[ Page 10393 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

T. Stevenson: I have a number of introductions, but before I make them I want to make the House aware of the fact that one of our colleagues is having a birthday today. I didn't actually know how old he was, so I checked with his staff. They told me he was 39 and holding. I said: "Yeah, how old is he?" They said: "No, 39 and holding." I said: "Come on." "No, 39." So today is the thirty-ninth birthday of the Minister of Employment and Investment. I hope the House will wish him a happy birthday.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

T. Stevenson: I do have a number of introductions. It has been my pleasure over the past while to be working with a group on secure care for the Ministry for Children and Families. This group has been working very hard over the past several months to look at secure care for young people in the province. Some of them are in the gallery today, and I want to introduce them because this is their last and final meeting. I'd like to introduce Tim Agg, who is executive director of the Pacific Legal Education Association; Stan Wilcox, who is a retired RCMP superintendent; Roy Holland, who is a psychiatrist and clinical director with the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre; Philip Bryden, who is a lawyer and a professor in the faculty of law at UBC; Carole James, who is the chair of the Victoria school board and president of the B.C. School Trustees Association; and Diane Sowden, who is a parent and executive director of the Children of the Street Society. I hope that all members will make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: My guest in the gallery today is a bright young individual from Surrey. He is a BCIT student studying international trade and transportation. He is hugely interested in a career in politics. Would you please welcome Justin Ginetz, the future member for Surrey-Cloverdale, sitting right up there.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today, hon. Speaker, is Mr. John Glenwright, who is a former Deputy Minister of Health. Accompanying him are some of his guests from Switzerland. They are Margrit and Alex Hochli and their children, Meta and Andres. On behalf of yourself, myself and our constituents respectively, I bid them welcome to this chamber.

J. van Dongen: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today Paula McAleese. She's a dental hygienist in the city of Abbotsford. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

G. Wilson: It is my pleasure today to introduce some members of the ICBC youth employment initiative for the south Vancouver Island region. With us today are John Main, Robb Tones, Niels Bednarczyk, Jennifer Campbell, Bryce McFadden, Sheilagh Smyth and Christina Wilson. Will the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: This morning I was surprised to look up into the gallery and see an old friend and colleague. I did not get an opportunity, however, to introduce his friend at the time. Visiting with Mr. Lepkin, whom I introduced this morning, is David Matzele. He is from Vancouver.

I would like to reintroduce Mr. Lepkin, my colleague with whom I worked for many years. Mr. Lepkin is known to some members of this House as Mr. Burnaby South. I might point out that within this chamber there are, I believe, three graduates of Burnaby South: the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Fisheries and the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- to say nothing of this member, who was a staff member, and also that esteemed member of the press gallery, Mr. Keith Baldrey. It is my pleasure to remind all members of the House of what a great impact a teacher such as Mr. Lepkin can have.

Hon. G. Clark: It is my honour to introduce to the chamber an esteemed member of the Hong Kong media, a very prominent and popular individual, Mr. Albert Cheng. He is visiting us in Victoria today. This gentleman started out in British Columbia as a Canadian Airlines engineer. He has gone on to become a successful businessman and media talk show host, presenting Hong Kong's most popular broadcast, "Teacup in a Storm," five mornings a week. He is considered to be one of the top 25 most influential people in Hong Kong. It would give me great pleasure to have all members of the House welcome him here.

Hon. L. Boone: I have two introductions, but before I make them I too would like to make an announcement. I'd like to ask the House to wish happy birthday to another colleague of mine who is not 39 and holding, but is 54: Paul Ramsey, the Minister of Education.

I would also like the House to welcome two individuals who are employees in my office. Amanda Welch, unfortunately, is leaving to attend law school in Calgary, but the good news is that she is being replaced by a very capable young woman formerly from the North Island, Nicole Normand. Would the House please make them welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. A. Petter: It is my very great pleasure today to introduce to the House the winner of the 1998 Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship, Salman Ali Manki. This prestigious scholarship, our government's highest scholastic award, was established in 1971 to commemorate the Queen's visit during our centennial. The scholarship is worth $20,000, and it supports a British Columbia graduate who will be undertaking further studies in a Commonwealth country.

Salman is a truly exceptional history graduate from Simon Fraser University. He ranks in the top 1 percent of the entire student body, and he'll be pursuing his law degree at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. He is joined today by his mother Parveen, his father Zaheer, his sister Zeba and his brother Mohamed. I'd like the House to join me in congratulating Salman and making him and his family feel very welcome.

G. Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House three members of the Swansburg family from Surrey-White

[ Page 10394 ]

J. Smallwood: I'd like to welcome to the House Mrs. Jayatilaka. My apologies if I'm pronouncing it wrong. She is visiting us from Sri Lanka. Accompanying her is her daughter, who is a community development worker here in the province. I'd ask the House to make them both welcome.

B. Penner: It appears that it may be Penner day in the public gallery. First of all, it is my pleasure to introduce my uncle Sam and aunt Carol Penner, visiting from Vernon. I owe them thanks for buying me lunch today. In addition, my brother Reg Penner is here from Chilliwack, with his wife Edith and their four children. They are Kristen, Camilla, Carissa -- the youngest -- and my nephew William, also known to me as Wild Bill. Would the House please make the Penners welcome.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is Chuck Puchmayr, who is a friend of mine from New Westminster, as well as a member of the New Westminster city council. I'd ask all members of the House to join me in making him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER'S ACT

G. Wilson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, this is a bill that will limit liability and provide that a registered practitioner shall not be found guilty of unprofessional conduct or be found to be incapable or unfit to practise medicine or osteopathy solely on the basis that the registered practitioner employs a therapy that is non-traditional or departs from the prevailing medical practice, unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy has a safety risk for the patient unreasonably greater than the prevailing treatment. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M211 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CELGAR PULP MILL BANKRUPTCY

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This minister and this side of the House are awake, alert and concerned about the state of the forest industry.

The announcement today is unfortunate. But it results from a corporate decision to get out of this kind of business, and it's the result of a transfer. The information that we have is that the receiver is interested in starting the mill as soon as they can.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The reason that Stone Container is looking at getting out of the business is because they can't make any money in the business any longer in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that Celgar is a major employer in Castlegar. There are 450 people whose jobs are at stake. It's been producing pulp in the West Kootenay for 40 years now. When is this minister going to wake up and decide it's time to make real changes in the forest industry so we can put people back to work instead of pushing them out of work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my information that that particular company in that particular location has been broke four times. There is nothing in their release that points to a government forest policy that affects this decision.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Listen, the pulp price is about 25 cents; the pulpwood price is 25 cents. It's not a stumpage problem. They don't have any tenures, so it's not a Forest Practices Code problem. If they'd like to point to the policy problem, I'd be happy to examine it.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I just wonder if the minister has ever heard from anybody in the forest industry about the problems that the corporate capital tax is creating in terms of costs by this government. I wonder if the minister has heard about the costs that this government is imposing on every single major employer in the province, therefore driving hundreds and hundreds of people out of work. It was 15,500 in the forest industry in the last year, and now we're looking at 450 people in the town of Castlegar losing work. How many forest companies have to go under before this minister will actually act to improve the quality of forestry in British Columbia and to improve the balance sheets of all companies, so that people can be hired back instead of losing their jobs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Two years ago the price of pulp was around $900. Today it's around $570 or $575. Profitability is somewhere around plus or minus $600. In this case, if you read the press release from the company, they say that the receiver plans to restart the mill and has been instructed by the bank to look for potential buyers who have the capacity to operate the mill. We understand that they have no marketing arm. They can't sell it, because they have no capacity in the company to perform the marketing function. So the world

[ Page 10395 ]

G. Abbott: The most amazing thing about this government's response to the financial crisis facing the forest industry is that it's always everybody else's fault, never this government's fault. This government bailed out Skeena Cellulose to the tune of $300 million. Now Skeena is competing against Celgar Pulp and its 450 employees. And Celgar doesn't have the luxury of millions of tax dollars in its coffers to help them along. Can the Minister of Forests tell us if he thinks that bailing out Skeena Cellulose at the expense of Celgar Pulp and its 450 employees is a responsible way to manage B.C.'s forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One or two mills in the world will not affect the pulp supply and demand situation. The information I have is that over half the pulp mills in the tropics are down -- information provided me by industry. So some of the lower-cost producers are shutting down. It's a question of the market you're in. The particular market that this mill is in doesn't give them an adequate return to pay on their capital. But the understanding we have is that the receiver feels that they can get this mill up and running if they put a few things in place: get an operating line and find some ability to market, which they don't have. I repeat: we understand that the reason this has happened is because the owners -- Stone -- have decided to get out of the paper business.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: In fact, it's a question of being competitive. If this government wants to find out why our industry is no longer competitive, they need only look in the mirror, because that's exactly where the fault lies -- right in the mirror.

During the Skeena Cellulose bailout, forestry expert Les Reed wrote that keeping the Prince Rupert pulp mill in operation would simply worsen the viability of struggling mills elsewhere in B.C. What does the Minister of Forests have to say now that this prediction of other bankruptcies is coming true?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I repeat that other experts will tell you that one or two pulp mills, in the world supply of pulp, won't make any difference.

COSTS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING

Hon. C. Evans: Sure.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: We'll hold the minister to that.

Now to the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Environment has shown considerable wisdom in pulling Bill 40 today. Will the minister now recognize that it is premature to put in place a deposit requirement on Tetra-Paks, given that this government has done nothing to put in place a process by which Tetra-Paks may be recycled in British Columbia?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the question of Tetra-Pak recycling. As the member well knows, it is of significant concern here in North America, because we no longer have any facility in Canada through which Tetra-Paks can be recycled. This will be a severe obstacle to our proceeding with Tetra-Pak recycling as part of the beverage container deposit refund expansion, scheduled for October 1. That's why we're currently working very hard with the industry, as well as industry within the province, to see if there is an opportunity for us to bring a Tetra-Pak pulping facility to British Columbia.

CELGAR PULP MILL BANKRUPTCY

The NDP were warned by forestry experts that propping up the Skeena Cellulose mill would only drive other vulnerable pulp mills out of business. What does the Minister of Forests have to say to those 450 forest workers in Castlegar whose jobs were jeopardized the day this government decided to prop up Skeena Cellulose and bail out the Minister of Northern Development?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, I must confess that I find it somewhat paradoxical that the members opposite are working themselves into a froth. We are concerned about the issues in Castlegar, but they are recommending that we shut down the jobs in northwestern B.C. It seems rather foolish to take that kind of inconsistent position.

[2:30]

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, if there's anything inconsistent it's this Deputy Premier, let me tell you. During the Skeena Cellulose bailout, forestry analyst Ross Hay-Roe. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

R. Neufeld: Listen, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

R. Neufeld: Ross Hay-Roe predicted that B.C. mills were already on the brink, without the NDP propping up Skeena

[ Page 10396 ]

I want to ask the Minister of Forests: did the member for Rossland-Trail ever talk to the Minister of Forests about the devastation that could occur in his community if his government went ahead with the bailout of Skeena Cellulose? Did he ever say to the minister: "This could be a problem"?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This member asking the question is the very same member who said in Revelstoke that he would not assist Evans Forest Products. He didn't care about the 1,000 jobs in Golden. They don't care about the thousands of jobs in the northwest; I doubt they care about the jobs in Castlegar.

We all care about the jobs in Castlegar. That opposition has not pointed to any forest policy matter that would affect this mill. Pulpwood is 25 cents. They have no licences, so the Forest Practices Code costs can't affect the operation of this mill. They can buy and sell pulp chips; they're cheap. It's a buyers' market on pulp chips, an open market. This is a business decision by a company somewhere offshore to shut down its business in pulp.

CHERRYVILLE TELEVISION TRANSMITTER TAX

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the facts are as the member says, then it certainly is a matter that I need to look into immediately, and I will.

NURSES WORKING CONDITIONS AT BURNABY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. As soon as I was made aware of the issue, I ordered an investigation by Allan Anderson, who is the independent investigator under the Correction Act, directly accountable to me. Just this morning I was briefed with respect to his report, and we're preparing a response. The matter has been dealt with to a certain extent, and certain other measures will be taken in due course -- very quickly.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: At the same time that I asked the minister to address that issue of nurses' safety, we also asked the minister to look at the safety of the working conditions at the correctional centre -- where it stands now. We as well as the B.C. Nurses Union asked that a guard be posted for the safety of women. We understand that a guard is posted for the doctors, and I'm wondering if the Attorney General has directed the correctional centre to post a guard for the safety of nurses.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was the very issue that led me to order an investigation. The report is in my hands. I was briefed this morning on the report. We are dealing with the issue. It's a very serious issue. On the face of it, it seemed that doctors were provided security, while nurses were not. On the face of it, it did not appear to be appropriate, and certain interim measures have been taken. Further steps will be taken, based on this report.

Tabling Documents

Motions Without Notice

Leave granted.

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

[That the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries be appointed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to an "Agri-food policy for the new Millennium and beyond for British Columbia and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider:

1. deliberations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's agri-food policy consultations; and

2. any other matters referred to the Committee by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee, the Committee be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of

[ Page 10397 ]

the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts the Committee be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(c) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session;

(d) to retain personnel to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Orders of the Day

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

This bill will give the Vancouver Foundation greater flexibility in the development of investment and distribution policies. It has passed through the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Motion approved.

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: Let me just say this. The members of the opposition were pleased to have an opportunity to scrutinize this bill when it came before the committee. These changes to the powers of the Vancouver Foundation are a useful way of ensuring that the foundation can deal with changes in the marketplace. I think this is one of those occasions when speedy passage of this bill would be in the best interests of the public.

Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

T. Stevenson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill Pr402.

VICTORIA FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Motion approved.

Bill Pr402, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

VICTORIA FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

[2:45]

I. Chong: I concur with the comments made by my colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston. I do have one very quick question regarding section 1. The definition of returns is: ". . .all dividends, interest and capital gains and losses, both realized and unrealized." I was just curious as to why the term "realized and unrealized" was included in this particular section -- just as a clarification, if I could.

M. Sihota: I think I heard the question right. I think the purpose here with regards to returns. . . . Previously the foundation could secure returns on investments only of a certain type, and because the realization of income on its returns was

[ Page 10398 ]

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill Pr402, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be considering the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Walsh in the chair.

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

R. Neufeld: I just want to deal with a few issues as they affect the community of Fort St. John in a few areas: capital upgrades to the hospital, ambulances services and long-term care.

The minister knows that in 1992 there was a study done -- paid for, actually, by the Minister of Health at a cost of some $200,000 -- on upgrading the Fort St. John General Hospital to a much better shape than it is today. I want to just read into the record, so the minister knows some of the conditions that the Fort St. John hospital has been facing over the last while. . . .

Before I do that, I should probably say that between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, the two major hospitals in that area, it was decided that the Dawson Creek hospital needed the upgrade sooner than Fort St. John; that was agreed to. Dawson Creek's upgrade went ahead. When I look at the statistics for capital funding for Dawson Creek, I see that they received some $14 million for upgrades.

I think it was agreed that Fort St. John's planned upgrade would happen after phase 1 of the Dawson Creek upgrade went ahead. It was to run around $9 million or $10 million over a period of years. But the community has made me aware, not just this year but years previous, of a couple. . . . I've been asking for a couple of years now about funding, to actually look seriously at this facility. The ICU is in a state where the plaster is falling off the walls, which I think is absolutely unacceptable anywhere.

"WCB has noted that ventilation is far below appropriate standards. Handicapped access is virtually nonexistent. Only a minimal part of the facility has a sprinkler system. In fact, I've been informed that if it were not a hospital, WCB probably would have shut it down awhile ago because of the state of its air-exchange system and sprinkler systems. The intensive care unit was substandard in comparison to most facilities in the province, as I noted. The maternity unit, which delivers 500 babies a year, is not designed to provide the type of care that is expected and available in other communities. There is no appropriate space to accommodate persons who are violent and may pose a risk to themselves or others. Confidentiality and privacy in the emergency area are nonexistent, particularly as our daily visits are in excess of 100 persons."

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that the points the member raises are very legitimate ones. I think he has made the case very articulately for people in his community. I'm sure that when we announce the capital projects, the member will find that I have listened carefully to his strong advocacy for his community.

R. Neufeld: Well, that response gives me a glimmer of hope that this year we are actually going to see some expenditure of money in the Fort St. John hospital. Maybe I could just explore it a little bit further. I fully understand what the minister just told me. But will we be looking at the three-year plan as was studied and recommended by both the health council and the regional district that funds their share in our area? As the ministry found out in their $200,000 study, this should be done over a period of time in a sequence of events that should take place. I don't want to see us having to do this on a yearly basis; I would rather see us go ahead on these plans in a planned way that doesn't require all the expenditure in one year but that will. . . . At the end of the three-year term, as the study had stated, we'll see all those projects that were identified not just by me but by the health council and the people from the regional district. Maybe the minister could just explain that to me.

Hon. P. Priddy: The plan, as it's laid out, and its priorities. . . . I'm not at this stage saying that all of the priorities laid out in the plan are part of the capital planning. But the resources that might go to that community will indeed follow the priorities laid out -- follow the way the plan laid out the recommendations for how to go forward.

R. Neufeld: Well, I think I'll leave that, and maybe we'll carry on with the ambulance. I appreciate the response from the minister. I and many individuals in Fort St. John wait with bated breath for the day that the minister will make her announcement. Just on that portion, while I'm on my feet, I would like to thank the minister for actually looking seriously at this issue in Fort St. John and, hopefully, coming forward with some funding. So I thank you in advance. Guaranteed, if it's not enough, I'll be here next year and maybe not in such a happy state.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I will be happy, she says, so that's great.

The second issue I want to deal with briefly is not the Ambulance Service, but the garage. I want to go back to just over a year ago, to a previous Minister of Health who, in question period, after moving the ambulances out of the fire hall into temporary quarters, informed me that last year there

[ Page 10399 ]

I just want to put on the record what the previous Minister of Health told me, and I quote from a response in question period:

"The community of Fort St. John has also known since 1990 -- under the previous, Social Credit government -- that there was an industrial inquiry commission that ordered all ambulance services be transferred from fire departments to the B.C. Ambulance Service. We've been working with the community since then. . . . We are working to put in place a proper ambulance depot there. It will be leased or whatever is most cost-efficient for taxpayers."

[3:00]

R. Neufeld: Well, you're making me very happy so far. We're committed to upgrading the hospital and to actually putting the ambulances in the north under a roof. I think that's a good move. Like I say, I am pleased. Hopefully, we will see that come to fruition.

This is another issue; this is twice now. We're going to try a little bit more and see how far we can get. It's long term care as it exists in Fort St. John. I think the minister is aware that when she was in Dawson Creek and made the announcement of about $5.6 million in multi-level care and some upgrades in Dawson Creek, the people in Fort St. John, although they don't begrudge that happening in Dawson Creek, had a very good case to put forward to me and, I think, to the ministry about long term care in Fort St. John. Fort St. John is a community that is growing faster than Dawson Creek; there's no doubt about it. I don't say that in deference to my colleague the member for Peace River South. It is in fact true.

If you look at the comparison between South Peace and North Peace, South Peace has 171 beds -- this is information that was given to me by the health council -- and North Peace has 95 beds. We have well over 100 people waiting on a list to get into long term care. In fact, a fair portion of the hospital is occupied by long term care patients. If I recall correctly, earlier in the debate there was discussion around the cost of that and whether that was really a wise use of scarce health care dollars -- using hospital beds for long term care when other things should be provided.

I'm going to make another plea to the minister, and I'm not sure how she can respond to this. I know that since I was elected in 1991, I've had cases put to me almost yearly in Fort St. John on the basis that people are leaving the community to go to other areas to find beds and that we should look seriously at starting to fund a few more beds in Fort St. John -- to look at the growth in that area and people that actually need some long term care in Fort St. John. Maybe the minister could just respond to that briefly for me, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think that we canvassed earlier some of the points the member has made -- in principle, not about his community -- like the fact that there are people in acute-care beds who could more appropriately, be and would probably wish to be, in some kind of alternate level of care support. We have, as the member may have heard earlier, a continuing-care review going on, and the committee will be reporting out to me in, I think, November -- late fall. In that review I expect that people will have looked at those needs throughout the province. I hear the member's comments about disparity between the North Peace and the South Peace. That will certainly be taken into account during the review.

In the meantime, I realize that there are extended-care facilities in the community that may need upgrades, just around the sort of basic elements of safety. Perhaps the member might expect to see a little bit of that when the capital budget comes out, because of his fine advocacy. The larger picture of additional beds will be taken into account during the review.

R. Neufeld: One other item I'd like to touch on. . . . I know you briefly touched on physician supply in the north and the issues surrounding the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. I understand and know and agree with the minister when she states that in British Columbia we have far too many doctors for the number of patients. Unfortunately -- and the minister is quite well aware of this -- that's not the case in the north. We have far too few doctors and have to rely heavily on bringing people from other parts of the world to Fort St. John and Fort Nelson to practise medicine. It just seems that it doesn't matter if you pay them more; it doesn't matter if you give them 20 percent a year more for their services, or whatever. If they're trained in the southern part of British Columbia and come from the southern part of British Columbia -- or anywhere in the southern part of Canada -- they're not going to come north.

What we do have very good luck with is bringing doctors from, specifically, South Africa or England. Thank goodness for those two regions, or we wouldn't have any doctors. That is in fact true. Fort St. John has been searching for a number of years for an internist -- in fact, more than just a number of years. I think the internist we have now has been wanting to retire for four or five years, and they've been trying to replace

[ Page 10400 ]

The other issue we're going to have in another community in the very near future. . . . It's in Fort Nelson. We have a very able surgeon in Fort Nelson -- in fact, one of the best. Again, he's a person from overseas who came to Fort Nelson and has spent most of his life there but will be retiring before long. They are faced with the same situation. In fact, I have a letter from the community health council of Fort Nelson-Liard, having trouble with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in trying to recruit people from oversees to come to northern British Columbia to practise medicine. I think our record -- in the North Peace, anyhow, that I'm aware of -- is fairly good with doctors coming and actually staying in the communities. That's always a reason to say: "No, we shouldn't do it, because all they want to do is come to Canada. They'll come to the north and stay for a little while, and then they just move down south." I'm not going to say that doesn't happen, but I think that in the North Peace, anyhow, it doesn't happen all that often. I just wonder if there is something that the ministry can do to help us. In fact, I just wrote a letter recently, in the last two weeks, in support of these two people coming from South Africa. I wonder if the minister could briefly let me know her feelings on it and the ministry's feelings on how we can try to have this come to fruition.

Hon. P. Priddy: Several things the member has said. . . . By the way, the North Peace has had very good success. If you look at communities throughout the north, there are some. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: The articulate one? That's what I thought.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: The mailer will be good, eh?

There are some communities throughout the north where physician turnover or physician stability has not been a problem. The member is quite right. Physicians come from other countries, and they stay. They base their families in that community and so on, yet there are some communities in the north where it is almost impossible to have some stability, and there's just a really large turnover of physicians. Undoubtedly because of the efforts of their MLA, of course, that stability has been seen more in the North Peace than perhaps in some other places.

Several things. We do meet with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to address these issues on an ongoing basis. Perhaps my staff could contact you about the particular circumstance you're currently dealing with, and I'll ask them to do that. Secondly, we've looked at a number of pieces -- and of course Dobbin recommended that we do that, as did the other report -- about how, if you were not just relying on people from overseas, you would actually recruit and retain them in those communities.

