grants available in the year that they were doing the project or whatever, and what they saw as a political commitment was not met. I look forward to working with the minister to see if we can find a solution to that one.

The final area we have here before we can move along to the Assessment Appeal Board is policing grants. Could the minister again, as we've been doing, just lay out what policing grants are available in the different areas of the ministry at this time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently the only policing grant programs done through this ministry are in terms of restructuring, if you've got an incorporation or a restructure taking place. Other than that, all other policing grants are now done through the Attorney General ministry.

G. Abbott: In terms of payment for costs of policing, which is the other side of the coin, as I understand it, currently the situation with respect to the funding of police is that once communities hit the magic threshold of 5,000, I believe they become responsible for 75 percent of policing costs within the community; once they hit the threshold of 15,000, it becomes 90 percent of the cost. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is that that is correct. For a definitive answer, you can check that with the AG ministry.

G. Abbott: Do small communities under 5,000 currently contribute either directly or indirectly through the local services contribution to the cost of policing? Or are they entirely relieved of the cost of policing in the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They are currently entirely relieved of the cost.

G. Abbott: Is there any consideration or anticipation on the part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the province to attaching the costs of policing to communities under 5,000?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have any plans to act unilaterally. This issue has been studied to death. It was an issue at UBCM when I was on city council, and there is still no consensus. I can tell the hon. member that I'll not be advocating any change until it has been thoroughly discussed at joint council -- until there is some sort of consensus on the UBCM.

G. Abbott: I'm sure there will be a great sigh of relief across the province at hearing that the minister does not plan to act unilaterally with respect to this issue. The question, though, is: has the issue been broached or raised at the joint council to this date?

[ Page 3893 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue has been broached at the joint council by the UBCM members, but nothing in terms of concrete, substantive discussion that resulted in a recommendation or anything like that. I think it was more in sort of a. . . . Broached is the right word to use. I don't anticipate anything happening in the near future. I think this is one of those issues that the UBCM has to deal with internally and try and come up with some sense of where it wants to go collectively before we're in a position to move on any potential recommendations or on change to the current order.

G. Abbott: Again, that sounds like a reasonable approach. There are few topics which can arouse emotions more quickly among members at UBCM conventions than the issue of whether or not rural areas or communities under 5,000 should be making a contribution to policing costs. It is a difficult political issue, and obviously there is a good deal of work to be done if there's a change to be made in this area. We probably all look for an equitable way in which to finance policing costs across British Columbia -- and, of course, our definitions of "equitable" will vary with the situation that we are in, to put it diplomatically.

Noting the hour -- unless I've missed something, or unless one of my colleagues has additional questions -- I think we can occupy ourselves with assessment issues after the dinner hour and then conclude probably fairly early in the evening. I wouldn't guess that the discussion of assessment is going to be more than a half an hour or an hour. So perhaps we can alert the Agriculture people, if they want to do their thing this evening.

With that, I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

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