One of the things I think we know, although it has had mixed success in other places, is that if a medical student or any person goes away to university from a particular community, they may be more likely to return to that kind of community or lifestyle. There's always the option of looking at funding expenses for medical students -- the tuition and so on -- from northern communities and having them sign a five-year contract or whatever in an attempt to ensure that they go back to a northern community -- maybe not any particular one. I actually think that's a very good idea, but it has had very mixed success in other places. When people walk from their contract, there's often no way to enforce it. It is an issue I've asked the ministry to look at, because I think there may be some chance of success if we do that.

I'll only do a couple more, hon. Chair, just in terms of the time. The medical school at UBC is providing more opportunities for rural practicums and rural opportunities for medical students who may not come from rural areas, but who perhaps, if they have experience in one, might choose that lifestyle. I mean, there is life outside Vancouver and Victoria, and lots of people acknowledge that and embrace it. But maybe if you haven't seen it, you're not as likely to choose it. So -- more opportunities to support students to have an opportunity in a rural area. In point of fact, one of the students I heard about recently has decided to actually practice in the north as a result of that experience. None of those are short-term solutions, except perhaps the one with Immigration, but they are things that I think will make it more stable over the medium term.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's response. I know that it didn't matter which Minister of Health I talked to. We always have this problem, and everyone was more than willing to try to work to some resolution.

Getting the students to come back after going up there to do their initial work is fine to the degree that you need the experienced people there as well. That's part of the problem we have, not just in the supply of physician but in all other professions, whether it's teachers or whatever. It's fine, and I don't have any problem with the young people having an opportunity and a chance to get going. That's great and I appreciate that, but we do need those people who have had some years of experience in this work to be there to backstop many of the things that go on.

The last item I'd like to talk to the minister a bit about is Mission Air and its operations in British Columbia. I chide the government about bringing in legislation late, but I believe I have a piece of legislation that's almost ready to come to the House in regard to health care travel. Last year the Minister of Health was kind enough to extend some funding for one of our researchers to work with Canadian Airlines and Air B.C. on a program that would see travel points gathered from all people whose flights are funded by the public purse, regardless of where they come from, whether they're MLAs or people who work for government or whether they work for different school districts or municipalities -- all those kinds of things.

[3:15]

[ Page 10401 ]

Mission Air, just so the minister knows -- and I have some stats here from October 1995 to October 1996 -- flew 296 individuals in British Columbia for health care purposes, and we should really be thankful to Mission Air for doing that. This is an organization that operates out of Ontario. It is based in Ontario and run by volunteers in Ontario, yet they still fly people in any part of Canada or arrange for flights for them. As I said, in British Columbia in that year -- '95 to '96 -- it was 300 people. In '96-97 it was about 200 people in the province. I would hope that British Columbians would have that big a heart if it were the other way around. I want to say publicly to Mission Air: thank you very much for your hard work and your dedication to people from all across Canada, and especially to the people I mentioned who you have flown.

Again, these are people who can't afford to fly but who have to. I think the minister is aware that in the air ambulance service we have, which is an excellent one, people are flown from Fort St. John or Fort Nelson to Vancouver or to Calgary or Edmonton. It's mostly Calgary and Edmonton. But regardless of where they go, they're flown there, and if it's a youngster, they have to have a parent or guardian with them. Then they're on their own. They don't have a flight back. They don't know when they're going to be released from the hospital, and in the meantime, it's usually mom or dad or an aunt or uncle or a friend who is staying at the local hotel down the street for whatever -- one day, two days, three days, five days. Ronald McDonald House is available, when they can get into that. It is a very expensive proposition. Often, people who don't have the resources or friends who may be able to help them can find themselves in dire straits when they're left in the city and aren't able to get home, especially if they need to be flown back.

I'll just give the minister one other quick example. I had a gentleman come to me. He had had a serious eye injury just recently, and the doctor immediately. . . . They didn't take the air ambulance, but they sent them on a commercial flight. It was leaving within less than an hour. That gentleman's wife had to go with him, because he couldn't see. Their flights were just over $2,000, which they had to pay unexpectedly out of their pocket, just like that, to get to Vancouver, plus the cost of being in Vancouver. Many people down here don't realize how costly some of those things are and how precious our health care system is.

Prior to 1994 the Ministry of Health donated money to Mission Air, and there are corporate donors to Mission Air. But since 1994 the ministry has elected not to give that donation, and I think that's wrong. In 1989 they gave $5,000; in 1990, $5,000; in '92, $6,000; in '94, $6,000; and since then, according to my records, they have given nothing. Yet companies like Lignum and Placer Dome and Cominco are funding this operation to a certain degree. I just think that it would be. . . . Although it's not a lot of money, it is a token of our appreciation from British Columbia to the folks at Mission Air: yes, we care, and thank you very much for flying the hundreds of people that you do in the province, even though you have absolutely no obligation to do it. I wonder if the minister could find that within her budget somewhere, so we could start refunding -- or at least give back to Mission Air that kind of money. I think it's very inexpensive for the ministry for such a good service. Maybe the minister. . . . I've been so lucky so far. This is one more envelope. I promise the minister that this is the last one that I'll push this afternoon; in fact, that's the last question I have for the minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: For the rest of the estimates, I assume, that's the promise -- right? Okay.

Two things. One of them is about the piece of work that you've been doing along with your colleague from Peace River South and along with the researcher. I think the researcher's name is Sarah Bonner, and everybody I meet tells me what superb work she has done. I forget; I think she's done her master's on this now. Yes. Anyway, everyone tells me that she has just done a superb piece of work, so I needed to acknowledge that out loud.

We have two proposals around the air travel points. I'll probably be in trouble with all kinds of colleagues. I actually think that if they're paid for by the public purse, then people don't get to have them as a benefit. It doesn't work like that, in my opinion. We have proposals in -- certainly Sarah has been the one who's done those -- to both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. It says here that those are both outstanding. I actually thought that perhaps we'd heard recently from Air Canada that they weren't interested, but I'd have to check on that. But Canadian Airlines has yet to respond and actually looked at it a bit more favourably, I think, when the proposal went in. So we will be actively pursuing that, because it is important. In point of fact, you and your colleague and Sarah Bonner have done a large part of the work on this.

The second point around Mission Air that you've raised, of which I was unaware. . . . I'll certainly commit to looking at that and reviewing it, hon. member.

He's batting fine; leave him alone. He's done well today.

K. Krueger: Before the rural doctor issue erupted in northern B.C. the way it did, a bad thing happened to the community of Barrière, which is in my constituency, 60 kilometres north of Kamloops. It lost two of its three doctors at the end of 1997. When I got word in the fall of 1997 that this was happening, I jumped into my car and drove out to speak with them. They expressed many of the problems that have come to the fore in the northern doctors dispute. They were flat burned-out from the work they'd been doing, from constantly being on call. They weren't looking for more money. They were simply so tired -- from being awakened in the middle of the night, from continually having those responsibilities, from never being able to take a vacation -- that they had decided to quit. They were husband and wife, two doctors who had been educated in the Maritimes and had come out and chosen rural B.C. in which to practise. No amount of pleading could change their minds. They had had it. In fact, they said: "We're not even sure we want to be doctors anymore. We've done this for seven years, and it's just too much for us." They expressed their difficulty ever getting any professional upgrading, ever having a vacation, ever having a good night's sleep. And then all the other kind of side issues such as sometimes being called in, in the middle of the night and only having one patient, sometimes having half a dozen from a motor vehicle accident, never knowing exactly what they were up against.

There was one money issue in that they had been abruptly cut back on their northern living allowance. They thought they were the only doctors this had happened to in British Columbia, but they said the border had been extended slightly to exclude them, so instead of a 13 percent allowance, they got an 8 percent allowance. They said there was no way

[ Page 10402 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they can certainly appeal it to the Medical Services Commission, which is tripartite -- physicians, government and public.

K. Krueger: I thought there probably was a method, but it was clear there was no changing these people's minds. One of the really major issues to them was that they couldn't see any relief in the future. I've talked to a lot of people about this problem since and thought about it as we experienced the whole issue of the northern doctors withdrawal of services. A couple of ideas have been expressed to me, and I don't frankly know the pros and cons of these. One is that students graduating from medical school in British Columbia could be given a forgiveness option for student loans if they practised where most needed, perhaps for five years or some contracted period. I wonder what the minister's point of view on that is.

Hon. P. Priddy: Two points. One of them is that we're prepared to look at anything that will encourage people to do that. There are two points -- actually the same ones -- about paying medical students and about offering relief from student loans. One of them is, if money isn't the issue, then I'm not sure that offering. . . . As people stated earlier, it's really the issue of relief, not the issue of financial resources. I don't know how long that would actually make a difference for people. By the way, I'm not at all unprepared to look at that, because that's all part of what we will be doing with Dobbin. I think the experience in other provinces where this has been done -- and it has -- is the same as the experience with paying medical students. When you do that and forgive the student loan, it's got very mixed reviews about whether it's successful or not, because if somebody walks away from it a year into their practice with X amount that's been forgiven, there really is no way to enforce that contract. You can't make the person stay there. So I want to try and see if there are some ways that make that a little firmer in terms of being able to make sure the contract is met. But I'm prepared to look at that.

K. Krueger: At the B.C. Liberal convention this spring, the Young Liberals, many of whom are students and certainly represent students in all the universities in B.C., brought forward a resolution recommending that as a doctor, a recent graduate, progressed through the term of such a contract, the government could do a matching forgiveness of student loans so that anything that the doctor repaid, the government would match. Perhaps that would help address that concern.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it's a good idea that you've put forward. We are prepared to look at any option that enhances the chance that someone will go there and stay there, so I appreciate the member's comment on that.

I think the other thing we have to look at in the context of this is the role of nurses, because in the communities where we have some pilot projects, like in Ashcroft -- and I don't know if it is close, but it's not that far from the member's riding -- it has made a tremendous difference. I think we have to look not only at the physician part but also at the role of nurses and how they can make a difference in terms of people not burning out.

[3:30]

I want to ask the minister about the RN First Call program, and I thank her for introducing this subject. Is there a rollout plan, along the lines of the Ashcroft model, for other communities such as Barrière?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that I can suggest at this stage that there is a plan to roll it out in Barrière; there may be. We are absolutely committed to expanding the Ashcroft project in as many places as we're able to move into.

K. Krueger: A last issue on this problem of doctor supply in small communities that I want to canvass is the issue of procuring locums. These doctors who left had had tremendous difficulty getting locums. That was compounded by the fact that since they were married, the two of them wanted to go together. They had had some plans fall through; locums with whom they thought everything was arranged cancelled. There again, it comes to mind that people who have recently graduated from medical school perhaps haven't put roots down to the same extent as people who have been in practice for some time. I wonder if there is anything fresh on the horizon from the government with regard to the supply of locums.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there are some, but I don't think this is ever going to be particularly easy, particularly around the issue of locums. I would suggest that there are some things we can do through the central recruitment assistance program. We want to be more vigorous in having that organization recruit locums. We have asked them to be quite aggressive in doing that. Over the last year or so, recruitment assistance has placed 43 permanent physicians and 24 locums in communities throughout the north and rural parts of the province. But we've asked people to do a more aggressive job around the recruitment of locums, and part of it is that we need to also look -- which we have done through Dobbin -- at the compensation locums receive. I think that's part of what was addressed in Dobbin.

K. Krueger: Moving on to another, yet related, topic, the community of Clearwater has worked for years on acquiring approval for what's termed a multilevel-care facility there, incorporating intermediate and extended health care with acute care. Some eight months before the last provincial election, that community was promised -- in good faith, I believe; I absolutely believe that -- by the current Minister of Education, who was then the Minister of Health, that that building would be getting underway. Money was spent on planning and preparation, and people have been earnestly hoping to see the shovel in the ground ever since. It's a really pressing problem.

One time when I checked, there were over 30 people from Clearwater farmed out and in other intermediate and extended care facilities throughout the province. It's a long

[ Page 10403 ]

I've spoken about this at least twice in previous estimates with previous Ministers of Health. I believe the intent is there, but nothing is happening. I know the minister has received a very significant volume of mail on this issue, because I've been copied on the mail, and there are hundreds of letters. The health council in Barrière recently sent a letter to the minister, which she may not have seen yet, with her volume of mail. They unanimously and wholeheartedly support the construction of the facility up in Clearwater. They're not asking for one for themselves. I would really appreciate the minister's commitment to see that proceed soon.

Hon. P. Priddy: Again, another MLA who advocates well for his community.

Yes, we have received letters about this, hon. member. Certainly the ministry is well aware of what the need is there. While we have not as yet made announcements around a number of capital projects, I certainly hear the good advocacy that this member's making on behalf of this project.

K. Krueger: Somehow that doesn't seem quite as affirmative as the responses that the member for Peace River North was getting, so tell me, "What's He Got That I Ain't Got" -- as Kenny Rogers says.

Hon. P. Priddy: As my kids would say: "Don't go there, Mom." I thought I was every bit as positive with this member as I was with the last one.

K. Krueger: There's some heart balm in that.

Something that happens to people throughout these rural communities which generally service stretches of highway is that they are called out in the middle of the night to motor vehicle crashes and emergencies of all kinds. They frequently put their lives on the line, extricating injured people from motor vehicles that are twisted by crashes and so on. Sometimes a fire is involved. I was at a meeting in Clearwater where a number of the people who had responded to a particularly bad accident were being counselled by a doctor, because the victims turned out to be hepatitis C sufferers, and people were really frightened. They had been cut themselves, as they were working; there was a lot of blood involved.

One of the travesties, from their point of view, is that when they need some training or equipment, they frequently have to raise the money themselves. I know it's an interministerial concern, and I know there's goodwill from the various ministers involved, but I don't really think that it's the government of British Columbia's intent that people like this should have to reach into their own pockets to pay for the Jaws of Life and other equipment they need or to pay for their training as provincial emergency program volunteers. I know I'm crossing into a different ministry when I talk about this, but -- without meaning to make any pun or play on words about the minister's name -- it's kind of a penny-wise, pound-foolish situation when people who are already giving so much of themselves, so much of their time and taking risks and so on, are then restricted from delivering the service. Sometimes they lose heart, because it also costs them money, personally, and costs their communities money.

I'm not necessarily expecting any firm answer right now, but I'd just like the minister to speak with the Attorney General about that, with regard to the provincial emergency program, and try to make sure that it isn't so difficult for people to have the equipment they need to perform these lifesaving services, which they do voluntarily.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I will do that, and I will tell the member that when I have met with ambulance service providers across the province. . . . A number of people have raised with me -- as have a number of communities, local mayors and so on -- the importance of training for volunteers. They're correct. Although volunteers would not necessarily be trained to the highest rescue and resuscitation levels, nevertheless, they do have the right to have access to training. Otherwise, we're risking people's safety. So yes, it has been raised with me, and I will talk with the Attorney General, as well, although certainly a significant part of that responsibility does fall with the B.C. Ambulance Service. But you're right. If it's around the PEP program, it is with the Attorney General. So we'll do that.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to speak briefly on the issue of fair and equal treatment, regardless of whether you live in an urban area or in a rural area. I've always believed that the government is committed to the principle that each and every citizen of British Columbia has the right to treatment, regardless of where they live.

I'm dealing in my riding with a rather serious situation, where a patient who suffers from a debilitating illness, Crohn's disease, was treated for a long time by UBC hospital as an out-patient. He received at that time a care package which he needed to be able to be at home -- syringes, tubing and stuff of that nature. This patient's bill is approximately $700 to $1,000 a month. The gentleman comes from Pemberton and is back with his family. To the horror of the family, which is a low-income family, he is not being given that same privilege in Pemberton. This family now has to lay out $700 to $1,000 on a monthly basis in order to get him the needed medication and tools to deal with his disease. Can the minister tell me if this indeed is a situation that has unfortunately crept into the system but is not correct? Should this patient be given the same treatment he was receiving in Vancouver at UBC hospital? Or is there a difference, so that when you're in a rural area, you do not qualify for that same type of treatment and the same type of tools?

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly the principle of equal access is one that we all believe in. We all do understand that it is harder in rural and remote areas. But I'm just being a bit hesitant here. If the member would give my staff the information about this particular circumstance, then my staff will look into it and get back to the member before the estimates are finished.

T. Nebbeling: I have brought this issue to staff's attention in writing. I brought the same issue to estimates last year. This is a case that has been going on for a lengthy period of time. I know that the family is still paying for the needed tools to deal with the illness. I will once again provide the name of the patient and where he is. But I am not encouraged by just having the minister promise me that we will be given an answer very soon, because I've been looking for that answer

[ Page 10404 ]

I have a second issue along the same lines, in a sense. The minister is aware that most hospitals stock TPA for cardiac arrest. In smaller communities, again, often this medication is not available, because of the cost of the medication. As it is a stock item, with the low budgets that rural clinics and hospitals have, often they can't afford to have the TPA in stock just in case there is a heart attack.

What I would like to ask the minister is: while this situation is being looked at, what happens in the Pemberton clinic? Can the minister indeed have a look at how that kind of situation can be addressed as well? I don't think it is fair that if a person has a heart attack in Vancouver, the chance of dealing with that heart attack positively is much higher than when a person has a heart attack in a community like Pemberton. Again, from the equal access perspective, I think that medication should be available.

[3:45]

I've just had someone come, and if you could just give me a minute, we'll get a more advanced answer.

T. Nebbeling: While the minister is being instructed, I have a little bit of a simpler question about ambulance services that the minister can maybe deal with. Again, the Sea to Sky corridor has a very unique problem. There are 27 ambulance drivers under contract for the Sea to Sky corridor, which includes the communities of Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton. Because of the way the collective agreement has been written, these drivers can actually live in areas other than where they are professionally active. In the Sea to Sky corridor, including the community of Pemberton, there are 27 drivers, and only one actually lives in the Sea to Sky corridor; 26 of them live in Vancouver.

Under normal circumstances that may be okay, but the area of the Sea to Sky corridor past Squamish, because of its mountainous area and its heavy snowfall in the winter, is not always accessible for traffic coming from the lower mainland. There is traffic opportunity within that area, but it is often impossible to get through certain passes. How will the minister be able to address that problem? Again, I have written on this issue, and up until now there have been no changes made in dealing with that kind of problem. I would like to hear from the minister if she contemplates any action to rectify this impossible problem.

Hon. P. Priddy: This is an issue that has been raised with me, particularly around the Sea to Sky corridor, by some other people from that area -- some elected people and some people who practise medicine. The situation, as I currently understand it, is that it has been acknowledged as an issue. I do understand that if you're living in Vancouver and there's a lot of snow on the road, the chances of your getting there can be reduced. Currently there are ongoing discussions with the ambulance services and CUPE around this particular issue of local hire. I'm sorry I can't give you an outcome of that, because those discussions are ongoing. It has been identified as a specific issue, and a committee was struck to look at that specifically.

S. Hawkins: First of all, I want to say that I appreciate all the time and effort that some of the members in the House have put toward developing the travel assistance program. I know that the members for Peace River North and Peace River South and some of the other northern members have done a very good job. I had a file on that too, but I think I will just say that patients who are transferred -- and I think the minister recognizes this -- are transferred by necessity and not choice.

I have pulled a few letters of patients who have written. Certainly the costs are in the hundreds and in some cases a couple or three thousand. There are some very sad stories. I don't know if the minister has heard them in her tenure as Health minister. One that comes to mind is that in March of this year, an 87-year-old lady was taken from her home to hospital. She was then transferred to Prince George Regional Hospital and then to Vancouver and left there, with just a housecoat and $20. She phoned her son in Vancouver to pick her up. I think 87 years old is kind of old to be left on your own in a city. Frankly, my understanding is that a lot of patients don't expect to be left there; they expect to be transferred back the same way they got there. So plans like those that the members for Peace River North and Peace River South have been speaking about would certainly assist those kinds of patients. I hope we do get some movement on those very good ideas.

I want to go back and clarify. I asked the minister a couple of days ago about the Dobbin report and whether the contract with the doctors had indeed been signed and settled. The minister said that there was an issue about payment for extra hours. The call hours weren't established; the doctors were disputing whether the call hours were six to eight in the morning or five to nine in the morning. My understanding -- and I spoke to a representative of the northern doctors' group -- is that they had abandoned that. That was something that indeed had been put to the minister because that was their interpretation, but they said that wasn't the issue. The real issue is the CME funding. I never heard the minister tell us that.

With respect to the Dobbin report, I understand that there is extra funding for CME -- which is continuing medical education. I understand that it is proposed that the ministry will give the money to the region, and the region says it's a pool of money that will be used for whatever kind of education they want to put on -- workshops or whatever. Frankly, the way that I understand the physicians are interpreting the Dobbin contract is that it's a top-up for the CME they already get. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the BCMA administers CME currently. I understand that they are very prepared to continue to administer CME for the physicians that need the extra training, because they are isolated and they don't get as much current education on certain medical procedures and diseases and the latest advances that they could.

Perhaps the minister can tell me exactly what her understanding of the dispute is, and whether indeed it is true that the minister and the ministry are interpreting it as a pool of money that should go to the region that everybody has access to, or whether it's a pool of money that really is for continuing

[ Page 10405 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: By the way, I did know about the issue of continuing medical education, but at the time, my understanding was that the hours were a higher-priority issue. So yes, I am aware of the continuing education. I think it's important to note that while part of this is a pool, physicians continue to receive $1,600 for their continuing education, which is directly for them. The rest, depending on the number of physicians and how long they have been practising, is part of a pool that is to be used in the region for continuing medical education. My expectation is that the regional health authority, whoever they are, would work with the physicians in that area to determine jointly what the continuing education needs would be. It often does make sense to actually bring in a specialist who can work with four physicians, as opposed to every one of those four having to go out somewhere. The $1,600, which was an increase from $1,100, still goes directly to the physician; the rest is to a joint pool for their use.

S. Hawkins: The minister can correct me. Is that $1,600 sum just for northern physicians, or does every physician in the province get $1,600? I'm unclear on that. Or is that $1,600 just a new top-up for rural physicians?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's for all NIA communities.

S. Hawkins: Yeah, that's what I understood. The other thing I heard the minister say was that there were bills being sent and that money was being paid out already, even if the contract wasn't signed. My understanding is that no money has been disbursed -- as of Monday, anyway. Bills have been sent from Mackenzie and Fort St. James, but they haven't been paid. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. P. Priddy: The health authorities were all told to go ahead and pay the bills that were submitted. I will check on the two areas that the member has raised for me, because health authorities all had instructions to pay the bills submitted.

S. Hawkins: During the five-month northern rural crisis, I believe there were a lot of additional costs attributed to boosting up the hospital and the Ambulance Service and to transporting patients to and fro. I wonder if the minister has the cost -- the additional cost or the total cost -- of the Ambulance Service during that five months.

Hon. P. Priddy: We're still collecting the ambulance information around billings, because it has to be calculated. If people had to be transported further because of this, then they wouldn't be billed the additional amount, so we're still collecting that.

I do have the information on the hospital, if the member would like that. I may as well just say it, rather than sit down and have the member get up, and then I'd get up again. I think it's about $325,000.

S. Hawkins: I would appreciate a commitment from the minister to get us the cost of the Ambulance Service for all the communities that were affected. Also, I'm wondering if the cost of what she said about the hospital. . . . Is that just the cost of Prince George Regional Hospital? What was the cost, then, of all the other hospitals operating at full staff with no patients in them? Has the ministry calculated that as a total?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm just trying to think a little bit about the focus of this. I'm not sure that those were necessarily seen as costs or savings. We told people in the north that even though their physicians were not there, this was not about closing hospitals. I suppose what we could have done was simply to have closed them during that time, but I think that that kind of fear -- when people in the north already worry about losing a health care facility -- is totally unfair. So we chose to keep those hospitals open during that time, hoping that physicians would continue or would start to use them. I'm not sure that it's fair to put those in the perspective of either savings or cost.

S. Hawkins: The minister will know that the doctors were using the hospital in that time period. I understand that they weren't closed. In fact, in many of those communities, long-term patients or palliative-care patients were being looked at in those hospitals. If there was a decision to close them entirely, it would have put a lot of the long-term and palliative-care patients at risk as well, so I don't think there was an option, really, to close them.

I was also informed, by residents and certainly by community leaders -- councillors in the different areas -- that residents were told that the cost of the Ambulance Service would be reimbursed, if they submitted their bills. Are these the bills, then, that the ministry is collecting from individuals who would have been treated in their own hospitals but, because of the dispute, had to take an ambulance to Prince George? I'm wondering if the minister can confirm, first, if that is indeed true -- that the ministry is picking up the cost of those kinds of claims.

[4:00]

S. Hawkins: If the minister will commit to getting us the number of requests that were submitted to her ministry -- because I know I get copies of them -- and how many will be fulfilled because of the northern rural crisis, I would appreciate that.

I also want to speak about another recommendation in the Dobbin report, and this is with respect to medical education students. It's interesting. I got a letter from one of the associate professors at the UBC department of family practice. He is -- I believe that the department is -- making a submission to the ministry about the rural residency program. In the letter it's interesting that he points out, in fact, that Lucy Dobbin points out in her report that the rural residency program survives because the practitioners support it monetarily. I understand that the rural preceptors, who are the rural doctors, currently pay $300 a week for the privilege of teaching. I don't know if the minister is aware of that. This doctor says that this is not sustainable. Elsewhere in the country, rural teachers receive compensation for their efforts.

When we talk about the physicians only wanting money, I think we have to be cognizant of the fact that they do a lot of

[ Page 10406 ]

I understand that Dr. Joanna Bates, who is the UBC residency program director, is the one who's preparing the response to that recommendation for the Ministry of Health. I look forward to reading her recommendations. I just want to point it out to the minister, because from that side of the House, unfortunately, we've heard a lot of slamming. That's kind of unfortunate, because when we look around at some of the service that the physicians have been providing up there. . . . I was unaware that they were actually doing this, so I was quite impressed that it was happening.

I also want to talk about some of the initiatives around the remote and rural health services. I happened to dig back in my files and found some information about a whole bunch of announcements. I know the ministry is really good about making announcements, but then keeping commitments seems to be a bit of a problem. Way back when, just before the election in '96 -- on April 23, actually -- I find an announcement for a $50 million Prince George Regional Hospital renovation. That now, I understand, is $40 million, so that's gone down a bit. There was a $400,000 TeleCare program announcement; there was a $1 million physician outreach program -- travelling specialists; there was a $1.65 million announcement for 15 regional ambulance training centres, to be up and running by January '97; there was a $750,000 teleradiology program, which I understand is now running in part and actually started a few months late; there was a $175,000 travelling mammography program announced back then too, and I understand it got off the ground in fewer than half the original communities it was listed in.

So when I tallied up those announcements -- what had been promised and what had actually been delivered -- of the total promises not carried out so far it was $51.4 million. Another $1.65 million was slow to come, and that was the regional ambulance training centres -- if indeed they have been set up. The only ones that were really set up were the travelling mammography, in part, and the teleradiology.

I think it's understandable that northerners and rural people do get frustrated when they get all these promises and don't necessarily see the commitments in any short order. I know that they are still waiting for a lot of these, and I have been up to the Prince George Regional Hospital about three or four times in the last year and a half. I understand that just before, or during, the recall campaign for the Minister of Education, the Prince George Regional Hospital announcement was announced again.

I wonder if the minister can comment on these announcements in the millions, and the commitments coming, unfortunately, with a shortfall of money. I'll give the minister a chance to respond to that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure we wrote all of the things down on the list quickly enough as the member was speaking. I'm trying to. . . . I think the commitments that the member listed -- that I can remember -- have been followed through with. I don't recall the time; I wasn't the Health minister. I could certainly check back on what the promises were -- whether they were attached to time frames or. . . . I just don't know that.

But the teleradiology has been up and running for some time now. I think there are currently some challenges from insurance companies, but teleradiology, which is a good project, has been up and running for some time.

The TeleCare project. I don't know whether or not it was promised "for the north" in the announcement, but we have done a pilot project on TeleCare, which is absolutely wonderful. We are now looking at expanding that to other places in the province, and the north would. . . . Well, I would expect to see at least a couple of those in various parts of the north or in remote areas. It's not an inexpensive program, but it's an incredibly successful one -- to have someone on call at the other end of the phone when you're a mother with a three-year-old who woke up with an earache at 3 a.m., and you don't know what to do. The logical thing is that you go to emergency, and that's probably not what you need to do.

The success of the TeleCare project has been tremendous. It will be expanded to other parts of the province, but the commitment was made to have a TeleCare project up and running, which we did, and we will now be expanding it into remote and rural areas.

The understanding I have from my staff is that the Prince George project is still valued at $50 million. TeleCare, teleradiology. . . . Was there another? Sorry, I didn't catch the rest. Those projects are going forward. Actually, many of those are unique projects, like TeleCare and teleradiology. To actually be able to be in a remote area and look at a patient and then have a specialist who may not be in your community -- who may be somewhere else -- help you look at an X-ray and help make at least a provisional diagnosis, if not a sophisticated one, which leads that practitioner in a small community to know the next steps that she or he needs to take on behalf of their patient, is really quite extraordinary. I'm very proud of that project.

I want to go back for a moment, if I could, to some of the ambulance information, because there's some that I actually do have here. The ministry staff reviewed all the bills that may have been affected by the dispute to date -- so we don't have the complete total on that -- which was a total of 216 bills. It was determined that 213 of those bills should not have to be paid and have been completely forgiven. Three of the bills have been partially remitted, and the total value of the 216 bills that have been remitted, either in whole or in part, is approximately $24,000; 191 bills were intercepted by B.C. Ambulance and were actually never sent to the patient; 25 bills were inadvertently sent to patients, and they've been contacted by the ministry to have the bills remitted.

S. Hawkins: Thank you for that information. I think I did say I understood that the teleradiology program was up and going. I think the minister spent a lot of time on that. There was a TeleCare program. I'm reading from a press release dated -- gosh, it was just before the election in 1996 -- April 23. It was supposed to establish a toll-free number for residents of remote and rural regions so that patients could call when it was unclear whether they needed to visit a doctor or an emergency department. It says: "The service will operate initially as a pilot project, at a cost of $150,000 for equipment and $250,000 for annual operating expenses." That was at a cost of $400,000. I believe it was set up as a nurse-first-call system. In January of this year -- unless the minister is giving me new information and things have changed -- the regional health board. . . . I've got a story. It says:

"Nurse Phone System Proves Too Expensive. The Northern Interior regional health board doesn't have money for a telephone nurse-first-call system the NDP government promised

[ Page 10407 ]

almost two years ago. The regional board investigated a sophisticated computer-assisted model in New Brunswick but have turned it down as too expensive at this time. . . . [The CEO] said he was unaware the provincial government had promised in April, 1996, $400,000 to set up pilot projects in the north using the New Brunswick model."

"The NDP funding for the telephone system was part of a package of health care promises for the north Health minister. . . " -- I can't say his name -- "made just prior to the 1996 election."

[4:15]

What we are now planning for is a provincial. . . . I would not pretend to know how people saw that rolling out when that announcement was made. But it is true that it would be too expensive for one region or one health authority to operate on their own, which is why we have piloted it in a smaller area -- to have a look at that feasibility. Our intention is to make it not just a regional program but a provincial one; it's the only way. It is like the New Brunswick one. That's the one we piloted, etc., and that has been written about quite a bit, actually, by the media. Making it into a provincial one is the only way you have any opportunity to make it even remotely financially viable. But it's an important project. We did go ahead and pilot it. We are looking at extending it throughout the province.

S. Hawkins: It's cold comfort to the patients up north that don't have it and thought they were promised it a couple of years ago.

The last issue with respect to perhaps this general area is that we know there's on-call pay provided in hospitals around the province. I think one of the most public ones was the Surrey Memorial Hospital. It pays doctors to be on call. I wonder if the minister can get us a list, if she knows how many other facilities around the province budget to pay on-call pay to physicians who provide that service to the facility.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure I can give the member a number. I'm aware of three hospitals that do that. Obviously, in larger hospitals they pay staff out of their base budget, not with any additional on-call dollars. Some of these hospitals have been doing it for quite some time. They pay a physician to be an in-house physician, to be there in the hospital for hospital patients who are already admitted to hospital -- I can't remember the hours, but sort of during the evening and night. They pay that out of their base budget because they have chosen to do so.

S. Hawkins: Yes, I understand that. I think, in all fairness, that hospitals that get more money can afford to do that. Certainly when I look at Surrey Memorial Hospital, I don't know if that hospital has a lot of money, because it's been running at about a $5 million deficit, and the ministry has helped that hospital out a couple of times.

Where does the money come from at the end of the day? The money comes from the Ministry of Health. So if the hospital runs a deficit and the ministry covers it, the money's still coming from the same pot; it's coming from the Health budget. So whether it's a decision made at the local level. . . . At the time when Surrey Memorial Hospital first started it, the budgets were approved by -- guess what -- the ministry. So when I read that the ministry says, "Well, that's a hospital issue, and whether they can afford to do it, that's their call," that's fine.

But if those decisions were approved by the Ministry of Health. . . . The Ministry of Health knew that it was being done. And a hospital like Surrey Memorial -- which, as I mentioned, faces a deficit situation -- funds programs like that. Then the ministry covers that deficit, at the end of the day. So it's interesting.

I think, again, that rural patients look at that and see an inequity, because that hospital does get the money to do it. Other hospitals do have the money and maybe the flexibility to do it, and places like rural and northern places feel they don't. So if the minister wants to comment on that, she can.

Frankly, the reason why they do it is for quality of life. Perhaps there are 20 or 25 doctors who admit to those family medicine wards. The doctor who's providing that on-call service is only providing it for that in-patient population. That doctor, he or she, is not providing it for emergency patients. There are full-time emergency physicians in the emergency room at Surrey Memorial Hospital; that's what I understand. So the doctors who provide that service do it on a rotating basis, I understand. They get a stipend, plus fee-for-service billings. Frankly, I understand that they get about, on average, 12 or 13 calls in that period of time, the 13 or 16 hours they cover. The hospital has been running that program.

I'll sit down, and the minister can comment further if she wants. But again, I would like a list from the ministry of the hospitals that do that and the stipends they pay.

Hon. P. Priddy: We'll provide that.

M. de Jong: I was listening earlier to the debate between the minister and my colleague from Peace River North, and I thought that maybe the smartest thing I could do would be to retain his services. I think the record will show that he enjoyed some success.

The minister said at one point that she would provide some answers, and they were answers that my colleague the member for Peace River North found to be reasonably acceptable. The problem in the past, when I have participated in these debates. . . . Some issues affecting the part of the province I call home, Abbotsford, haven't been what the ministers of the day have responded to. Generally the responses have been quite favourable, but it has been the follow-up thereafter. . . . If I had a hospital for every hospital that has been promised, I'd have a dozen of them in and around my

[ Page 10408 ]

I don't want to take too much time from others who are wishing to participate in the debate, but I want to ask the minister about some comments and concerns that have been expressed by the Fraser Valley health region by the CEO, Mr. Tokarchuk, and the chair, Mr. Peary. They have spent a great deal of time trying to bring to the minister's attention an issue related to the application of the funding formula within the ministry. I must confess that to the extent that I have any familiarity with these methods of accounting and distributing the proceeds within government. . . . I am more familiar with the educational fiscal framework, as it's called, than I am with what takes place within the health region. But I think it has been demonstrated -- at least, a case has been made to me that seems very defensible. . . . If the funding formula within the ministry is applied in a way that is equitable, the case can be made that the Fraser Valley health region has in fact been losing $8 million to $9 million a year over the past number of years because of a misapplication and formerly, with the old formula, because of a built-in inequity.

So that's a statement I'll make. I'll let the minister consult with her staff, and perhaps she can respond.

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue of the funding formula. . . . I don't know about the specific numbers that the member has spoken to, but I expect that the member is correct that the Fraser Valley health board -- the same as the South Fraser health board and others -- can make an argument that another kind of funding which better recognizes growth and demographics would more equitably respond to areas of growth throughout the province; at least, everybody believes it would. We have a committee made up of CEOs and health chairs and so on from across the province looking at the funding formula. I have asked for that work to continue, because in the end I think we actually do need a different formula that more accurately reflects both growth and changing demographics, other than the numbers in the demographics.

But there are some challenges in that. It's a bit like when the funding formula was changed in education. Lots of us thought that for sure we would be significantly changed as a result of that -- and I'll tell you that as a Surrey school trustee, I've made the argument a lot -- because we were so convinced that. . . . That did not turn out to be the case. I think we went from 75 to 74. That was not our anticipation or wish. So I'm not sure that. . . . Every board I've talked with says that if we change the funding formula with the existing amount of money, they'd all have more money. That won't actually happen. The challenge in this is to find a funding formula that works and to not take dollars away from other existing health authorities; at least, I would think the areas of the province would say that. If you can write this whole new cheque that levels everybody up, then you could probably do that. But if you reassign, based on a different formula with the existing dollars, there are some parts of the province that would have money withdrawn from them. While I, in a growth district, can say, "Well, yes, but I need it," I don't think it's quite as easy to be able to actually go ahead and do that.

I do think the formula has to change and be based on different calculations, and I've asked the ministry to continue. Although some people may not wish to do this, I've asked the ministry to continue, because I think it does need to be changed.

M. de Jong: It seems to me that the minister has identified two possible approaches to attack this problem. One involves addressing the overall funding envelope for the ministry, and I don't want to get into that today. I'm happy to, but I don't think we accomplish anything doing that at this point.

But the minister acknowledges, I think, that there is a need to address the funding formula. She says that on the one hand, and then on the other hand, I think I heard her express a real reluctance to do that in a way that might result in an actual redistribution of money, of resources. It seems to me that if the minister is approaching it from that point of view -- that any adjustments to the funding formula that might have as a consequence the reduction of the amount of money that goes to one part of the province and a resulting increase in the amount of money going to another part of the province. . . . If that is deemed to be undesirable, then I don't know why you would deal with the funding formula itself. Why else would you review the funding formula except to address the manner in which moneys are allocated? If we accept that there's not going to be a huge influx of new money, part of looking at the possibility of finding more money for one area, based on an adjusted funding framework, is the result that there may be less for elsewhere. Conceptually, if the minister is looking at this exercise from the point of view that anything that results in certain areas losing money. . . . I don't know why she's undertaking the review. Maybe I've misinterpreted her remarks.

[4:30]

I think it is a positive use of time, because even with the additional dollars, those are the dollars that we can indeed distribute differently. It may be that in additional dollars, some regions, based on the population and demographics, might not get any additional lift that year, whereas a high-growth area with changing demographics may get a lift that's more significant. Some regions might not get any. So I think that it is worth doing even for that 15 or. . . . I can't remember how much the lift has been over the last five years. Sorry, we had it the other day; I just can't pull it off the top. But I think it's hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone out in the lift over the last five years, which have been distributed differently from the way that the base was established. . . . The deputy's just added to that. I thought we did say several hundred million dollars, which has been based on a different formula. I think that formula can be even better. So it is useful work, even though it means you don't take it away in some regions, but they may not get additional lifts.

Am I reluctant? Sure, because I think that whenever you talk about taking money away, it's hard. Is it impossible? No. Might we need to do that in certain circumstances? Maybe we would. Unfortunately, I think that the areas that would be hurt by that are northern and remote areas. So we continue to use it for the several hundreds of millions that have gone out over

[ Page 10409 ]

M. de Jong: The minister or at least her staff will know that the Fraser Valley health board are sufficiently concerned about what they perceive to be difficulties that are impacting very seriously on the people they service that they have gone out and commissioned a macro-level review of the programs and services in their region, which was performed by the HMRG, a health and public sector consulting group. I believe that that report has been provided to the minister. I don't expect her to necessarily be in a position today to respond to the recommendations, the findings, that are contained in the report. I will quickly try to highlight for her some of what is in the report and then ask her for some undertakings with respect to responses to those recommendations.

To place this in some sort of context, as the report points out, we are dealing with a quarter of a million people in the health region. That population has increased 15 percent in the past five years, and it's projected to increase demographically a further 12 percent in the next five years. So by the time we get to the year 2004, we're going to be talking about 275,000 people. For the benefit of the ministry, I think the health board is correctly trying to identify for the benefit of the ministry some of the challenges they will face if adjustments and steps aren't taken now to correct what I think can justifiably be called serious funding inequities.

As part of the report there is an assessment done on acute care hospital bed needs, which will increase by 100 to 153 by the year 2004; for home support hours, they'll need an additional 156,000 to 173,000. The report chronicles in a very detailed way what the needs of the people charged with administering health care in the eastern end of the Fraser Valley are going to be.

So maybe I can just ask the minister whether she can confirm that her staff are aware of the existence of the report, and whether she will undertake to provide a response, most particularly to the chairman and to the members of the health region board, and address specifically the recommendations that are set out in the report with respect to the needs.

Let me say this candidly to the minister: a response to a document of this sort that is contained on a page that says, "I recognize the valuable work undertaken by the review, and you can rest assured we will be taking it into consideration at budget time," really isn't worth a lot. These people need to know if the ministry takes exception to some of the projections, some of the needs, based on the data that's available. If the ministry takes exception or finds error with that, then tell them. Tell them so that they are in a position to make their case perhaps more effectively, or maybe to realize that in this minister's eyes, at least, there isn't a case to be made. That is the undertaking that I would ask from her now.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we are aware of the report. We received it Tuesday, and yes, we will provide a response to the board. We will be as specific as we are able to be, both in terms of. . . . I mean, I hope you would not want to get into a "he said, she said" about the report, but if there are things that clearly don't make sense, then we'll ask about those, or we'll certainly be able to say that. We would certainly be able to point that out if we were in some kind of disagreement, but I would hope it would be looking toward solutions.

I will make the commitment that my staff will do that kind of response to the report. That is not the same as being able to say, even if there is a proven need, that we can address all of that right away, because I don't think we are necessarily in a position to be able to do that. One of the areas the report mentioned, quite legitimately, is the area of home support. We know that that is an increasing need. That's why, since 1995, there has been an 81 percent increase in the home support budget in the member's health authority area. That's an 81 percent increase in three years.

We do recognize and are trying to address some of those needs. But yes, I will make the commitment that we will do as specific a response as possible.

M. de Jong: I don't purport to be an expert on some of the indicators and terminology used, but I note that the report talks about age-standardized utilization rates as one of the means for comparing service utilization in B.C. It includes a table on resource comparison standings. Just for the record and for the minister's benefit, it's the one time of year that I have an opportunity to emphasize to her the challenges facing my local health board.

In the findings from this group on things like public health, it says it's the lowest per capita of all semi-urban and rural areas in the province in 1997. Continuing care, home nursing care and adult care were utilized at a much lower rate. Acute care -- and again, they're referring to the age-standardized utilization rate -- was lower than the provincial average and lower than comparative regions. I think that the point the authors of the report are trying to make is that this is not a part of the province that can be accused of wastefulness, as it were. I'm sure that the minister hears that everywhere. I'm hopeful that when her staff review in detail the document that the health board has prepared for her, she and her staff will acknowledge and thereafter take some steps.

Quite frankly, I think the most frustrating thing for anyone dealing with government -- the provincial government or any government -- is to get some pat answer, as I referred to earlier: "Yes, thank you for the report." If the resources aren't there, at least do these people the service of acknowledging the need. That, I'm sad to say, has not been the history of the regional board's relationship with the ministry to this point.

I wonder if before I take my seat I could ask the minister -- and this has become a bit of an annual event for me -- to explain to me how the approval of capital projects, which I understand formerly fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of a branch within her ministry but now has been assigned in part to the Finance ministry. . . . Could she explain to me what has happened and the significance of that in terms of capital project approvals?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I can. This is the first year for this, as the member knows. I didn't know this was an annual event, though, or I would have checked back to see what annual answers you've got, so I could match to sample.

What happens as of this year, and will continue to happen, is that the ministry puts together a capital budget -- you know, based on submissions from the regions, the way that's happened in the past. The health authorities submit their capital needs; we put together our budget; we list the priorities. So we submit it in priority order, and it gets approval by Treasury Board -- or Treasury Board says "only this much," as in any Treasury Board submission. So the priorities that we submit are the ones that Treasury Board deals with in approval. After that, it is then managed by the Ministry of

[ Page 10410 ]

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

M. de Jong: Who and what department within the ministry -- besides the minister, who I suppose would have final say -- are responsible for assigning that priority as the document is shipped off to the Finance ministry for that coordinating function?

Hon. P. Priddy: The responsibility falls under acute care. The sort of capital planning branch falls under the acute care part of the ministry. The acute care part of the ministry does consult with other parts of the ministry, but that is primarily where the responsibility lies. Some of those staff have gone over to the Ministry of Finance, but we still have a branch within the ministry that does that work. It goes to the ADM of acute and continuing care, who's this excellent person, Leah Hollins, here to my left. It then goes to the deputy minister, the excellent person to my right. It comes to me and then goes, with those priorities, to Treasury Board.

M. de Jong: When it is handed off to the Finance ministry, who within that branch of government has responsibility for its safe conduct to Treasury Board?

[4:45]

M. de Jong: Let me ask what used to be the $120 million question and then became the $125 million, $130 million, $135 million question -- and every year that I ask the question, the price tag goes up more, of course. Tell me where the MSA hospital replacement project -- which has received approval at every stage of the ministerial review process except the one that counts most, and that is the department that signs the cheque. . . . Tell me, please, what stage that project is at.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it's actually the $128 million question. I have watched and checked; others have, of course, raised this issue as well.

The project that the member speaks of is a project that we continue to see as a top priority. I very much want to see that project move ahead as quickly as possible.

M. de Jong: The member for Abbotsford, who is, I can assure the minister, every bit as interested in this matter as I am. . . . I attend this facility, this community hospital that was built in the fifties for a population of around 30,000 people, a population that has now ballooned to in excess of 100,000 people. As the minister probably understands, we are asked to respond when patients are turned away because the existing facility doesn't have the isolation facilities required to properly treat illness. It doesn't have the emergency room facilities necessary to properly intake patients. All of the frustrations that arise in a community with a significant aged population are brought to our attention literally on a daily basis. If there is a recurring theme in the community newspapers in the places in B.C. that I call home, it is the frustrations associated with people not being able to access their acute-care facilities.

The question I am obliged to ask yet again this year. . . . I should preface my request, as I do every year, with a recognition of the fact that it was a Social Credit minister sitting in the minister's chair that first held out the prospect of responding to the needs of the community of Abbotsford, and there has been a series of ministers from this minister's party since then. But the question is: in spite of her assurances, what is the ranking? Where is this in terms of the projects that this ministry is recommending to Treasury Board to proceed, recognizing that the ministry is dealing with finite economic resources?

Hon. P. Priddy: We are still having discussions with Treasury Board about a number of capital projects, so I feel a bit uncomfortable commenting at all about this at this stage. One of the challenges here. . . . I more than understand, before I make the statement, that it makes no difference to the citizens of your community, but a $128 million project is harder to do than a $14 million upgrade. Finding the entire $128 million does make it a touch more difficult. For this ministry, it still remains a very high priority. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to give you an answer that you will go away content with. I guess you will have to watch and see where we are at some period of time from now. But we do consider it a high priority. We have said that to Treasury Board, and that's all I can say at the moment.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure it will make an impression on the minister if I remind her that the people in this community have taken. . . . The portion of that $128 million that the local people are directly responsible for has already begun to be deposited. They're saving the money and accumulating the interest.

I'm going to try again, because in listening to the minister's response, I'm forced to conclude that somehow the minister thinks the people can't take it, that somehow the news will be devastating if they learn that the government ranks this project below several others. Why shouldn't they know that? The government is dealing with finite resources. There's not a bottomless pit, in spite of what the Premier would have us believe on some days. People understand that. But the health board and the people at the hospital need to know how to plan. Yeah, I suppose a $10 million project is maybe easier to proceed with than a $128 million project. But if we're being forced to dump money into a facility that everyone acknowledges is going to have to be replaced because it's falling apart and was built for a community a quarter the size of what is there now, then that is not efficient use of government resources either. These are big people in Abbotsford, as they are everywhere in the province.

The minister -- though I'm sure she has the best of intentions -- doesn't need to protect them. Yeah, I'm glad it's a priority, but if it's a priority. . . . If the document that went from her office to Treasury Board has it ranked as a priority in the second tier of priorities, then it ain't going to happen, and they need to know that. They need to know so that they can

[ Page 10411 ]

I'll ask again. The minister knows that what I will do is take the transcript of these proceedings and send them to the health board. I guess that at some point, Mr. Peary and Mr. Tokarchuk and members of the health board will meet with the minister, and they'll ask the same question. She'll get the call from the local newspapers, who will ask the same question. They'll say: "All right, it's a priority. Where is it on the ministry's priority list that they send to Treasury Board? Why won't you tell us? Why are you so reluctant to tell us what the government intends to do with our tax dollars?"

That's all I can do now. After the four or five years, whatever it's been, since I've been here, and my predecessors. . . . I hope the minister understands. We don't even come in here anymore and ask for the place to be built. We simply come in begging to find out where, on the ministry's priority chart, the facility lies. We'll get to begging for the construction eventually, I hope, but right now we're left, year after year after year, with: "It's a priority." Well, you know, it apparently isn't the priority that we'd like it to be.

That really is my plea to the minister. Rest assured that she isn't, I suppose, nearly as directly accountable to the people of Abbotsford as I and the member for Abbotsford are, but it is becoming frustrating in the extreme.

Hon. P. Priddy: This is a project that has been agreed to, I understand. Planning has happened; this construction will go ahead; this facility will be built. I'm not currently in a position to say that construction will begin this year, but I certainly would not be in a position -- nor would I wish to be; nor am I -- to go back to your community and say: "Gosh, the ministry has said that it's not going to happen and you should get on with planning it differently" -- or whatever. I think that would not be accurate.

K. Krueger: The largest project in the health care budget affecting my constituency is, of course, the psychiatric unit at Royal Inland Hospital. I want an update from the minister, if I could, as to the status of the funding for that project.

But just before we get into that, I'm sure the minister is aware of the history of this capital project question for Kamloops and the fact that prior to the 1991 election, the NDP government promised they would make good on the promise of the previous Socred government and build a cancer treatment facility in Kamloops. That decision was then changed by this government, and there have been considerable hard feelings over that in Kamloops. To a certain extent, I think those will be ameliorated by the fact that the psychiatric facility is going to be constructed. But there is still a much smaller, downsized cancer clinic at Royal Inland Hospital, and there has been a lot of fear recently that its funding is going to be eliminated as the Kelowna cancer centre has come on stream. I wonder if the minister could give us some assurances about the funding of the very limited cancer treatment facility we have in Kamloops.

Hon. P. Priddy: It will continue.

K. Krueger: Before we carry on with those questions about the psychiatric care unit. . . . I stepped out of line here, and I'll yield the floor to the member for Okanagan-Boundary.

B. Barisoff: I thank my colleague for allowing this.

It's just a regular yearly event, it seems, for me to have to get up to ask about the Keremeos multilevel-care facility. It's something that was promised back in the Socred days. My immediate predecessor, the NDP member for Okanagan-Boundary, made a commitment to the people of Keremeos that the multilevel-care facility would definitely go ahead. Actually, during the last election he said that it was one of the number one priorities on a list of things to go ahead with. I stood up in the House in 1996, the year I got elected; I stood up in 1997 and now in 1998. I'd like to ask the minister, for the constituents of Keremeos and the area: what is happening with the multilevel-care facility there?

[5:00]

B. Barisoff: Is there any kind of commitment time that this is going to take place by? Are we going to see construction in '98, or in the spring of '99? If I could get something that would be more concrete that I could take back to the constituents of Keremeos and area, so that I could say: "Listen, we're going to see the loaders groundbreaking at a particular time. . . ." This has been a kind of commitment that's gone on for so long, I think they'd rather have a real commitment by the minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, I can't give the member a groundbreaking day, but my understanding is that this is a very large project, and our information from the local health people is that the design part -- which is the part that is now getting underway -- will take about a year. Then, depending on what the design looks like and so on, people will move on from there. But the design phase will take about a year.

B. Barisoff: I guess my concern right now is the fact that the years go by, and it is always: "A year away." As I brought up the other day, we do live in an area that is short 365 beds in the region.

My other concern is that the minister mentions this is a huge project. I guess, in the big scheme of things. . . . It's a $7 million or $8 million project. It's huge in some respects, but I'm sure it's not nearly as big as a lot of the other ones. I don't think it's that onerous a task, because I'm sure it's only a $7 million or $8 million project. So it doesn't seem to be huge in some respects, as with some kinds of moneys that are being spent in government today.

Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate the member's comments about the total cost, and I appreciate the frustration of hearing "next year, next year," but I'm not saying "next year" or "maybe next year." What I'm saying is that we've committed the planning money and that planning is underway. Now, if it takes less than a year, I guess that's fine. That's simply the information I have. Because it's a health centre, plus it's got 25 multilevel beds, and so on, that's a little more difficult. I'm no kind of expert; I'm just telling you what the planning people and architects are saying. But I'm certainly not saying maybe next year. What I am saying is that we've committed the planning money to go ahead and get the work ready.

B. Barisoff: I guess as long as I can have that as a committed promise by the minister -- that this is where we're

[ Page 10412 ]

K. Krueger: When I jumped the gun a little bit earlier, I believe the minister said -- although she spoke quietly and I didn't catch it for sure -- that it is the province's commitment to continue funding the existing Kamloops cancer clinic. I just want to clarify whether that is at the level of '96-97 funding or better.

Hon. P. Priddy: What I said earlier was that yes, the chemotherapy unit will continue at Royal Inland, and it will continue at the funding level that it's currently at. I think the member refers to the fact that about a year or so ago -- maybe a bit longer; I'm not sure -- the B. C. Cancer Agency applied a formula for chemotherapy units across the province. As a result of that formula that the Cancer Agency used, I think there was a reduction in the one in Kamloops. I'm sorry; it was this year they did that. It will continue at the level that it's currently at, and yes, it will continue.

K. Krueger: Carrying on with the question of the current status of the ministry's plans for the psychiatric unit in Kamloops, I wonder if we could have an update from the minister of what those plans are.

Hon. P. Priddy: As the member knows, it has been announced. Planning money has been allocated. The design is underway. In point of fact, we're actually going to be using that as a bit of a pilot project in the province, in terms of being able to assess costs of psychiatric unit beds. The work is underway. They've got a subcommittee of the health authority. They've hired an architect. They're going ahead.

K. Krueger: The project has indeed been announced. I have four different dates that formal media releases were done, I believe: October 7, 1995; March 8, 1996; April 26, 1996; and then November 13, 1997. Initially, dollar figures of one size had been used; subsequently, dollar figures of a different size were used. There's discussion of splitting what was originally planned as the psychiatric unit for Kamloops into two different units. I wonder if we could have the minister just flesh out those details for us, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: I do appreciate that the member has a number of press releases; it's always good to repeat the good news. But please bear in mind that my ministry actually has given the planning money to the authority. So the work is actually underway, as opposed to: "I promise it next year." In terms of the question you've asked about the configuration of the units, I think the original projection for beds or numbers was 85, and that continues to be the case. People have looked at how you might configure it in different ways, but I think the current configuration looks at a 60-bed unit attached to the hospital and an additional 25 beds in the community. I need to correct that. Both the 60 beds and the 25 beds, although separate, are both on site.

S. Hawkins: What the member for Kamloops-North Thompson says about this being announced many times is correct. Yes, we've seen planning money coming through for this project, but unfortunately, when it was announced earlier this year, we saw quite a significant change in the psych centre, going from one site to two sites. In a briefing document that we obtained through FOI, dated October 12, 1995, there was a Thompson-Okanagan-Kootenay mental health planning committee set up. It was under the acronym TOKO. It's interesting, because the recommendation for the centre, it says, "was based on the principle of ensuring quality care by facilitating. . . " -- and there were five points. I'm going to read them.

"1. A critical mass of staff to provide ready availability of specialist and support staff.

"2. A critical mass of patients to promote the development and maintenance of staff that has the superior and honed skills to deal with tertiary care challenges in the most cost-efficient manner.

"3. Operational costs can be minimized through cost-sharing mechanisms with the associated institution.

"4. Expensive and disruptive movement of patients is avoided.

"5. Patient and staff safety needs are optimized."

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part of the question. This is one site, not two. This is one facility attached to the hospital and another facility on the same site. All of the goals. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is two facilities on the same site, which is the site of Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. The 25 beds in a separate facility on the same site are, I think quite appropriately, for people who have more long-term care needs than somebody who might have much more acute needs in the hospital. It seems to me that it meets all the goals that were stated.

I have just checked. My staff was up in December. My understanding is that these issues were resolved. There may be psychiatrists who do not support this; if so, I don't have that correspondence.

S. Hawkins: The minister is correct. It's two facilities on one site, and it was supposed to be -- if I can clarify it -- one facility attached to an acute-care facility.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, the criticism I get is that it was supposed to be 85 tertiary mental health beds in a single location adjacent to an acute-care facility. I would suggest that there was a lot of politicking that went into making the decision, and unfortunately, I can say that at the end of the day, it doesn't sound like psych patients are going to get the best facility for the dollars that are going to be spent. You've split it off now into two facilities, albeit they're on the same site. But both of them are not attached to the acute-care facility. When the minister says they're going to get the benefit of all the

[ Page 10413 ]

[5:15]

The project has been delayed and delayed and then eventually changed. I understand that part of the reason it was changed was because of the topography around Royal Inland Hospital. The minister can correct me if that's wrong. I understood that the grounds around the hospital didn't support one single site attached to the hospital. If it didn't, perhaps they should have considered what other things they should have done, or gone back and looked at the criteria to see if they were still adhering to them when they made the decision to split the facility in two. We will be watching this very, very carefully. I can almost guarantee that it's not going to be built before this government is run out of office in the next election. Hopefully, in the next government, members on this side will be making the decisions with respect to the criteria that were originally indicated for this project.

But it's really sad to see how mental health facilities and beds across this province have been totally ignored. The downsizing of Riverview was one of the projects that was supposed to be in place for psych patients across the province. I know that the minister isn't prepared to make a guarantee. But there's planning money committed. I'm sure that next year there will be more planning money, and the next year after that there will be more planning money. Every year and every few months, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and I get the same phone calls from the media, asking: "When do you think the shovel will hit the ground?" I think the shovel has been in a lot of other stuff rather than in the ground anywhere around this facility, and I think it'll continue to be that way. If the minister has comments around that, I'd be happy to listen to them.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is not unusual, I don't believe, in a reasonably large project, that sometime between the beginning and the end of the project some of those design phases change.

But let's be clear here. There was a psychiatric facility promised for Kamloops. I've ensured and the ministry has ensured that the health authority has the planning money to begin that. They've got a subcommittee; they've hired an architect. No, it's not 85 beds attached to the hospital to make a larger hospital; it's 60 beds attached to the hospital and 25 beds on the same site. I actually think that's quite appropriate if, as I understand, it is for long term care patients, because I frankly don't think those long term care patients -- and lots of people have raised this along the way in these estimates -- need to be in an acute-care hospital.

Are the advantages of cost savings still there? Of course they are. They're on the same site. Are the advantages of sharing skilled staff still there? Of course they are. They're on the same site. And I expect that there will be groundbreaking probably by early next year, and I will make sure that the Kamloops people and the critic are the first folks to get the invitation.

S. Hawkins: Well, we'll wait with bated breath for that announcement. If I'm correct, I think this particular project was announced twice in 1996, once in '97 and earlier this year. There were four press releases on this, so we'll wait for the next press release and see if things actually go ahead.

I'm also interested in another hospital that we brought up last year that is in very dire straits. That's the Port Alberni hospital, West Coast General. I know that the minister has announced planning money for that hospital. But, unfortunately, that hospital is still in a critical state with upgrades that have been needed over the last few years. I understand that the upgrading for that hospital. . . . The planning for this hospital has gone on for the last five or six years. A lot of money has gone into planning. There's going to be a bed or so cut when it finally has the replanning.

Last year I tried to engage the previous minister in a debate around when they knew about the upgrades that were needed according to the Fire Code, and when they knew that the fire marshal had basically condemned the hospital and was going to start laying charges with respect to the Fire Code infractions that the hospital was subject to.

I understand that the upgrade is in the range of $900,000 to $1 million -- somewhere in there. I wonder if the minister can tell us if the hospital knows where they're going to get that money and when that work will begin.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry, but while checking, I may have forgotten some of the pieces to the questions. Certainly the planning money for Port Alberni has been committed by me as the minister and by the ministry. The upgrading dollars are there as well.

S. Hawkins: I asked the minister: how much is the upgrade going to cost, and when is it starting?

Hon. P. Priddy: It actually has started or is starting immediately. It is going to cost $400,000.

S. Hawkins: Is that money over and above what the hospital has budgeted for? Will the residents or the hospital have to incur that expense within their existing budget, or is that money that the ministry is giving to pay for those upgrades?

Hon. P. Priddy: The hospital will not incur that expense.

S. Hawkins: There's been a sad history with that hospital. I recounted it last year, and I call tell you, after visiting the site, that it's pretty frightening to see the state that the hospital has been in, particularly the fire and safety condition of the hospital.

When the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was up, and I didn't hear him if he did. . . . Did he ask about the Royal Inland Hospital radiology and emergency upgrade? What's the status of that, and when will they be hearing about the upgrades that are badly needed there?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, the member's colleague did not ask that question at that time. The health authority, as we review our capital, should be hearing from us soon.

[ Page 10414 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: In relation to this project and some other ones -- very soon, probably within the next month or so.

S. Hawkins: I understand -- and we brought that up earlier with Prince George Regional Hospital -- that the money was announced. I'm wondering what the status of that is currently, then.

Hon. P. Priddy: The planning phase is currently underway.

S. Hawkins: Does the ministry have a list of the capital projects, major and minor, and how they're ranked? We can probably dispense with a whole list of projects if the minister will commit to telling us what major and minor projects are on the books, which ones have received planning money and which ones will be put over till later.

Hon. P. Priddy: When the final decisions are made, I'd be happy to provide that information.

S. Hawkins: Okay. I have just a couple of other questions, then. Kelowna General Hospital has been looking forward to an ICU upgrade for the past several years. I understand that there has been some money, again for planning. I'm wondering if the minister can give me the status of that project.

Hon. P. Priddy: That work is currently in design, member.

S. Hawkins: In addition to the ICU, I understand that the regional health board was asking for planning money for a heart centre for Kelowna General Hospital. What's the status of that?

Hon. P. Priddy: I could, of course, be corrected. I'm not aware that Kelowna or the health authority has asked for dollars for cardiac planning. But when I made the announcement about the $8.5 million addressed to cardiac wait-times, the report that was put forward did make a recommendation that at some time in the future the government should look at a cardiac centre in Kelowna.

S. Hawkins: I'll keep abreast of that issue; I'm sure we'll discuss it when we talk about cardiac wait-lists.

I understand that the expected date of completion -- we'll go back to the ICU project at Kelowna General Hospital -- or the target date is February 1999. That's less than a year away. You know, again I have to wonder about whether the targets will actually be reached, because I know that when the freeze was on it set everything back. Is the ministry optimistic that this unit will actually be completed in February 1999?

Hon. P. Priddy: We expect that project to be on target.

[5:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the question was around Kitimat General Hospital. I'm just trying to make sure that the member, who is such a fine advocate -- as your members are, and so are mine. . . . That project for Kitimat General is in design development currently.

S. Hawkins: The next project is one that's always close to my heart, and that's the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre. I recall the great disappointment when it was caught in the freeze a few years ago. I believe that the fall of '96 was when they were supposed to start on the new facility. As a result of the freeze, I understand that it went into new design, and perhaps a new site has been finalized. It's interesting, because at the time that it was frozen, there were people who were very vocal in their disappointment. They said that planning a new facility requires a minimum of one year, and constructing a new building and manufacturing and installing the radiation machines takes another two years. So delaying the project one year really means a delay of perhaps four years, and we are now two years into that delay.

I've been to the building several times. The facility is inadequate. It's old; it's antiquated. We have recruited cancer specialists on the proviso that we were building a new facility and would have resources there for them. When I visit the administrators and the physicians that we recruited away, I visit them in portables behind the facility. Frankly, I think it's unacceptable. I'm wondering if we can get an update on the status of this cancer centre.

Hon. P. Priddy: The cancer centre in Victoria, which, as the member mentions, is particularly, as all our cancer centres are. . . . But Kelowna, of course, has one, as does Surrey; it's not about Kelowna. Surrey, as well, has a brand-new -- in Surrey's case it's reasonably new, and in Kelowna's case, new -- cancer centre. I have visited this cancer centre once or twice as a patient, and there's no question that there is significant work to be done. This project is now in design, and we're hoping that that design work goes very quickly. We have recruited physicians and oncologists on that basis, and we expect to be able to meet that commitment to them.

S. Hawkins: Hopefully, that commitment will be kept by this government. If not, I know it will be kept by the next.

I understand that the ministry is in the process, then, of reviewing the major and minor projects. I think I got a commitment from the minister that when that list is complete, it will be released to the opposition. I believe that a couple of the other members have a few questions, so I'll defer.

V. Anderson: I've been asked to bring this to the minister's attention, to see if she's become aware of a letter she received earlier in July from the Vancouver Yaffa Housing Society. They are in the process of working on a centre for six young persons from a Jewish cultural background who have mental health concerns. They have a house which has come to them through the Vancouver Resource Society for the Physically Disabled. They raised $100,000 and have $300,000 available to them for the renovation of the house, and they will bring it into operation within six months' time. They're par-

[ Page 10415 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: It is something we'll have to check on, because I expect that this is a letter that. . . . If we had received it -- I'm not aware that we have -- it would have been referred to the Vancouver-Richmond health authority, because that's where the operating dollars would come from. So I can check and see if we've received it, but it would be with the Vancouver-Richmond health authority.

V. Anderson: I can also provide a copy of the letter to you if you want to check through it, if that would be helpful to you.

These persons are very concerned. One of the families that's involved has a son who's 17 years of age and in Riverview at the moment. Because he also has a diabetic condition -- until very recently he lived at home -- and because of the extra care needed, he needs to be in Riverview. So this is an extra, driving concern for them, because either he or others like him would be able to make use of this room. As they've inquired, they've been advised that there are some 2000 persons who are waiting for such facilities, and they would like to be able to contribute to their needs and have it in. . . . Their particular home would have a Jewish cultural heritage, and they would welcome into that home anyone willing to share that heritage and be in that kind of environment. So I will pass the information on to you, and I would be glad to hear from you about it once you've had an opportunity to review it.

I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to once again ask at this time two very short questions of the minister, regarding a capital project in this area -- not in the riding that I represent, but in the greater Victoria area. It has to do with the Royal Jubilee Hospital, which I did canvass last year. Lo and behold, it was able to have the shovel hit the dirt, and there was an official groundbreaking ceremony, and some activity was started. But when I asked questions of the Minister of Health last year, I was trying to get, I guess, a determination of the project expenditures. If this project were to proceed, how much of it would be done in terms of phases -- a third, a third and a third, over three years, or 50 percent, 25 percent and 25 percent?

My concerns are that, even though the contract has been let, if there were financial concerns things would be held back, and it would not proceed and meet its target and completion dates on time, which would eventually add more costs -- something that we all agree is not what we would like to see. I have heard, and certainly it is hearsay, that the project had been stalled at some point this past winter. I would like to canvass the minister very quickly on whether she can advise me as to the status of the Royal Jubilee Hospital. Are we proceeding on time and on budget at this point? What percentage of the project is completed or will be completed by the end of fiscal '99?

Hon. P. Priddy: They're just tendering now for the second phase, which is the diagnostic and treatment centre. My understanding from the health authority is that they are over budget and that they do have to go back to Treasury Board for approval. But the tender has gone out for the second phase, which is the diagnostic and treatment centre.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry -- I have to do a correction. Staff have just offered me a piece of information that will change the way I said that.

The next stage is the tendering. It has not gone to tender. The next stage is the tendering for the diagnostic and treatment centre, but because the health authorities have informed us that it is over budget, we'll need to go back to Treasury Board for approval. I expect that to happen quickly.

I. Chong: Would the minister be able to advise us at the conclusion of phase 1 -- which I presume has to be concluded before phase 2 starts -- by what magnitude we're over budget on in the first phase? Is that something the minister can share with us?

Hon. P. Priddy: We currently have initiated discussions with Treasury Board about it being over budget and the amount, in terms of being able to continue to work on the project. Actually, I'd rather wait until my Treasury Board discussions are finished before talking about the number.

I. Chong: I can appreciate that, although it does concern me somewhat, as I'm sure it would concern the Minister of Health as well. Can the minister just give me an idea, then, of whether this phase being over budget is a result of cost overruns or of timing? If we are not on schedule, did that cause the overrun? Or was it just the cost of materials or of labour that was unanticipated?

[5:45]

I. Chong: That concludes my questions, more or less. I am just going to conclude with the comment that I look forward, if the minister is able, to her sharing that information with me once she deals with Treasury Board on that. Also, one concluding thought: if approval is granted for the over-budget amounts, can we ensure that the project itself is not reduced in terms of what the design entailed, to provide for the community? It's been a long-awaited project, and I would hate to see us cut back on services as a result of the budget. So I'll just leave that comment with the minister.

G. Abbott: I have some questions on freedom-of-information provisions in the Ministry of Health budget. I don't know if you have the right staff person here to deal with that at the moment.

The first question I have is: could the minister advise what the budget is for the current fiscal year with respect to the freedom-of-information provision in the Ministry of Health?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's $441,000.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the budgeted amount for the provision of FOI services was for the previous fiscal year?

Hon. P. Priddy: It was $652,000.

[ Page 10416 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Abbott: Is it also correct to assume that the expectation of Treasury Board or others is that the gap between where we were on FOI funding -- $652,000 in '97-98 -- and the current level of $441,000 is going to be made up through expanded revenues from FOI fees?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we are expected to increase our revenue.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise what the revenues were from the levying of FOI fees for the fiscal year '97-98 -- in other words, last year? What did the ministry bring in, in fees?

Hon. P. Priddy: Revenues last year were $2,000.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry -- could the minister run that by me again, please?

Hon. P. Priddy: I do know that the member heard me. He just wants me to repeat it for the record: $2,000.

G. Abbott: If I heard the minister correctly, the fees for the provision of FOIs -- for photocopying and so on. . . . The gross revenue for that was $2,000 in the last fiscal year. The minister says that's correct. Okay, good. Then, given that we see a $211,000 reduction in the provision through the treasury of funds for this purpose for the present fiscal year, that means that the ministry apparently is intent on improving its revenues from this function from $2,000 to $213,000. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: I suppose that in other circumstances that probably would be the case. But one of the factors added to this is that when we look at what we have needed in the past for freedom of information and what our currents needs are, as a result of regionalization the numbers of requests for information to the ministry have gone down significantly. We don't expect the costs to be as high, either, this year. I think some of that will balance out.

G. Abbott: That may well be the case: there may be some reduction in the number of freedom-of-information requests that the ministry will be entertaining. I doubt that it will be of the magnitude of $213,000 down to $2,000. I am curious as to whether the ministry is expecting to improve its recoveries around freedom of information via a change in the fee schedule which it administers. Is that part of the deal here?

Hon. P. Priddy: That would not be. . . . We have fees that we charge now, and those are what we would continue to charge. Any decision to increase fees would be a Ministry of Finance. . . . It would be a cross-government decision that would be made, I think, guided by the ministry responsible.

Noting the time, member, I'm wondering if. . . .

G. Abbott: For certainty, then, the ministry is advising that the per-page or per-request fee for freedom-of-information requests in the current fiscal year will be the same as in the last fiscal year. The Ministry of Health has not adjusted its fees at this point as a result of any advice or direction from the Treasury Board or, indeed, any other branch of government. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Abbott: To conclude, there is an assumption here, then, on the part of the ministry that the approximately 50 percent reduction in the provision for FOI services is going to be made up by a comparable reduction in the number of FOI requests resulting from regionalization. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. One of them is that part of that will certainly come as a result of the regionalization. . . . There's no question about that. I mean, anybody asking for their personal hospital file, etc., which is a lot of that, will obviously go directly to the regions. So a significant part will come from that. One of the things we've noticed -- and I'm not suggesting that it makes up that entire amount, by any means -- is that as staff have gained more experience with freedom of information, people are actually able to be more efficient about how they do their work as well.

G. Abbott: I think I have a final question here -- perhaps not; hopefully, the final question on this issue, at this time at least.

The budgets of the regions around the province. . . . Does the province make some provision in the operating funds that are going out to the regions for that function? Or is there some expectation that they would be generating from some other source the funds to cover the cost of that?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's not a specific line item that's been transferred, but as I think the member knows, in both year 1 and year 2, depending on what the health authority was ready for, the infrastructure money from Victoria -- which included infrastructure for freedom of information and other things -- was transferred from our budget out to the regions, to support that infrastructure.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the House at its rising recess until 6:35 and thereafter sit until adjourned.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:56 p.m. to 6:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 48.

[ Page 10417 ]

BC ONLINE ACT
(second reading)

In addition, the legislation makes the purchaser an agent of the government for the portion of the revenues that must be remitted to the government. This provides the government with assurance that it is receiving the full amount of revenue from the B.C. OnLine system. It also makes the operator of the B.C. OnLine subject to an audit by the auditor general.

I move second reading of Bill 48.

I. Chong: I'm pleased to be able to speak on second reading of Bill 48. I would first of all like to state that we're not opposed to the sale or the lease of public assets in order to better manage and better utilize assets for the benefit of the province. However, any such sale or lease transaction must be responsive to, and sensitive to, important public policy issues.

I know that there are some concerns about the sale and the future operations of B.C. OnLine, particularly around the issue of accountability -- or, shall I say, lack of accountability? As I stated earlier, in principle we are not opposed to the sale of public assets; definitely, it is an area that is worth exploring. In dealing with a public asset, we must ensure that an independent bid-selection process takes place. I am not aware that that has occurred. I am also concerned whether, once B.C. OnLine changes hands, it will continue to adhere to the privacy standards controlling government-generated public and private information. After all, B.C. OnLine is intended to act both as collector and protector of information managed and distributed by the province.

I recognize that Bill 48 is merely an enabling piece of legislation, which is frustrating. It's frustrating because B.C. OnLine is a valuable public asset -- not just as a financial or monetary concern but also as a public policy concern. Unfortunately, Bill 48 fails to address those two issues. B.C. OnLine plays a significant role in the administration of justice in this province. B.C. OnLine is a valuable government data collection and information retrieval service, and it is vital to have more accountability and openness concerning its disposition.

I heard the minister state that this would provide better opportunities for employment. On this side of the House, we would encourage more employment opportunity. But again, we are seeking to ensure that when we are dealing with a public asset, the very best value is obtained and public policy is considered first and foremost as well. Because this bill lacks that kind of information, I would have to state that we would be opposed to the way this bill has been brought forward. During committee stage, there will be some questions that we will have to look at, and I would hope the minister would be able to at least provide us with some more information in that regard. With those comments, I take my seat.

G. Plant: I want to support and, I think, elaborate upon some of the concerns identified by my colleague in her remarks a few minutes ago. I was thinking earlier this evening about what B.C. OnLine is and remembering that in the not yet so very long ago of the early days of my law practice, when people wanted to find out information about land titles, corporate officers, directors, the status of personal property security, chattel mortgages and the like, oftentimes the only way you could get access to that information was by a personal search of the principal registries. For people working in the law firms in Vancouver, for example, it often meant that you had to hire an agent here in Victoria to go and make a search. All of that information was there in hard copy, and most of it -- 15 or 16 years ago -- was only accessible in that way. And this is the kind of information that is now under the authority of what here is called B.C. OnLine.

What's changed in the last 15 years is that most, if not all, of that information is now available across British Columbia to people who have online access; it's available electronically. If you have the right software or the right program or whatever it is in your computer in your law office or even at home, you can find out that information simply with a few key strokes and the necessary commands.

What has happened is that access to that information has become easier, but at the same time, the fundamental importance of all of this information to the way our economy operates has not changed. For the most part, the kinds of information that B.C. OnLine makes available are not really voluntary information, in the sense. . . . It's not information like marketing surveys; it's not commercial information. It's information that is really legal; it's part of the structure of how we administer companies and land titles and the motor vehicle registry and that kind of thing. It's not something that people do in the sense of. . . . When they create information by, say, entering into a client agreement or a customer agreement with a bank, where they can sign a client account agreement, and the bank creates information and then a whole host of issues arise around that. It's not really purely commercial information, although it has an enormously important commercial importance.

[6:45]

But I'm not going to be able to support this particular exercise in privatization. I'm not going to be able to support it partly for the reasons that I've already begun to outline, which is that I'm not very comfortable about the notion that we could take out of the control of the public sector the accountability that goes along with information that's in the hands of an agency or a ministry of the Crown and move that kind of information into the private sector. I begin with a sort of level

[ Page 10418 ]

I have been a member of the special committee of the Legislative Assembly on the four-year review of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That committee undertook its first round of hearings in the latter part of 1997 and the first part of 1998. On February 24 the commissioner of information and privacy made a submission to that special committee. In fact, it is attached at the end of his latest annual report. I want to point out to you, Madam Speaker, the fact that the commissioner came to us as a committee with that submission. He included in it a chapter on the very subject we have before us. The title of that chapter is: "The Privatization and Contracting-Out of Government Services." He talks about some of the issues that I think should be of concern to us here in this chamber when we look at the bill before us.

The commissioner said a few things that I think ought to be part of the record of this debate, and so I'm going to read them into the record. The commissioner said this:

"My view is that where governments privatize services that ministries and Crown corporations previously had provided, fundamental access to records and protection of privacy rights may be minimized or lost for both the public and employees. Government should examine ways of transferring these rights in the act to any newly privatized entity, just as successor rights apply in the labour law context."

The commissioner goes on to point out how he is has worked with ministries of the Crown in relation to some of these projects, including, I assume, this particular project. I'll have a little bit more to say about that in a few minutes. I think that when the commissioner of information and privacy is telling us that there are important questions that arise in the context of projects like this, that obviously we should listen to him.

Some of the issues -- and I'm sure that they're the most important issues -- that arise when we look at this particular project, the idea of privatizing B.C. OnLine, are these. The first one, I suppose, is financial considerations. The service which B.C. OnLine now provides comes at a cost to users. I think that government needs to take care to ensure that the provider of the service, who will become the operator of the agreement which is the subject matter of this bill, has an opportunity to earn a reasonable profit but not to gouge users -- not to earn an unreasonable profit in circumstances where we're talking about information which is really not, as I said earlier, voluntary. It's involuntary. It's information that in many cases people have no choice about. They need to obtain access to it as a part of doing their legal or commercial business. We're creating a monopoly here, and there's always a risk that a monopoly will abuse its powers in terms of overcharging for its services.

The other thing that we need to be mindful of is that, in large measure, this is a project intended to save the government a lot of money or to improve the bottom line in its budget. The request for proposals and the commercial dealings to date have all contemplated that this transaction is going to close before the end of this fiscal year. So whatever the price is for the sale, that's a big, whopping chunk of money that's going to come into government revenue for the current fiscal year. That's probably a good thing. But after that, if my understanding of the transaction is right, the government is going to lose a source of revenue. I'm told that the revenue this year or last year is on the order of $20 million. That's a significant source of revenue. Those considerations need to be taken into account when we look at this transaction.

The other concern, which I've already identified by quoting from the report from the information commissioner, is the one around privacy. What is going to happen when the information which is currently under the control of government, with the protections that are available because of that, goes out into the private sector? The information that we're talking about now is, in many respects, in the hands of and under the administration of public bodies, within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The operator of this B.C. OnLine service, the person who is the successful bidder at the end of the day, will not be a public body within the meaning of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We won't have those sorts of statutory protections for privacy rights that exist now with respect to the information in these databases.

Privacy is an issue. I could talk at great length about my concerns about whether this government has a coherent policy around the protection of privacy, but let me make a point that is specific to how I see the problem here. The minister may stand up and say: "I accept all of the member's concerns around the protection of privacy. We're going to ensure that in the contract we make with the successful bidder, the bidder agrees to be subject to all of the protections in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." That's certainly a lot better than nothing. The question, though, is whether it is as good as having that protection in the body of a statute.

We could, for example, make the operator of this on-line service a public body within the meaning of the act. That might even be a further improvement on the current proposal. But we know that out there in the private sector, the ordinary citizens of British Columbia -- whose privacy rights are at risk or at least at issue with this exercise in privatization -- are probably going to have less direct protection in respect of that problem than they would have or do have now when the on-line service is provided by government.

I don't say that that's a fatal flaw in the project. It's more an issue, from my perspective, of the unfortunate fact that we don't have here in this statute a guarantee that in fact that will be so. What we have here in a really open-ended enabling act. So when the minister stands up and says: "I agree with the member. There are privacy issues. Trust me. We'll do a deal with the operator that will ensure that the operator is bound by the appropriate protection for freedom-of-information and privacy issues. . . ." My problem is that I've reached the point, I'm sorry to say, that when the government stands up and says, "Trust us," I'm not willing to do that.

Here's another issue -- access. Right now, I think that if you want access to B.C. OnLine services, everybody pays the same amount. Will that be the same approach taken by the operator of this service? It may be that the operator decides

[ Page 10419 ]

There are probably issues around data disclosure. What is the operator of this service going to be able to do with this information, other than the existing uses for people who subscribe to the service? Are people going to be able to buy lists of security instruments, so that they can do marketing projects -- just like B.C. Hydro does when it offers security systems to its customers? I'm very uneasy about that. I have concerns about that, and I don't see anything in this bill that statutorily and as a matter of law alleviates those concerns.

Lastly, there is the issue of accountability, which my colleague referred to. That is really just the basic question of whether or not it's good public policy to take all of this information which is, more or less, now under the umbrella of government and move it outside the protection of that umbrella. I don't see enough here in this statute. . . . In fact, I don't see anything in this bill that gives me the comfort I'd like to have as a legislator, to ensure that when government goes off and makes this deal it will ensure that there are appropriate accountability mechanisms in place.

Those are some of the specific issues that are of concern to me. I suppose there is one other question -- that is, when we take a significant part of the information database that the government has, a significant block of it -- what government knows about us, about our commercial affairs, about our businesses and, in some respects, about our private lives -- and we move it out into this commercial entity, the question then arises: who, in practical terms, is going to start to set information policy? By moving this service outside government, will government lose in a practical sense the ability to shape and develop public policy around information management and privacy and those sorts of things?

[7:00]

Fundamentally, it comes down to this: there is a way in which government could probably do this project correctly. If they did, I think I would be standing at the front of the line -- happy to extend a congratulatory handshake. This statute does not provide the safeguards and the mechanisms in the legislation itself which would give me the comfort that I think I'm entitled to at this stage of the project, in order for me to say that the government has done this project properly.

Given the way the statute's drafted, given the fact that we're essentially writing a blank cheque to let the government do this project virtually any way they want to, and given my inability to trust the government with that amount of discretion and authority, I don't think that I can support this bill. So I will be opposing it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend to repeat what's been said by my two colleagues; they've done it very eloquently. All I want to do is to flag one issue in the bill, and I'll raise it in committee and have some more questions then. I see the words: "Despite the Financial Administration Act. . . ." That always makes me very nervous. We will be canvassing that more -- the way that relates to sections 14 and 47 of the Financial Administration Act -- and I hope I get the right answers. That way we can move on a little more quickly.

G. Wilson: Let there be no question that I am staunchly opposed to this act. I believe it to be extremely bad public policy. I think that for us to give enabling legislation to this government essentially to put the sale of public information into private hands is foolish; it's poor public policy. If anybody may not know how I'm going to vote, I'm opposing this bill.

Let me tell you -- for those people who may hear this -- that there are currently 25 people who work for this agency, and it generates for government $35.6 million a year. Why on earth would you want to do that -- put it into the hands of a private corporation and then write into the act: "Despite the Financial Administration Act, Treasury Board may authorize a person that enters into an agreement to operate BC OnLine to retain, as a consideration for the payments to the government by the person under the agreement, all or part of the money to be levied and collected. . . ."? Why on earth would you do that?

What on earth would possess this government to think that B.C. OnLine -- which made $6.5 million in 1990, $13.5 million in 1991, $23.2 million in 1992, $28.1 million in 1993, $32.8 million in 1994, $33.2 million in 1995, $33.8 million in 1996 and in 1997, $35.6 million for government, with 25 employees. . . ? Why would you give that to some private sector operator and let them keep the profit?

Why would any of us in this House vote for this bill? It's ridiculous! Why on earth would we do that, so that some private sector can come along and pick this up and cut a deal, a contract with government, to basically scoop revenue from public information, put it in their hip pocket and leave the government losers in the proposition? Even the members on the opposite bench have got to be really shaking their heads and saying: "Wait a minute here. If that's what this does, let's just not do this. This is not sensible public policy."

For those people who don't know what B.C. OnLine has on tap, maybe they ought to know. We're talking about information currently on the system. Keep in mind that this information is rapidly being expanded to include a whole host of new information. The database itself, which is valued at several hundred million dollars, includes the land titles registry, the corporate registry, the personal property registry, B.C. Assessment information, the manufactured home registry, the gas and electrical permit registry, the site registry, wills search and registration, rural property tax, taxation bulletins, land title practices manual updates, and ICBC motor vehicle branch information on us. This government, when they moved the motor vehicle branch to ICBC, promised this chamber and every British Columbian that it would never, ever be available, because it was private information. And guess what. It's on-line, and we're about to sell it off to create an agency that will allow some private group to use all of this public information to make themselves a big whack of money. It's absolutely ridiculous.

And the database information. . . . What's really irritating is that when the requests for proposals went out and the proposals came in. . . . I understand that there were two: MacDonald Dettwiler and one called NorthWind. That's an interesting group. If you take a look at the principals in

[ Page 10420 ]

They're bringing this bill before the House tonight, and they want our cooperation to go from second reading to committee stage in one night, which I, frankly, was greatly reluctant to give, and I'm still greatly reluctant to give. They want us to do that so that they can expedite the sale of B.C. OnLine and therefore give away $35.6 million to private enterprise. In fact, it will be more than that for 1998 -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of $36.4 million in revenue. What on earth are these guys over there thinking of? Twenty-five staff people generating $36 million, and you want to give it away to some private enterprise.

I've heard members of the Liberal opposition talk about the privacy question, and I think there are some very huge concerns there, to be sure. I'm not going to go back and restate them, because I think the member for Richmond-Steveston articulated very clearly what those concerns are, and I support his position 100 percent on that. But leaving the privacy issues aside -- because this bill provides absolutely no protection. . . . The member's absolutely correct; there's nothing stipulated or specified in this act with respect to those. Leaving all that aside, we have to ask ourselves how a government can be so colossally dumb as to take a base of public information that is worth a billion by the time it's expanded, sell it off for. . . . I think $100 million is what they're negotiating on the sale -- which this private group will make back in roughly three years, and after that will simply cash in, in perpetuity. What an absolutely colossally dumb thing to do!

Why would you do it? The database is gathered, generated and put in place anyway. We will still carry the cost of actually putting that information on line. The cost of gathering it, plugging it in and putting it in there -- we carry that cost. What does this private company get? It simply stands at the gate and collects the toll as everybody on-line comes through. What an incredible business! What a wonderful opportunity to get into what is effectively a right to print money!

It's unbelievable that this government would come here and ask us to give them the right to have enabling legislation to put this position in place and basically turn public information over to some private company who can simply stand there. . . . They just plug in on-line, and every time a hit comes in, they get their bucks. What are we looking at here -- 25 staff? Do you know what? Out of that, four people are actually engaged in operations; seven of them are in administration. Only four people actually operate it -- $35.6 million last year. They have six help desks, because they switch it around. In terms of marketing and planning, they have two people in marketing and one person in planning. There's no overhead cost to running this. This is not a huge burden to government. The cost -- if there is any cost -- is in actually tabulating the information and putting it on line, and that cost stays with government. We don't get the benefit of that.

The vast majority of hits are for land title searches: 173,000 of them in terms of sample transaction numbers up to March 1998; 173,000 hits on land title searches alone. Now, that's not going to go down; that's going to go up. So even if they didn't expand the database to include more data, you're going to have more hits, because there are going to be more property sales and transactions on property because the population's rising, because there are more people in land ownership and because you're going to have a greater amount of money. Why would the government -- when they have virtually no increased overhead costs -- sell it off to some private company so that they can make all that money, instead of having that money go into general revenue? It defies explanation.

In 1996-97, in terms of the actuals, there were 4.48 million transactions. The member for Richmond-Steveston raised a very, very interesting point. Right now, we have an equal access policy, and the cost of those transactions is levied to make sure that that information is available equally and freely to all British Columbians. Figure it out. B.C. OnLine sells to a private enterprise who knows that legal firms, that other kinds of businesses that are involved in title searches, are going to be prepared to have a two-tiered access cost. They will jack up that price on 4.48 million transactions. Just figure out the amount of money we're talking about here. This is a cash cow of enormous proportions, which will allow a private company, when this government sells it off, to make huge amounts of money.

This is just the craziest thing I've seen these guys do yet, and I've seen some pretty crazy things. It's kind of like a hockey team trading off their top three players and saying: "Well, they're the only ones that anybody would pay for." That's true. But you end up with a team that can't win a game.

There are those people who've said to me: "Gord, you know, you can't sell off government assets that don't make any money. So you only sell off the ones that make money." That's great. Let's leave government with all the government services that don't make any money and flog off all the ones that do, so we lose the revenue stream from those that are actually cash-effective. It is absolutely mind-boggling that the government would attempt to do this -- 4.48 million transactions; you figure it out. That's before we have put on-line the expanded database, which is coming on stream in 1998, 1999, and the year 2000.

You know why they didn't want to give us that seven-year plan? You know why that internal document wasn't released to me? They say: "We can't do that, because it prejudices the two companies that are involved in this potential purchase." I would strongly urge people to take a look at how that's going to work, because I tell you, there are some familiar names associated with this little deal. It might explain why this government would want to do this.

Let me say this: when you take a look at what that expanded base is. . . . If I can measure this client growth chart since July 1989, and it takes us through to January 1998. . . . If we take a look at that client growth rate, we are looking at a client growth rate that is in excess of -- in terms of percentage -- a 600 percent increase. Why would you get rid of this? Twenty-five people generate $36 million -- only four of whom are there and actually accessing data. There are no overhead costs. It's crazy.

[7:15]

[ Page 10421 ]

When I started to do my little title search to find out who was in the running, I found that there were predominantly only two companies. One was a very reputable group, the MacDonald Dettwiler group, but the other was NorthWind, a fairly new group. When you start to see who the principals are, you find that there are former ministers of the Crown involved, and other people who are directly associated with government, and other people. . . . And I'm thinking to myself: "Wait a minute. Just wait a minute here. This is really, really not good news."

There is no reason for us to do this, absolutely no reason at all. It is foolish policy. It is bad public policy and, as far as I'm concerned, when I call division on this matter, I think the members opposite -- if they have read this bill and understand the implication of this bill -- will stand and vote against it. We have to see who believes that we should be selling off a public asset and giving away the revenue stream to government, and who believes that we should be standing up to protect those issues.

Let me very briefly end by saying two things about the matter of the content of public information that is on-line, and this question of whether or not it's something that we should in fact sell.

The government has a right to collect and be able to put on line information that is necessary for the general commerce of the province. And, yes, it is also important for us to have a certain level of checks against credit, liens and those sorts of things, in order to protect people who are involved in the general business community. All of that information is a useful safeguard when we're involved in day-to-day commerce and industry. But I don't trust what is going into the expanded database. We were promised that the information that went into ICBC, when the merger of the motor vehicle branch and ICBC came together, wouldn't be on-line. Anybody who has gone and renewed their licence will know that now what you have to do is actually sign your signature on that computer, and into the computer goes your signature.

Why do we do this? That's a good question. There was a famous pop group once that talked about all privacy and no secrecy, and I'll tell you that I think we are now. . . . Or is it the other way around: all secrecy and no privacy? I don't know -- it was back in the sixties, and that's a blur in my mind.

An Hon. Member: Say no more.

G. Wilson: We'll say no more on that question.

The point is, hon. Speaker, that you simply do not breach the trust of the public by taking public information and selling it off to private enterprise, so that private enterprise can profit from the normal course of information exchange which the government has an obligation and responsibility to provide in the course of normal business. You don't do it; it's immoral. I think it breaks trust with the people of British Columbia, and I think that that's an important consideration.

Lastly, I think we have to consider whether or not this government has given serious enough thought to the whole matter of privacy, which was raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston. I think that that question is a very serious question, and one that I think should be added to the list of reasons why we should not pass this legislation and why I will be voting against it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's been very interesting debate on second reading. I know the member for Richmond-Steveston would wish me to confirm his remarks -- that I share all of his concerns. But I won't give him that pleasure. I'm being facetious, hon. Speaker. He does raise some very important concerns that are on point and will be addressed.

I would ask the House to consider that this is enabling legislation in order for this government to merely proceed one step further with the commitment it made to the high-tech industry here in British Columbia in our electronic highway accord. I know the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was in full flight about a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately, it's just simply not there.

When this government made a commitment to wind down B.C. Systems Corporation, at the request of the high-tech industries, so that the private sector could flourish, one of the specific issues that was addressed was government engaging in business in-house, in a very closed way, that could easily be provided by a burgeoning high-tech industry. We agreed in the electronic highway accord that all of the protections for the public -- all of the privacy protections -- would have to be adhered to and that revenue streams for government had to be protected, but that given all of those premises, where government could allow the private sector to take over the provision of services through information technology, we would work toward that goal. This is merely one step further along what has been a fairly slow delivery, I would say, by our government on that accord.

There is no conspiracy. This is enabling legislation at the request of an industry that, as we all know, in diversifying our economy, we must attract and encourage. We must encourage and attract it, not at the expense of the public, not at the expense of privacy rights, but in conjunction with protecting those rights and obligations. With that, I would suggest that those of us who support this enabling legislation will stand up and say: "It's good. It's the right move for our economy. It's the right move to encourage the private sector -- the high-tech sector -- to do those things that they can do just as well as, if not better than, government and still protect the public interest."

[7:30]

Second reading of Bill 48 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 35
Zirnhelt	McGregor	Kwan
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy

[ Page 10422 ]

 

NAYS -- 20
Gingell	Farrell-Collins	Plant
Chong	Whittred	Anderson
Penner	G. Wilson	Weisgerber
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Coleman
Hansen	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Dalton	Masi
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Bill 48, BC OnLine Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

BC ONLINE ACT

On section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question with regard to the operator and that definition. I have heard different things. The minister keeps referring to the sale of B.C. OnLine, and the bill talks about somebody being entitled to operate B.C. OnLine. I'm just wondering what the arrangement is. Is the operator going to. . . ? Is it a lease? Is it a long-term lease? Is there going to be a revenue stream to the government in perpetuity? Is it a five-year thing? Is it a ten- or two-year. . . ? I'm wondering what the parameters are and what the definition of the operator is in this case.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's a legitimate question, and it allows me to address some of the concerns of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

When one is dealing with information, often the terminology has to be used carefully. What is contemplated -- and again, this is contemplated -- is the sale of the operation. The ability to operate is sold -- the rights to that -- but the revenue stream stays with government.

G. Farrell-Collins: This perhaps ties in a little bit with section 2, but I'll try and keep with section 1. The minister is telling me that they're selling the right to operate. So it's not a contract, and it's not a five-year or a two-year thing; it's essentially a sale once and for all. The right to operate that rests with this company -- or the plan is that it would rest with this company -- is forever. There would be a revenue stream. That's where we'll get when we get into the next section.

Now, my understanding is that the revenue will be collected by the operator and that in the agreement and on a schedule determined between the two by contract and ultimately set up legally by the government -- the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- through regulation, a certain amount of money would come to the Crown on an ongoing basis, and I assume that's forever. You're selling this forever, so I assume that stream would go on in perpetuity also and that some portion of the revenue that's generated will be allowed to rest with the operator and that it will be their revenue stream as compensation for them purchasing the right to operate. Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just say that there is no contract or agreement yet, so if we could just talk in terms of what is contemplated. . . . There will be a term on the sale -- it is anticipated, I should say. . . . It would be a minimum of five years. There has been speculation around five or seven years. At the end of a contract with a specific term, there would be an opportunity to bring it back into government or renegotiate at that time. What is contemplated is that the operator will expand the service. If the operator expands the service or gives greater access to the service, there would be revenue generated from that in the form of a developmental charge for expansion that goes to the operator, or the operator might indeed receive an individual service charge. Those are the contemplations about the sale.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the operator expands this service. . . . I know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, in his second reading address, gave some examples and some projected expansion in the revenue stream. Can the minister tell us what type of expansion the government is foreseeing? I mean, obviously that would be part of the negotiations that are ongoing. This operator would be trying to come to the government and suggest: "Here is the expansion in revenue that we see as possible. Here are the other types of information that we may be online." I assume that's what the expansion means -- not just an increase in cost or increase in revenue but also a broadening of the information that's available. There must be some projection at this point on what that might be and what that income might be to the operator. What would then be the projected increase in the revenue stream for the government also? Will the government in fact be making more money under this system -- the sale to the operator -- than it's currently making if the government were not to invest any further funds of its own in the expansion of the operation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. One of the points that the high-tech sector made to government was: "If you allow us to offer new services, expand technologies, software programs and hardware programs and make them accessible to certain programs that are operated now from a low-tech or a non-tech basis, we would be able to expand products available to government -- on-line." That's what's contemplated in this amongst the people who are bidding to take over this product, and there is a potential for expanded revenue to government and a potential for expansion of revenue to the purchaser of B.C. OnLine as well. It's a win-win.

G. Farrell-Collins: Will the government in each of these five or seven years continue to receive at least the amount that they are currently receiving, or is there a projection that in fact that revenue stream will be less?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: The other area that I want to ask some questions about is. . . . What requirements are there going to be on the operator? And what protection will there be required in the contract for the operator surrounding the protection of privacy -- as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the member for Richmond-Steveston said -- for the vast amount of information that's contained and

[ Page 10423 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are working with the information and privacy commissioner to ensure that his office agrees with the sale and that the laws are fully complied with. So through contractual arrangement, any person that is permitted to operate B.C. OnLine will have to comply with the laws as they exist.

G. Farrell-Collins: I missed the last sentence, so I apologize if I'm asking a redundant question which she just answered. Did the minister say that whoever the operator is, they will still be bound by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? Will the freedom of information commissioner be the one holding them accountable? Will that structure continue as it currently does with B.C. OnLine and as it is presently contained within the government? Is there any change at all contemplated there with regard to that accountability structure and the overseeing of the information?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again -- and please, I'm not obfuscating here -- the details of the contract have not even been negotiated with any bidder in that area, but our requirement of any contract that is signed is that the laws be complied with. We're working with the B.C. information and privacy commissioner to determine how that occurs.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me what the time line is with regard to this contract? Are we going to see it signed in two months or three months or six or ten? The reason I ask that question -- if I can ask two in one -- is that we're being asked to give a. . . . This is really the only check and balance, I suppose, that the Legislature has on this contract being let or this sale being undertaken. If this Legislature grants the right to sidestep the Financial Administration Act as contained in this bill, then the government really has no requirement to come back to this House at all in order to do this deal.

[7:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the point. The problem is that it's a bit of a catch-22 situation. It would be difficult to have anyone agree to take over the operation of B.C. OnLine if there was a law preventing them from having a flow of revenue, which is what. . . . If this legislation is not passed, there would be no ability for an agent of government to allow for revenue to flow to them.

I'm actually more than happy to, in the period of negotiation with whomever. . . . If the government narrows down the negotiation to one bidder, then the negotiation occurs. I expect that will take about 60 to 90 days. I would be more than happy to meet with members of the opposition and brief them on those terms, and I welcome their input as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: When this contract is being written up -- and I don't know exactly what stage it's at -- one of the concerns is: what happens if it doesn't work? We've got another project underway right now, which is photo radar. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not it's functioning. That's beside the point at this juncture. In the event that the service is not what the government or the public wants, that the Freedom of Information Act isn't being complied with completely, that this company tries to expand into areas that the government doesn't want them expanding into, that it doesn't produce the revenue stream that the government is expecting, that those types of things occur -- or others that, perhaps, at this stage are unforeseeable -- what ability will there be to get out of that contract either to bring it back into government or to have a different operator come in and operate it?

There have been times. . . . AirCare is an example. Photo radar is another example of various things that have had their rough spots. Every time that happens we've been told that there's no way to get out of those contracts. So I'm hoping that part of this -- which is not really, but it is sort of like a public-private partnership in that the operator is going to be the one investing new capital in expanding this project, as opposed to the government having to invest the capital. . . . So it is sort of like that. What I would like to know is that when you're allotting the risk for this expansion -- essentially, the government is not taking the risk; the operator will assume the risk -- there is some accountability, and that in the event that there is non-performance by the operator, there is some recourse for the taxpayers of British Columbia to get out of that arrangement and to deal with it in a way that is respectful to the taxpayers -- the people who owned this product in the beginning. What provisions are there going to be in this sale contract or agreement that aren't there in the other ones signed? What have we learned from the other contracts to operate government programs, and how will that be incorporated into this agreement?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, but I can't be drawn into a comparison of other contracts because I'm not familiar with them. But let me offer this: all proponents that have bid on this request for proposal have been advised that there will be service requirements and financial penalties for non-compliance, and there will be no expansion of service without government agreement.

G. Plant: My colleague has asked most of the questions that I wanted to have answered. I appreciate the minister's offer to keep us informed at particular moments of the status of things, so that we can perhaps get some sense of where the government is moving on some of the issues of concern -- the issues that have been identified by all people on this side of the House. One probably tragically simple-minded question. . . . I'm still not sure that I understand what it means to expand the service. I think there are 11 separate databases, 11 separate sets of information -- corporate information, land title information, personal property and motor vehicle.

Does expansion mean adding more databases -- that is, going to another type of information that the government currently has, which is not currently on B.C. OnLine, and adding that? That's one possibility for expansion. Another is

[ Page 10424 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The first is a reassurance that there will be no expansion that in any way impedes protection of privacy; that's a given. I'm almost reluctant to give this example, because the member opposite knows more about this than I do. I understand there's a potential for some sort of expansion of the electronic filing of court documents. That's an area where they are done currently done manually, but there's the potential for electronic filing. I use that only as an example. Certainly we're not down the road there or anything, but that is an area that could be explored, for instance.

G. Plant: So in effect, it's taking a whole new chunk of government activity that involves information -- which, in the case of the example, is now all manually done and is public -- and bringing that into the system. I think the minister is nodding to suggest that I'm understanding the concept correctly. It's helpful to me to have that clarification.

The last thing is to go over some of the ground that my colleague asked about, to make sure that I understand it, under the pretence of trying to make it simpler, which I seldom succeed at doing. I think the idea here is that the income back to government from this is not fixed; it's capable of growing over time as the service grows, so that government has a stake in the success of the project. It's not washing its hands forever, for all time, on the basis of a one-time-only purchase price. Over time, as things grow -- if they grow successfully -- government and therefore presumably the taxpayers would also benefit. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member's point -- that the government has a stake in getting a cut of any growth or in making sure that a contract is not static and good for all time -- is absolutely correct.

G. Wilson: The act says that "BC OnLine" means an information system -- we're not talking about the information; we're talking about the information system -- and that the "operator" is someone who will operate that system.

For anybody who may be watching and trying to understand what we're doing on their behalf tonight, let me attempt to find an analogy. Imagine the information system as a bus. That bus has 50 seats, and each of those 50 seats represents a pool of information about yourselves. Right now, every time you want to get on the bus, you have to pay some money, and the operator of that bus is government. So right now government collects 100 percent of the revenue from anybody who gets on that bus and goes to the seat to find the information they need.

This bill removes the government from the operator's seat and sells the seat to somebody who is private. That private person will now collect all the revenue from somebody who gets on the bus to go in and access that information. Should the bus go from a 50-seat to a 100-seat bus, many, many more people will be accessing that bus at far, far greater profit -- 100 percent of which goes to the government right now. After this bill goes through, the government will not receive it. That's what this bill does. The operating expense -- the cost of getting on that bus to access that information, to get to that seat -- is run by the operator. That's what the bill does. For the minister to try and suggest that it does anything else is not helpful here. B.C. OnLine, the bus itself, will still remain; the pool of information will remain. In fact, you may have an expansion of that, as I've just explained, but you're allowing somebody else to have that revenue. So effectively, Bill 48 sells the revenue stream. That's what it does, and it does that in the next section despite the Financial Administration Act. Is that not correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it's not. Let me make it clear that the revenue stream continues to government. What this government is trying to do is work with the high-tech industry sector, which has said that government may not know how best to deliver services. Government may not have the innovative technology or the capability to invest in research and development to expand high-technology services that benefit the customer and continue a revenue stream to government. That's exactly why we decided to no longer continue the Crown corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation, and that's why we're carrying on with this next step in the electronic highway accord.

The member needs to be reassured that the revenue stream continues to government and at the same privacy matters will be protected, but at the same time, privacy matters will be protected. We are saying that the private sector is given the opportunity to use its own research and development skills, its own high-technology development to deliver this service not only on behalf of government while maintaining the revenue stream but also while expanding that technology.

G. Wilson: We'll get into a little bit more of that discussion when we get into section 2. In terms of the operator, if we look at the actual gross revenue. . . . Let's take the 1997 figure: $35.6 million coming into government, the operator right now. Is the minister telling us that after this is over and the agreement is made with whoever is the successful bidder, that revenue stream to government is going to remain unchanged, that there will be no difference in the government's gross amount of revenue and that no portion of that revenue stream will given to the new operator? Will the operator not access any of that money?

[8:00]

G. Wilson: I know that no contract has been signed, but the reason that I couldn't get a seven-year plan, which has been made internally and has provided the projections that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain was asking for, is because all of the documentation is done. We all know what the seven-year projection is in terms of the value of this. . . . All the documentation has been done. I've talked to people inside who know it's been done. The reason I couldn't get it is

[ Page 10425 ]

I come back to my question again. If we're about to sign this agreement, is it not true that the 100 percent of revenue that now comes to government will no longer come to government and that at least some portion of it, up to and including possibly 100 percent, will go to the new operator of the system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Because the member thinks that he has inside information, I'm reluctant to discuss what is potentially a commercial transaction. There is nothing that the member says that, from a commercial viability point of view, will not be met in any agreement that we sign. The member is not correct in his assumption on flow of revenues.

G. Wilson: I don't know how the people who think they're getting in to operate this feel they're going to make money if in fact the revenue stream continues to go to government.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, wait and see.

G. Wilson: "Well, wait and see," the minister says. Frankly, we're a little reluctant to wait and see, because we're talking about losing a potential 100 percent revenue flow to government by selling the operation of B.C. OnLine to a private operator. That's what this section says. It says: ". . .'operator' means the person that enters into an agreement referred to in section 2 to operate BC OnLine."

Now, the next question is this: does the operator -- and I ask this partially on behalf of the member for Richmond-Steveston who has asked it, and I think it's an excellent question -- have property rights in the information once this agreement is signed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

G. Wilson: So the analogy of the bus is correct, then. We own it, they operate it and they charge revenue for everybody who gets on to access the information. The next question is with respect to the information system. It says, at the B.C. OnLine definition: ". . .means the information system operated by the Information Technology Systems Division of the Ministry of Advanced Education. . . ." That revenue stream is currently being expanded. It is being expanded; the minister knows it's being expanded. There are increased amounts of information being put on-line. Now, the cost of that expansion is being carried by government, and yet the benefit from it is going to go directly to the operator. This expanded number of seats on the bus will allow the operator to get a whole bunch more revenue when a whole bunch more people access that information. So could the minister tell us why we would want to bring on somebody, under the definition of "operator," who would take even 1 percent of the revenue that government now gets 100 percent of?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have already said that this is a continuation of delivering on the electronic highway accord. Even though the status quo may be acceptable to the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in terms of services and the development of high technology and knowledge-based services, the world out there has said to us that much more can be done. Government has said that if you have the research, the development, the marketing techniques to expand and grow the industry, then so be it -- make a proposal to us. And that's exactly what's happened.

I do have to move an amendment on section 1 -- I assume we're still on section 1.

The Chair: Yes, that's correct.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the amendment to section 1 that I have tabled and that the members opposite have.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the proposed definition of "BC OnLine" and substituting the following: "BC OnLine" means the information system operated by the Information Technology Services Division of the Information Science and Technology Agency and known as BC OnLine.]

G. Wilson: Just to clarify, because this is the very first minute I've seen it, the only change in what we're looking at is "systems" to "services." Is that what we're doing here?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It says that it's not a division of the Ministry of Advanced Education; it's a division of the Information, Science and Technology Agency.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've got a couple of quick questions on section 2, because it's really the heart of the bill -- if this bill has a heart; there's not much there. But it's sort of the empowering part and the reason this bill has come forward. It has that clause that I said I was concerned about: "Despite the Financial Administration Act. . . ." Now, it seems to me that one section in the Financial Administration Act that the sale of B.C. OnLine would relate to is section 14, which is on the collection and management of public money, and which says essentially that if anybody is empowered to collect money for the government of British Columbia, they have to give it all to the government. The other is section 47, which is the charging for services and use of property.

I'm wondering if I'm correct in my assumption that those are the two sections that need to be bypassed and therefore require section 2 in this bill to be implemented.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is correct in pointing to section 14. It's my view that section 47 does not need to be bypassed, but I certainly would be happy to investigate that for the member and to see whether there are issues around that. The reason why the Financial Administration Act is listed there -- with the word "despite" -- is section 14(2). Section 14(2) of the Financial Administration Act allows for us to pay a fee for the collection of revenue. What we anticipate. . . . The reason why we're contracting this is to grow the service. To grow the service, a company may have to invest in development and marketing, etc. -- in which the government shares, but they have expenses as well. There may have to be an ability to compensate in any expansion for increased costs that are over and above the simple collection of revenue.

G. Farrell-Collins: From my reading of the Financial Administration Act, there would be a way to do this deal

[ Page 10426 ]

Let me just see where it is here. I'll read it: "If a service or the use of property is provided by the government to any person, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may by directive set a fee or a charge to be paid by the person to whom the service or the use of the property is provided." So one could do it either way. Under one section you would be paying them a fee for collection; under the other you'd be charging them for the use of the property. What's being done here is different.

What I'm curious about is: why is neither of those two options -- the ones presented by sections 14 and 47 -- doable? Why is the structure contained in Bill 48 required?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In reviewing exactly those issues, we came to the conclusion that it was more transparent to have an act that deals specifically with this situation, and not to open up the Financial Administration Act in a way that. . . . The Financial Administration Act would have to be amended and specific to this particular sale. It was with a sense of transparency that an individual act was introduced.

G. Wilson: That's an interesting explanation. Just a few minutes ago I had suggested to the minister -- and again I will use the analogy of the bus, because it may be easier for some people to understand -- that this says that the agreement for the operator. . . . When this private bus driver comes on there -- because we've removed the government as the bus driver and the person or agency collecting the fees -- this private bus driver can collect and keep up to 100 percent of the money. That's what this says.

The reason that they can do that is because we have decided -- notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, which under section 14 prohibits anybody from keeping 100 percent of the money, and notwithstanding section 47, as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has just pointed out, quite correctly, that we wanted to enter into a contract for services. . . . We have decided that this operator can now keep up to 100 percent of that money, money that is ordinarily, under the current conditions, going 100 percent to government.

When I said that that's what this did, the minister said no, I was wrong. So maybe the minister can explain how I'm wrong.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I think the member misses the point that this is enabling legislation, and it's drafted in that fashion. The contract will specify the flow of revenue.

G. Wilson: Of course it's enabling legislation. It enables the government to enter into a contract that can do precisely what I've just suggested it can do. When we all walk out of here and go and do whatever we're going to do, this government is going to conclude an agreement with a private contractor -- and I'm told that there are two who are currently in the bidding -- and they're going to conclude that agreement. That agreement certainly could -- it may not; it doesn't say it will -- allow that operator to receive 100 percent of that revenue that currently goes to government. Yes, it's enabling, but that's what this does. It says that notwithstanding the fact that we've built in checks. . . . I think it's important for members of the public -- and for the record -- to know what protection is under section 14.

[8:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no conspiracy. Collection on behalf of government occurs at many levels in the commercial sector. This will be another one of those. Collections on behalf of the government are done through contract and are also subject to the Auditor General Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: Let me try and see if I can clarify this a bit for myself and perhaps for others. There were two other options that the government could choose -- the one under section 14 and the one under section 47 -- whereby the money would come from the customer and be directed to the government. Then the government, under section 14, would have paid a fee back to that individual or group in exchange for collecting that money. That could have been structured in such a way, with a schedule and regulations, etc., to adjust for whatever investments and to compensate for whatever investments they were going to make. And that would have been under section 14 of the Financial Administration Act.

Under section 47 of the Financial Administration Act, the government could have collected the money in a similar fashion, but as a way to compensate, they could have essentially sent it all back to the operator and then have the operator pay a fee to the government for the use of that public property. What's been done in Bill 48 is this: the property or the right to use the property by contract will be sold for a period of time to a third party -- a company of some sort. That company, in addition to having that right, will also become a collector of revenue for the government. They will administer it all. Rather than having to, as in either section 14 or 47, funnel the money through the government, they will collect that money. By contract, some portion of it will be given to the government as payment in order to use the information that was public property.

I think the concern that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is raising is the phrase -- and this is the one that he seems to be concerned about -- "all or part of the

[ Page 10427 ]

One could argue that there may be a schedule, and some of the fees -- maybe 100 percent of them -- will rest with the company. They may be some of the charges that, quite frankly, are more costly to administer, and 100 percent of the costs of those. . . . They may be the information bits; I don't know exactly how B.C. OnLine works. But there may be some information that essentially either costs the government more than the fee they get or is about neutral. They don't really make any money on that. There may be other bits of information, because of the schedule of fees, that they actually do make a lot of money on. I don't know exactly how it works.

There would be some items in the schedule set up by regulation where, in fact, you would allow the company to keep 100 percent, because that reflects their cost. There may be other parts in the schedule where they may only keep 20 percent of it, and 80 percent of it may go back to the government. Therefore instead of it all being pooled into one big lump sum and then a portion going to the government, in fact it would be structured and scheduled so that there would be costs and revenues associated with each item. At the end you'd tally it all up, and there would be some accounting of that, and then a certain chunk would go back to the government. Is that last assumption correct? If it is, perhaps it makes me more comfortable and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast a little more comfortable too.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that is exactly right. To clarify one point, though -- not a point that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain made but the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made -- government still owns the database. It's the exclusive access to the database and the delivery of that for which the fees will be charged. Yes, it is contemplated. . . . The industry told us they would be able to do this: they can expand access to that through different hours, through a whole range of different electronic accesses. There may be a different set of fees charged. The revenue stream flows to government. We thought it was clean enough to put in an act that designates this stream of revenue specifically.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the efforts of the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to try and make me feel more comfortable. I don't feel more comfortable, because what the minister has just confirmed is that 100 percent of revenue that now goes to government will no longer go to government for a service that we're providing.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The minister says no. Let me read into the record what the language of this bill says and then have the minister stand up and tell me that I'm wrong: "Despite the Financial Administration Act" -- which is the act that provides for the government to be the sole collector of money -- "Treasury Board may authorize a person that enters into an agreement to operate B.C. OnLine to retain, as consideration for the payments to the government by the person under the agreement, all or part of the money to be levied and collected under the enactments specified by the regulations." The next section, section 2(2), says: "The operator is deemed to be (a) an agent of the government for the purpose of receiving money on behalf of and remitting to the government that portion of the money collected by the person that is not to be retained by that person. . . ." I don't care if the person is getting 10, 15, 20, 50, 75 or 100 percent. The person is getting a portion of money that right now -- 100 percent of it -- is going to government. There is no other way to read that section of the act -- absolutely no other way.

Everybody at B.C. OnLine knows what's going on. If you take a look at what's going on with respect to their request for proposal, the RFP that went out, and if you read that, they don't have a doubt that that's what we're doing. How is it that the minister is the only one who doesn't think that's what we're doing? Everybody else knows what we're doing. Why will the minister not admit that that is what this act does?

Hon. J. MacPhail: What is contemplated. . . . Again, while the member may defend the status quo, this is not about the status quo. This is about an expansion into a high-technology area where more services will be delivered -- different kinds of services and greater access to the services than is currently given. The revenue flow that's contemplated and that government receives now over the course of the contract is still there. What the high-technology sector said to us is: "We can do better than you." And you know what? We listened.

G. Wilson: Let me come down a couple of notches. This really annoys me, and I'm going to try to be civil.

That's not what this language says. That's not what the request for proposal was all about. That's not what two companies -- one of which is going to sign an agreement with the government -- think they would signing. And that certainly is not what was proposed by this legislation.

Let me come back to the expansion that the minister talks about -- the need to expand the database, to move toward expanded hours, to provide greater services. All of that could be done by B.C. OnLine as it is currently constituted; all of it could be done. If we did it that way, 100 percent of the revenue would go to government. So some private contractor. . . . Maybe the minister can tell us who the two bidders are that are close to signing off on this and who the principals of those two contractors are. One of those two is going to be successful at locking into a huge cash cow. They'll be the driver of this bus, and all they have to do is sit there and collect the tariff as people get on and off -- 100 percent of which we get in government today, which they will not.

If we needed to expand services, those expanded services could have been provided by contract through B.C. OnLine. If we wanted to make that agency an expanded and broader agency of government, we could have done it through a flat-fee contract. Those fees could have been put out, and the government could have retained the revenue stream. We didn't do that. We are bringing in an operator and we are giving them an enormous cash cow. Surely to goodness the minister can accept that that's what we are doing, because that is precisely what the language of this bill says and what the request for proposal acknowledges.

There are three questions in my comment. Who are the people that are in final contract negotiations? Which are the companies, and who are the principals involved? Can the minister tell us what percentage of the 100 percent revenue flow to government is anticipated will remain as a revenue stream? And could the minister also tell us what was in the

[ Page 10428 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I won't answer any of those questions. They've got nothing to do with this legislation before us.

Let me just address the point of fundamental disagreement. This legislation enables our government to meet the agreement that we have reached with the high-technology sector when they say: "Government doesn't have to do everything." Government can allow the private sector to expand the industry, develop research technology, be creative in the marketing of that and perhaps create a North American centre for high-technology. The industry said to us: "We can do it better, government." And you know what? We agree.

I expect that the hon. member would have some who would rally around him and say that government should be doing all of this. Government should be expanding. Government should ignore the necessity of a private, high-technology industry here to diversify our economy -- and God knows, our economy needs diversification. So the member disagrees with that. The philosophical disagreement with that has nothing to do with the enabling legislation.

G. Wilson: This is my last comment on section 2, because it's clear that we're not going to get a straight answer from this minister. The three questions I asked, which will now be recorded in Hansard, have everything to do with this legislation. It is through the enabling of government, which this legislation provides, that one of those two bidders will get a contract, the contract will be signed, and British Columbia will no longer receive 100 percent of the revenue for information that the public has on B.C. OnLine. So it has everything to do with this bill.

My last comment on this is a question for the minister. It says under section 2(2)(b): ". . .an agency of the government for the purposes of the Auditor General Act in respect of money collected under an agreement under subsection (1)." The minister has continually told us that there is transparency and that this bill does not in fact affect the revenue stream to government. I believe that to be absolutely, categorically wrong, but nevertheless, that's the assertion that's been made here tonight. In the event that we have, under the auditor's report, an explanation that in fact the revenue stream to government has declined as a result of this, will the minister then be prepared to stand and tell the House that she has misled this House with respect to the proposed intention of this enactment?

[8:30]

On section 3.

G. Wilson: I am really hoping that the public has an opportunity to really scrutinize what is going on here. The minister keeps saying: "The high-tech industry tells us this and the high-tech industry tells us that." You know what? This government is not here to look after the financial well-being of the high-tech industry that wants to access a $1 billion public database. That's not our job. Our job is to make sure that information that's needed in the general course of doing commercial business is available and that if there's a revenue stream to government, we protect it in the public interest.

Under "Power to make regulations," section 3(2) says: "Without limiting subsection (1)" -- which we've talked about already, which is in respect to the definitions of B.C. OnLine and operator -- "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations specifying those enactments for which and the circumstances in which" -- and then it says -- "despite the enactment, money to be paid to the government or to a public officer for a service or information" -- that is, despite that portion -- "may be collected by and retained in whole or in part by the operator under an agreement under this Act." The minister has spent the last hour telling us that the operator could not retain in whole the dollars that are being collected. The regulation provision in this act makes it absolutely specific that the operator may retain in whole the dollars they have been able to generate -- what is now 100 percent government revenue.

Given this regulation requirement, will the minister still stand and try and defend her position that in fact this does not curtail revenue to government, that this does not provide a huge cash cow to whichever one of those two companies might get that contract?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think that question has been asked and answered already.

G. Wilson: Well, the minister may think it's been asked and answered, but I'm not convinced that I've heard the answer. Can the minister specifically make reference to the words "and retained in whole or in part by the operator under an agreement" and tell me if that does not provide, through regulation, the government to enter into a contract that provides 100 percent of revenue to the new operator?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it does not. There are three misapprehensions the member is under. One is that we're selling the database. That is incorrect; we are keeping the database. There will be a revenue stream that flows and that guarantees the same level of revenues over the contract that the government gets now. What it does allow for, though, is someone else to bear the costs of operating the system, so there is no ability, nor will there be in any contract, that doesn't permit the flow of revenues to the government.

The Chair: Bearing in mind, hon. member, the comments by the minister, we would not want to become tedious on this particular section.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. I wasn't sure if you were saying by comparison to the comments by the minister, which are tedious, and that I wouldn't want to repeat them. . . . I wasn't certain how you phrased that. I was curious.

No, I'm coming back to this question because, first of all, I have never suggested for a moment -- and the minister knows this, because the minister has heard my comments -- that we are selling the database.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, you did.

G. Wilson: In fact, I have used the analogy of a bus as the database which the government retains.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Selling the bus.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Through the Chair.

[ Page 10429 ]

Secondly, I have not suggested that there will not be some revenue stream to government. There may well be some revenue stream to government. What the minister has told us is that the revenue stream to government as it exists today will not be interrupted. That means that the dollars that we retained last year -- let's say that it's the roughly $36 million that we got off this system last year -- we will get under this new contract. The minister is telling us that that $36 million is going to be in place and we'll keep it. I'm saying that if that's true, then what is the reason to put into a regulation the ability for this government to sign a contract that would allow the operator to retain in whole the moneys that it has collected under that agreement?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Last time, hon. Chair. The question can be asked over and over again; this is the last time I'm answering it. There is an ability for the business to expand. The hon. member wishes to maintain the status quo; he is not interested in expanding any industry -- the high-technology industry or the services available to the public. I disagree with that. This government disagrees with that. We will be expanding the industry in conjunction with the new operator of B.C. Online.

There may be an opportunity for those who actually do the expansion -- invest in the research and the marketing that allows for the expansion -- to retain a portion of those expanded revenues.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 34
Zirnhelt	McGregor	Kwan
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

NAYS -- 23
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Farrell-Collins	Plant	Abbott
Neufeld	Whittred	Anderson
Penner	G. Wilson	Weisgerber
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hawkins
Coleman	Hansen	Thorpe
van Dongen	Dalton	Masi
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

[8:45]

Bill 48, BC OnLine Act, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 48, BC OnLine Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS -- 35
Zirnhelt	McGregor	Kwan
Hammell	Boone	Streifel
Pullinger	Lali	Orcherton
Stevenson	Calendino	Goodacre
Walsh	Randall	Robertson
Cashore	Conroy	Priddy
Petter	Miller	G. Clark
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Bowbrick	Kasper	Doyle
Giesbrecht		Janssen

 

NAYS -- 23
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Farrell-Collins	Plant	Abbott
Neufeld	Whittred	Anderson
Penner	G. Wilson	Weisgerber
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hawkins
Coleman	Hansen	Thorpe
van Dongen	Dalton	Masi
McKinnon		J. Wilson

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 45.

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

T. Nebbeling: I will be very brief. I agree with the minister that these three amendments do have good support in the

[ Page 10430 ]

The Speaker: Seeing no further people wishing to speak, I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment to close debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments of my colleague across the way. With that, I move second reading of Bill 45.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that Bill 45 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

T. Nebbeling: A quick question on section 1. How would the protective status that is now given to municipalities, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Transportation Financing Authority on improvements done on highways apply when improvement work is done on rights-of-way that are on private lands?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This particular section deals strictly with highways and does not deal with rights-of-way. That would be covered elsewhere.

T. Nebbeling: There is another section that actually gives that protection when highway improvements are done over rights-of-way on private lands. That is basically what I'm looking for. Okay.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 41.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1998
(second reading)

The 1998 provincial budget signaled the government's intention to work with the film and television industry to explore options that would enhance British Columbia's status as a preferred shooting location and that would attract more film and investment to the province. As a result of this consultation process, the government is introducing a production services tax credit, which offers producers of foreign or Canadian film and television projects a refundable tax credit equal to 11 percent of the costs of their B.C. labour. This new tax credit parallels the federal production services tax credit and complements the provincial film incentives that the government announced previously as part of Film Incentive B.C.

Enhancing B.C.'s competitiveness compared to other jurisdictions will keep the film and television industry thriving and create more jobs in the province. In 1997, B.C.'s film industry injected more than $630 million into the provincial economy, supporting about 25,000 direct and indirect jobs. With this new incentive, the film industry predicts that it will grow by 10 percent each year in the next decade, resulting in more than 45,000 new direct and related jobs. Combined with B.C.'s other natural advantages, the production services tax credit will ensure that British Columbia remains one of the leading centres of film production in North America.

While the film industry has been experiencing exponential growth in recent years, the mining industry is currently faced with many challenges, and present levels of exploration are low. For this reason, Bill 41 introduces a mining exploration tax credit that will encourage exploration activity and spur the discovery of new mineral deposits that are required to sustain the industry and to keep well-paying jobs in British Columbia. The mining industry is an important source of jobs and revenue in B.C., with gross revenues of nearly $4 billion in 1997 and more than 20,000 direct and indirect jobs.

The new mining exploration tax credit is designed to support the industry's goal of creating 22,000 new mining-related jobs over the next ten years. The government consulted very closely with the mining industry during the past two months to design this refundable mining exploration tax credit, which is equal to 20 percent of eligible B.C. exploration expenses and is available to both corporations and individual prospectors. The government will continue this collaborative effort with the mining industry to ensure that the program is targeted effectively and is achieving its goal of stimulating new grass-roots exploration.

G. Farrell-Collins: Obviously we are supportive of Bill 41. It does address the longstanding needs of both of those industries. The mining sector in British Columbia has long been one of the major industries in this province. It has been under extreme pressure in the last seven years under the governance of the New Democratic Party, to the point where virtually nobody was exploring for minerals or future mines in any way, shape or form in this province. It's about time that we have this kind of package to at least put the mining industry on life support and hope that, as the effects of this bill kick in, the mining sector will be resuscitated and will once again become the big supporter and creator of good, long-term, family-supporting jobs that it once was. It's taken huge hits in the last number of years.

[ Page 10431 ]

[9:00]

Secondly, the changes to the Income Tax Act with regard to the film industry -- certainly a great industry for British Columbia, a clean industry. . . . There's high labour content in this industry -- highly skilled, high wages. It's a very good profitable sector for British Columbia. We have a beautiful province, and the film industry is one that we should be welcoming and encouraging. We have some of the best skilled workers in this field, and they're known across the world for their abilities. Certainly our scenery is known across the world.

I hope that the amendments in this bill will go further to help broaden the industry, to make it more viable, more successful, and to ensure that those trucks that are sometimes taking up our parking spots when we're looking for a place to park around town stay there -- and that in fact there are more of them. I gladly give up my parking spot when I see those big semi-trailers from the film industry at work, because I know there are hundreds and thousands of people with good-paying jobs. . . . They are not only producing films but also broadcasting across the world how wonderful this province is. So we're highly supportive of the film sector. We hope that these amendments will go a long way to ensure that British Columbia continues to be a competitive place to make films and produce television shows, and that the industry continues to grow and provide good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: I'm going to be very brief. I'm not going to address the mining, other than to say that I'm pleased that we have now decided to move onto the road of being competitive.

I guess that's my concern with the film credit. We have come to know that the film industry is a globally competitive industry. It's an industry in which you must have a vision not only of where you are today but, more importantly, of where you are going to be down the road, especially in the globally competitive marketplace. I am concerned that, once again, in British Columbia we are reacting to competitiveness as opposed to being proactive in knowing exactly where we want to be. This is 1998. Let this government and all of us in this House commit: we need a vision of where we're taking the industry.

This industry cannot be overtaxed. Decisions are made on a cost-competitive basis. The fact that this government delayed its actions since November, when other marketplaces became competitive, has resulted in British Columbia losing production for movies made for television. We have lost. . . . It's documented; they've gone to other markets.

So I challenge this government to understand that it has to stay competitive. I want this government -- and, of course, the government that will follow -- to be very proactive in its taxation rates so that we can support industries in British Columbia and grow our economy, therefore creating employment. I will support this delayed tax cut and hope that this government can become much more proactive in its approach.

The Speaker: Seeing no further folks seeking recognition, I recognize, in closing debate, the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Income tax Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1998

Sections 1 through 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

R. Thorpe: I'd just like to ask the minister. . . . It's my understanding that when our Premier was in California -- I believe it was in June -- with regard to this industry, discussions took place with major studios and producers and that an indication, perhaps even a commitment, was made with respect to the retroactivity of this tax credit. I do not believe, by reading section 4, that retroactivity is covered by that. Could the minister advise: did the government change its mind on retroactivity?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The bill is effective as of June 1, 1998. I think the member is probably referring back even further than that. No, there was no such commitment made. There was certainly a request made to that effect. But in fact, there were no commitments made -- even to the tax -- while the Premier and staff from the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture who accompanied the Premier were there. There was no such commitment made.

Sections 4 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 41, Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 3), 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 44.

[ Page 10432 ]

REGULATORY STREAMLINING MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

The bill is part of the government's commitment to streamline regulatory processes. It's also part of the government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy, encourage investment and create jobs through tax and regulatory changes for the small business, forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors.

Bill 44 makes about 50 changes to 33 provincial statutes. Although all of the amendments are relatively minor housekeeping initiatives, they represent a small but important first step in an ongoing process to improve government efficiency and reduce the cost of doing business. These amendments have been made through the suggestions of and in consultation with business and government ministries. All were reviewed by the business task force. I could make comments at second reading on each and every one of these amendments, but I'm not going to. If there are any questions at committee stage, I'd be more than happy to do that.

I do want to just say that this is an ongoing process that we. . . . This is the first step in the business task force initiative. I'm pleased to state that the amendments begin to enhance government efficiency and reduce the regulatory burden. I would also like to say that nothing diminishes public safety or the rights of workers or consumer protection or health care or education or the environment.

I would actually like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who contributed suggestions to the business task force. I would also take this opportunity to encourage those who have not yet made suggestions to do so. I would also like to thank the members of the task force for their ongoing contribution to this important initiative.

I'm pleased to move second reading.

G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 44 is an interesting piece of legislation. It's really, really long overdue. One of our staff members, Michael Goehring, who just started with us this session, characterized this bill as doing your dirty dishes. I think the dirty dishes have been sitting in the sink for a long, long time.

As government brings in legislation, there's always legislation that becomes outdated or just sits there for so long that it doesn't really have any relevance anymore. I think it's important that government establish a system to do this on an annual basis -- every year, an examination of that legislation to find the pieces that really don't need to be there anymore. Let's do the dishes after every meal rather than once a century.

It's interesting, because the one. . . . I do appreciate that the minister's staff are giving us a thorough briefing on the bill. None of it is terribly contentious, but one that I found was. Just to give you an idea of how out of date some of these things are, section 53 of Bill 44 eliminates the Threshers' Lien Act, from 1960. That was probably the year that the combine was invented.

An Hon. Member: You weren't even born.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's true. I wasn't even born, the minister says -- and I wasn't. But it just gives people an indication of how antiquated various sections and bills are that have been sitting in our statutes for decades. It's about time we did the dishes, and that's really all I have to say. I hope we do them more frequently.

I know the member for Cariboo North has a couple of comments that he wants to make with regards to one of the pieces of legislation contained in the bill.

J. Wilson: I'd like to take a few moments and look at this bill a little bit. As my colleague said, it touches on a few bills that should have been cleaned up years ago. I can't help but think, when I look at this, that I'd have to refer to it as the NDP shuffle: we take one tiny step forward and two large steps backwards.

If we look at some of the regulatory burden that this province has been under in the last few years, this is really a token effort. In 1991 we had something like 1,841 new regulations, with 2,530 amended. Since then, the regulatory burden in this province has grown by over 26 percent -- until this session. Now we find ourselves dealing with Bill 14, Bill 46 and Bill 47. They all add a regulatory burden on small business in this province -- a tremendous burden. It's nice to know that we are addressing the problem of legislation we don't need, to streamline things, to make things work better. But at the same time, we're adding more than we're taking away. So we're defeating ourselves in the end.

[9:15]

Some provinces have taken on this task of streamlining -- making it more efficient and allowing small business to operate under a much-reduced regulatory burden. If you take it seriously and approach this subject of regulatory review and streamlining, there are certain things that you have to address. One thing is, as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said, that we have to do our dishes after each meal. This is critical when we're dealing with regulations and legislation. Things need to have a sunset clause in them. That time frame must be established so that there is an ongoing review not once every 25 or 50 years but on a much more condensed time frame, like every three years or five years. We have to have something put in place that will allow for that review to take place. So far, I see nothing coming forward from this government to address that.

There are some pieces of legislation in this province that really need to be addressed -- things like workers compensation, employment standards and that type of thing -- which have a very serious impact on investment in this province. I don't see anything in this bill that touches on that.

Another thing is that all Crown corporations should undergo the review along with ministries, and that's not being done.

As a bill, this is a rather odd piece of legislation. It's a token effort, but unfortunately, if we're going to go anywhere, we have to start somewhere, so we have to support this in an effort to start doing our dishes from the last 60 years. Basically, that is what I have to say to this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: To close debate, I call the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 10433 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

REGULATORY STREAMLINING MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

J. Wilson: I'd like a bit of an explanation from the minister as to section 1. What was the reason that this act, in particular, was repealed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is correct that the Agricultural and Rural Development (BC) Act is repealed by this section. That act authorized the minister to enter agreements with the federal government to finance projects for alternative uses of land, rural development and soil or water conservation. The act was enacted in 1962. A number of initiatives were funded through federal-provincial agreements created through the act, but the last agreement expired in the early 1990s, and the act is no longer required to support any ministry programs. Alternative programs have been developed that largely take the place of former ARDA programs, including Investment Agriculture.

The B.C. Investment Agriculture Foundation is a provincially incorporated society created jointly by the province, the federal government and agriculture industry organizations. It was created in 1996 to promote industry development. Investment Agriculture will in the future undertake the initiatives of the same type that used to be delivered through ARDA. To that end, it has established the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund to make funds available to industry organizations for infrastructure development, and thereby has replaced ARDA.

J. Wilson: The minister has said that all aspects of agriculture that were funded previously under the ARDA program will be funded. Or has it been more selective than that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The programs that were funded under ARDA no longer exist. They have been replaced by programs agreed upon under Investment Agriculture. In fact, the programs under Investment Agriculture have been designed in a cooperative way with industry involvement. The previous programs were of a direct subsidy nature, and these are much more cooperative types of programs.

J. Wilson: Under Investment Agriculture. . . . Does the province have any part to play in this or is it strictly a federal program?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The province participates but the funding comes from the federal government.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

J. Wilson: I have a question for the minister on this. My understanding is that under the Forest Land Reserve Act, forest land that is in fee simple can be included in this program -- with a connotation attached to the title, stating that that is the purpose for which the land is to be used. Is this what it means?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll just reiterate the question, if I may, so I understand it, hon. member. The member is questioning whether land that is fee simple can be complicated with an attachment to the title, as a result of this act. Is that the member's question?

J. Wilson: Yes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, but we need further exploration of the question, please.

J. Wilson: My question is: under the Forest Land Reserve Act, it says. . . . It reflects the fact that land may be affected -- as to the requirement that certificates under the Land Title Act for forest reserve land reflecting the fact that land may be affected by the Forest Land Reserve Act. The subtitle here, on section 17, is: "Forest reserve land on certificate of title." If forest reserve land is on a certificate of title, does that forest reserve land refer to land that is fee simple?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, private land.

J. Wilson: This private land that is included in the forest land reserve. . . . The purpose of including it in there, I presume, would be to get a reduction in the assessment rate or the tax rate on this land. In exchange for that, the land would come under the same regulations that apply to Crown land under the Forest Practices Code. Is this why this is in place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: What this does is. . . . No, I'm sorry, that's not the intent. It doesn't change anything except to ensure that when people purchase this land, they are aware that it is in the forest land reserve.

J. Wilson: Are there restrictions placed on that private land by being in the forest land reserve?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's what this Forest Land Reserve Act is about: there are restrictions on the land.

J. Wilson: Then the restrictions would be the restrictions that would come. . . . Let me rephrase this. The Forest Practices Code would then apply to that land, the same as it would to Crown land.

[9:30]

J. Wilson: I see further down in this section that if the government neglects to attach onto the certificate of title the fact that it is in the forest land reserve, they're not held

[ Page 10434 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

Sections 17 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 43.

BUSINESS PAPER REDUCTION ACT
(second reading)

I've run a small business myself, and I agree with them. Over the past year, the government has held provincewide consultations to hear the issues from small business and their recommendations on how to make it easier to do business in B.C. We've heard the message, and we're acting on it.

In April the Minister of Finance, as she just mentioned in the House, formed a task force of business and government representatives to recommend ways to streamline and eliminate unnecessary regulations and procedures and to cut red tape. The task force has reviewed this particular bill and recommended the improvements reflected in it. In its first quarterly report, the task forced addressed the need for change and identified areas for streamlining. So this is a streamlining procedure.

The Ministry of Finance has introduced legislation which cuts red tape in very specific areas, and we've just passed that bill. As well -- as the members opposite would know, and I'm very proud of this -- the one-stop business registration initiative across the province of the provincial government, in alliance with the federal government, allows businesses to register with selected federal, provincial and, hopefully soon, municipal agencies at one time, at one location and now, more and more, electronically. This is the new way of doing business, and B.C. businesses are the most plugged in electronically in the country. We have to help that, and this bill is enabling legislation which will help that -- modernize business and streamline the practices.

How will it work? All ministries will be able to use the Business Paper Reduction Act to cut red tape. The act will allow changes in specific ways, such as allowing businesses and ministries to communicate by using e-mail instead of paper, allowing licences to be issued for longer periods of time and allowing forms to be available on the Internet. For example, a section of the regulation to be passed will mean that proprietors and partnerships, using the Small Business ministry's one-stop business registration service to register their businesses, will soon be able to sign with a digitized or electronic signature instead of the old system of mail and signing by pen and paper. This will allow the form to be sent immediately to the registrar's office; previously it had to be mailed.

How will this bill benefit the average business person? In a number of ways. Let me count them: fewer forms to complete, significant enhancement of one-stop business registration, reduced frequency of reporting to government, licences issued for longer periods of time and more business-to-government communication using the Internet and electronic commerce technology.

Now, how does this legislation complement the Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, the other act? This allows individual ministries to proceed with desired legislative changes as soon as they're ready. You don't have to come back to the House for legislative approval to amend an act. You can do it by regulation. Changes can be made at any time; they don't have to await space on the legislative agenda. That means frequent changes, keeping up with technological change and working together. Ministers can basically come forward with suggestions that business people bring in to them, go forward, get a regulation passed and change an outdated or overlapping procedure or a procedure that's not in the electronic age.

On July 14, the Financial Post wrote an editorial saying, "B.C. Begins Cutting Red Tape," agreeing and saying that this is the right way to go. I'm very pleased, then, to sum up by saying that this is a very unique piece of legislation. It's enabling. It will allow us to enter the electronic world and to streamline procedures and practices for small business and therefore to create jobs in the province. I move second reading.

R. Thorpe: Well, it's a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. As I start to speak, having thought about this bill, I have to question: is this government really committed to business in British Columbia? I seriously question the government's sincerity.

The government completed a report in 1993 called "Commitment to Small Business," in which they recommended. . . . Let me just summarize what they recommended in 1993: (1) the streamlining of forms and the reduction of information duplication; (2) the collection of generic and common information, at once; (3) using computerized database systems to share information with other government ministries and agencies; and -- I know, hon. Speaker, that you'll be really interested in this one -- (4) coordination with other levels of government to reduce the number of forms.

All of those recommendations were made in a 1993 report. Yet all of those recommendations are in this legislation tabled in this House today. I guess the uniqueness that the minister refers to is that it took five years; that's the uniqueness. With an economy on the brink of recession, if not in recession, with one of the lowest capital investment levels in Canada and an unemployment rate hovering just under 10 percent, this government has decided to act now -- five years after the fact -- in the good old-fashioned NDP way.

[ Page 10435 ]

The minister said that this legislation was unique. It's so unique, it's exactly the same as the 1994 NDP legislation tabled in Ontario. That's how unique it is. Even their cousins in Ontario were four years faster than they are. This is but a start -- a very small start. The minister is supposed to be the advocate of small business and tourism. I remember those words of February 26, 1998, in Kelowna. But was he in this House on Bill 14 or Bill 26? No, he was not. He was not in this House for small business and tourism operators in British Columbia. Small business and tourism are watching, and they don't want the photo ops; they want results. They want a full-time minister, not a part-time minister.

The NDP has built a mountain of red tape in front of businesses in British Columbia. Bill 43 is but a very small step at the base of that huge mountain. Time is of the essence. I challenge this government to stop with the photo ops and get to work. Our economy is sliding into recession. NDP government policies, including its fundamentally flawed approach to regulation, are causing B.C. businesses to hurt, to be painful, to close and to move. Last year 7,000 people left for Alberta; 107 businesses left in 1997. With two exceptions, B.C. has the worst investment rate in Canada.

But the minister did say that this is enabling legislation. This minister has an opportunity tonight -- on July 23 -- to show small business and business throughout British Columbia that his government is serious. In their task force report of July 8, they mention that they are now in the initial scoping of the dimensions of streamlining business and red tape in British Columbia. Two items came out in that: sunset clauses and having stakeholders involved in the development of legislation and regulation. This is a chance tonight -- and I'm sure the minister has had the opportunity to review his mail, which I sent to him early this morning, in which we have provided a couple of opportunities for this government to really show that this entire House is listening and working for all British Columbians. . . .

It's time for results. It's time for action. This government is being held to account. This government created the mountain of red tape, and now it has to get into fifth gear and get moving. I look forward to the committee debate, and I look forward to the government supporting the amendments that we are bringing forward that come from the government's own report.

[9:45]

The general public has seen successive governments and political parties and individual politicians make optimistic claims that they will in fact be the ones that can be relied on to wrestle red tape, regulations and bureaucracy to the ground. Of course, most of them are ultimately proven wrong, as the conspiracy of bureaucracy and red tape bears down on even the most committed warriors against this common threat to a responsive and responsible government.

On the positive side, I'm pleased to see that the government recognizes the need to address the people's concerns about red tape. However, I hope that this initiative will not be another one-time event, a six-month project that will be quickly forgotten. A focus on an efficient and effective government is not a one-time project. It truly should go on intensively every day, every week, every year. It should be the hallmark of every government that wants to claim that it is properly managing the people's business. Red-tape reduction, less bureaucracy and more efficient regulations must become an integral part of the culture of all government operations, both ministries and Crown corporations.

Regulatory streamlining is not a one-time affair. As the financial pressures on the government mount and as the imbalance between revenues and expenditures becomes more acute, a bona fide and effective regulatory review becomes more and more important. The potential savings to government are not only in cost savings; the potential also exists for better service and better employee morale. There is a notion that fewer resources invariably means fewer services. However, this is often not the case. I believe that in government there are many situations where less is more. Less bureaucracy and less staff time properly applied will actually save money and improve service.

The other point I want to make is that the reduction of red tape and bureaucracy does not normally require the passage of new legislation. Most of it can and should be accomplished through daily and ongoing focus on improved management of government operations. In saying this, I am truly hoping that the government does more than just engage in symbolic legislation. I want to encourage the minister not only to pursue this initiative but also to expand, broaden and intensify it.

A few comments on section 2, the purpose of the bill. Certainly this purpose is in the right direction. Anything that can be done to simplify filing requirements and the complexity of forms that business needs to fill in will be favourably received by large and small businesses. I know from experience that paperwork and government forms are often the bane of the small business person's existence, along with the ongoing battle of keeping the accounts receivable current.

A few comments on section 16. Any time that we can develop common records, forms and filing systems with other levels of government is a positive thing and, hopefully, a benefit to the taxpayer and business people. I support any serious efforts to develop such agreements with other governments. However, it is just as critical to ensure that within government and across the provincial government every effort is made to streamline bureaucracy and integrate files and records. Again, this is a huge undertaking when considered on a one-time basis, and that is why this work needs to go on constantly and should never be considered finished.

In closing, I will say, hon. Speaker, that I am pleased the government has started this process, but it has only scratched the surface. I want to reference a meeting that some of us had with people in the Alberta government just before Christmas, and I urge the minister to look at the regulatory review process that was put into place in that province. I felt that it had many very notable features, including a lot of consultation on something they called the "double feedback mechanism" which had the government going back to the public and to stakeholders with draft legislation. I feel there is tremendous potential for further reductions in cost, better results and better service.

[ Page 10436 ]

G. Plant: I want to speak for a few minutes on this initiative. Let me say, in beginning, that I think Bill 44 has more of the right stuff in it than this bill does. Bill 44 represents the results of a concerted effort on the part of people inside and outside government to identify statutes that aren't required anymore, provisions in acts that are too onerous in relation to the purposes they achieve, provisions in statutes that achieve unnecessary duplication -- and it cuts them out altogether. It repeals them or amends them in a way to avoid the duplication. That is, I think, an awfully good way to upbeat the statute books, to deal with the deadwood, to in fact achieve some kind of reduction in the regulatory burden which is so oppressive to businesses and to citizens in British Columbia.

The minister, in opening debate on this bill, said: "This act streamlines business practices for business." Well unfortunately, hon. Speaker, this act doesn't do that. This act creates a process which might lead to the streamlining of business practices for business. The minister stood up and said: "You know, it's great. With this bill, ministers can fix the regulations without having to come back to the House." Well, the strange thing is that they can do that now. If there's a minister who has a regulation in his statutes that the minister thinks is unnecessary or burdensome or inefficient or costly or ineffective, the minister can go back to cabinet and say: "You know, this isn't working anymore. Let's get rid of it." And that would be, I think, a heck of a way to ensure that the statutes and the regulations of British Columbia are in fact streamlined.

In some jurisdictions, they actually have committees. . . . Sometimes they're legislative committees. Sometimes they may be committees of cabinet where on a regular basis all of the regulations that are enacted by the government come before the committee. If the committee doesn't say that there is a continuing purpose and a need for the regulation, then the regulation dies -- sunset clauses, my colleague calls them, and that's certainly the language that we hear used. That's tough work in one respect. It actually involves making decisions; it actually involves deciding that a regulation is no longer doing the work that it was intended to.

That's way too hard for us here in the Legislature. Let's not do that; let's just enact a bill that says that this is what we want to do and create a process so that if people care about it enough they might make it happen.

Now, you know what the problem is? I think the process is so important that I'm prepared to say that it's worth supporting. I think that the purposes as set out in the purposes clause of this legislation are so important that the bill is worth supporting. I sure hope that I get to come back here next year and say to the government: "You did a great job fulfilling those purposes." I'd sure hate to come back here next year and read those purposes out loud in the debate with the minister and say: "What have you done to simplify the procedures for business in the last year?" What I hope we come back and find out is that, in fact, we have a government that simplified procedures and promoted coordination.

Promoting coordination -- isn't that a good purpose? I am looking in the statute books for the section that says we can't do that now. Why do we need a law that says we need to promote coordination? Well, the answer is probably because the NDP can't figure out how to open up a can of lemonade without a law that allows them to do it.

Interjection.

G. Plant: My colleague says: "Of course, that's why it's written this way. This was written by the NDP in Ontario." Well, that answers a lot of my questions.

We need to have a bill to allow businesses to use new technologies to reduce inconvenience and delay in making applications or reports required under other acts. I have a novel idea. Let's look at the other acts where, in fact, we could use new technologies. Let's have the ministers of the Crown and their staff sit down and look at the regulations and the filing requirements and say: "Hey, you know what? We don't need to have PST forms filed manually. Let's do it electronically." I commend the objective. I am at a loss to understand how it is that this bill is the essential first step in that process.

An Hon. Member: The unique first step.

G. Plant: It's a unique first step. The bill is about reducing the burden on businesses. I think that's a heck of a good idea. But, you know, I look at the bill and see the potential, not for simplifying things, but for duplicating things. I see in the bill the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to be given the power to make regulations to permit businesses to file forms in a different way or to file them electronically, to change the way they approach filing and to do so in a way which leaves the existing filing intact.

So, for the business person who has to file their social services tax remittance at the end of the month, they now have to fill out a form, and they presumably have to mail it in. Well, if this bill does its work, then boy. . . . At the end of the time that this bill's done its work, they'll get a choice. They'll get two ways to file. Well, I don't think that's making anyone's life simpler; I think that's making our lives more complicated.

But again, much as I find it hard to admit this, the emphasis in this bill on the possibility of electronic filing, of allowing businesses to complete some of their paperwork and day-to-day interaction with government electronically, rather than by filling out forms manually, is a good objective and one that I think is worthy of our support and encouragement. I'm still at a loss to understand why we need this bill to get there. I still don't know why the ministers of the Crown aren't doing that in their own way. In fact, I know they are; I'm sure they are already, in a variety of areas. I hope they continue to do that.

There is one last point that I want to make, and it is a serious point. All of the points that I've been making are serious, but this one is a very serious point. I listen to the minister talk with enthusiasm about how much simpler it is when we can just do things by regulation. I know that for most of what we're talking about here -- what a form should look like, how often it should be filed, what the filing fee should be -- those are obviously all the things that need to be properly the subject matter of regulations. In many cases, I think it's appropriate that the regulating power be the minister, as well as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But there is also an important role for this Legislature. What I don't want to see happen as a result of this act is that a kind of new level of government in British Columbia is created, which is separate and almost apart from the existing level of government, which is given life by the powers in this bill to operate out there on its own, in a way that would be inappropriately unaccountable to us in the Legislature, and which will make important, substantive decisions about how the economy is

[ Page 10437 ]

I know that the minister is committed to democracy and to accountability and to all of those things. In fact, I think he's a passionate advocate for much of that. I hope that he'll take these comments in the spirit in which they're intended, which is really to make sure that what has the potential for good in this legislation is used in that way and that some of the risks are at least recognized as things to be avoided -- if they are, legitimately, risks.

[10:00]

Hon. I. Waddell: I just want to close with a very short matter. I want to say to the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston that I listened intently to what he said. I think there is a risk in that. . . . Contrary to what he said at the beginning of his speech, this bill is unique. It does go farther, because it can interfere in the acts -- not just the regulations. If he reads it carefully he will see that. He recognized that at the end of his speech. So we will watch that; it needs to be monitored.

To the member for Abbotsford, I would say that he's right in essence when he says: "Well, it doesn't really require legislation in the long run, if you keep dealing with red tape." But he's wrong, in the sense that this bill gives a context, a direction to the civil service. It sets a context. It says: no excuses -- do it, report it, gazette it and make changes.

And finally, to my colleague the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton, the critic for the official opposition, who says: "It takes five years. . . ." As someone said, haste makes waste. Five years for this. . . . I've only been minister for five months, and in that five months I'm pleased to tell him that tourism is up 6 percent -- it's booming -- the film industry is booming, high-tech is happening -- changes are happening. So I say to him: be positive about British Columbia. Good things are happening; we're moving here. And this bill, I think we all agree, is a further step in making things better for business, streamlining the way that business deals with government and government deals with business and bringing us into the modern age. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of The Whole for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

Bill 43, Business Paper Reduction Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

BUSINESS PAPER REDUCTION ACT

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

R. Thorpe: Following up on a comment of my colleague from Richmond, what ministry is championing this initiative?

Hon. I. Waddell: The bill is led by the Small Business ministry. But a minister -- say, the Minister of Forests -- who is dealing with a small business issue brought forward to that minister would go to cabinet and say: "Well, look, I need an order-in-council to change this regulation." They might come to the Small Business minister, who is pushing this reduction of red tape to help business. But if it's a matter for Environment, the Small Business minister would then go to the Environment minister and say: "Look, business is saying that we've got to change this and that this is overlapping." Or there might be a regulation. Let's say that you've got to renew a permit. Under one act of one ministry it's six months, and under another act it's two years. We want to make them both two years. So you would go to those ministers, and you would get them to sign off. Then either that minister or the Small Business minister would take it to cabinet. To answer the question, it's led by the Small Business ministry, but it necessarily involves the other ministers.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister has a business plan on how this is going to work, and I look forward to getting that later.

One of the things that I'd ask the minister is: how are we -- and how is he, more importantly -- going to measure his degree of success with this initiative?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is the regulations that come as a result and the changes in regulations as they're gazetted, as they are a matter of public information. That's how you can tell.

G. Plant: This may be as good a time as any to ask a question that arises out of a bit of confusion, in my mind anyway, about what I hear said about what's intended here. Filing requirements for businesses, to take that as an example, are usually general in nature -- that is, all businesses of a certain type have to file a certain form. All businesses have to make filings for provincial sales tax on a regular basis. It may be that as a result of the carrying out of this bill, other ways will be found to simplify those kinds of filings. In that case, the change made would be -- to use the language of lawyers -- a law of general application. That is, if there was a change in some licensing requirement for marina operators in British Columbia that was thought to improve and simplify life for marina operators, then the change would be made and it would apply to all marina operators. Alternatively -- or maybe this is also part of the package -- a particular business might come to a particular minister and say: "This filing requirement doesn't work for me. This filing requirement, in the circumstances of my business, is inefficient. I'm not like the other marina operators; I have special needs, and therefore

[ Page 10438 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I should introduce David Richardson, my assistant deputy minister, and Mike Kelley, who is the project manager of the one-stop business registration initiative. All members should stop in and see how it's working. I'm sure my critic has.

The answer to the question is that it would be general. That sets the tone -- the way it would work. It would apply generally.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: What is the process by which acts, or portions of acts, will come to be designated? Is this part of the consultation with the Business Task Force that's identifying statutes that have higher priority than others, or is there some other process at work here?

Hon. I. Waddell: We want it to come from business. We want it to come from the bottom up to government. They know what's bothering them -- what changes are needed. They'll go to the minister responsible for dealing with the act.

Let me give you an example, so we're not kind of bored here. I have a small law business, although it's not doing any business at the moment. In my law practice, as a single practitioner, a one-member small business, I keep getting the PST every month. I've got to fill that in every month. I don't have a whole bunch. . . . Small businesses don't have a big firm of accountants to do that. So you have to fill in the PST -- nil, most months, but you have to fill that in. You have to do it every month, because it says so in the act. What you could do is. . . . Small business would come and say: "Minister, look, this is crazy. Let's try to make it every three months or every six months." Then this minister would go to the Ministry of Finance and say: "Can we change this act? Here's what they're suggesting, and here are the reasons why." The minister would take it -- by using this act -- and get an order-in-council passed and maybe make it three months. That would save time for small business people and would be a real help.

The one thing I've found so far in my experience in government is that little things to government are big things to individual small business people. That would work in with this act.

G. Plant: I understand the minister's comments. But is he trying to leave me with the impression that it's sort of an ad hoc open door -- come one, come all at any time you like? Or is there in fact some organized plan by which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be designating acts. That is, does the minister already have a shortlist of acts that are under consideration for this purpose? Is there something more than simply the open and welcome arms of the government in terms of section 3?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's a good question. The answer is: it's both. It's open to come up from small business. We've consulted them and got a task force out there. They know what's bothering them. But we're also aggressively pursuing acts in the department. We think that it's the role of the Small Business ministry to actually be active, to pursue acts and to look for acts that could be changed, streamlined or modernized to help small business. So it's a combination.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the minister's comments on the PST, I'll look forward to his advocating for a change there so that small businesses only have to pay quarterly. But that's not my question. As the ideas come forward, will there be a reverse onus on government to tell small businesses why something shouldn't be changed?

Hon. I. Waddell: The onus is on government right now; it's stated government policy to reduce red tape, and this is part of what this act is about.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

R. Thorpe: Does this section really simplify it, or is it really a duplication?

[10:15]

G. Plant: I think I understood the minister's response. All I want to do here is perhaps say just a little bit more expressly that which was spoken of generally, both in my speech in second reading and in the minister's closing remarks. In section 4(1) we have the prospect of a conflict between a regulation that is made under this act and a provision of a designated act -- the possibility that in effect the regulation will trump the statute. That could engage the issue of accountability and democracy, to put it in fancy terms, that we talked about. Clearly, as a general rule, I think we ought not to be enacting regulations that might trump statutes and, by one kind of magic fix-all clause, be deeming all of those conflicts to be resolved in favour of the regulation. So I would ask the minister if I've at least correctly identified the contours of a potential problem or if I'm misreading the section.

Hon. I. Waddell: To reply, I think the hon. member has identified the contours of a problem. I'm not sure it's in this section, though, that the problem emerges; I think it emerges generally. But maybe I can reassure him a little bit by saying that when a minister proposes to change a regulation in government, the minister has to go to cabinet. You have legislative counsel, who can red-flag it and say: "Well, you can't do that, because that actually changes the policy of the act. You're not just changing a three-month requirement to fit with something else so that they're both six months; this actually changes the policy of the act. In which case it should not be done, and it could be clearly ultra vires the act. You can't change the policy of the act by regulation, but you can nibble on the edges, and we think you can make it more efficient." That's why the act is a bit unique -- that's why I used the word unique -- and there are dangers in that. The member recognizes the dangers, but I think it's covered by the fact that you've got legislative

[ Page 10439 ]

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

R. Thorpe: Does this section entitled "Electronic and other filings, databases and fees" really reduce the number of filings, or is it simply changing the method in which the filings are made?

Hon. I. Waddell: It has the potential to really reduce filings, because one electronic filing could serve a number of purposes. So it's out of the horse-and-buggy age and into the modern world. And it goes further. You realize, if you've used bank machines, that compared to the bank's hours. . . . You know, if I go to the teller, it's -- what is it? -- 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. But we use bank machines 24 hours a day. Most people, of course -- unlike legislators -- work normal days. But by electronic filing, if you do it right, if you go to a bank, you could actually file. . . . It could be 24 hours, couldn't it? So it accomplishes two things: it does what the member asked -- that is, it streamlines, modernizes -- and it could in fact reduce filings.

R. Thorpe: Will any of this require businesses to acquire e-mail to comply?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no. That's why we give them a choice in that previous section that I was talking about. I have a feeling that eventually they all will, but we want them to take their time to phase it in.

R. Thorpe: My colleague from Peace River North is not here, so I would just make a comment on his part. You cannot electronically file from Peace River North due to the telecommunications in this province today, so I trust that the minister would keep that in mind.

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

R. Thorpe: My question here is: what work has been done, and what have the findings of that work been, on the conversion costs for the government to put this act in place?

Hon. I. Waddell: I am informed that there has been no cross-government analysis of costs on that. The decision would be made on a cost-benefit basis by each ministry.

I gather that what we're trying to do here -- you can have warehouses full of government records, of paper -- is to basically reduce that paper and get it onto electronic filing, which would save space and save money in the long run.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

G. Plant: I don't like this section. It's too broad. I don't like giving the government power to enter into these kind of common-records, database-sharing agreements with everybody in the world -- I'm overstating it -- to share data or share information for unrestricted purposes. I realize that the argument can be made that the purposes are not totally unrestricted. The purposes are defined as "for any other purpose of this Act." This is one of those acts that actually has a purposes clause. We could go back to section 2 and read the purposes clause. I think we would find that there is the potential that almost anything that regulated or dealt with businesses -- which is to say that anybody, an individual or corporation, carrying on some kind of undertaking. . . . A corporation doesn't even have to be carrying on an undertaking. A pretty broad category of people and their activities are caught by section 16.

I understand, obviously, that this provision does not expressly purport to exclude the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Therefore it is deemed to be subject to it. I read this, and I have to say that I think, at least from my reading of it, that it is too broad to achieve the government's legitimate purposes. I invite the minister to defend it.

Hon. I. Waddell: I would defend it in two ways. The first way is that we're dealing with business information only. It talks about "common records, or common reporting or filing processes." It does talk about databases, but I think that can be read as business databases.

The second defence I would put is that if the section said at the end, "or for any other purpose," I would agree with the hon. member. But it says: ". . .for any other purpose of this Act." As the member suggested, the definition section, section 2, really defines the purpose of the act. They're pretty specific business purposes. I would argue that that is sufficient to restrict.

I am concerned about sharing any kind of databases with Revenue Canada and people like that in the federal government. But I think that in terms of modern business, this may be more helpful to business than it would be hurtful. I think the member's concerns, while well-founded, are perhaps -- in the real world, the way it would work out -- more theoretical than real. In any case, I would argue that the last part of the act restricts the sharing enough, because it's only for the purposes in this act, and they're clearly business purposes.

G. Plant: Does section 16 comply with the European directive on privacy?

Hon. I. Waddell: I don't know if it complies with the European directive on privacy. I did ask my department whether we've respected the customs and regulations and conventions on privacy, and they told me that we did. But they didn't tell me specifically on the European convention.

G. Plant: Section 16 allows the various ministers, "with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, [to] enter into agreements on behalf of the government with. . ." and then there's a list of the various people or categories of entities that the government can make agreements with. It could make an agreement with a province other than British Columbia that does not have any protection of privacy legislation. It could make an agreement with any other government in Canada -- for example, a municipal government in some other province -- that is not subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. As I read the words "or elsewhere" in section 16 (d), the government of British Columbia could make an agreement with any other government anywhere in the world in relation to data matching and data sharing.

[ Page 10440 ]

The other point I would make is that I think the purpose clause which the minister refers to -- and he refers to it rightly as being a constraint -- is awfully broad when you read it from this perspective. I want to try the minister again to see if in order to achieve the legitimate purposes of this act, it is necessary to draft section 16 as broadly as it's drafted.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the interests of trying to move this along. . . . I know that on sections 19 and 21, the critic has a couple of amendments that he wants to discuss and talk about. This isn't the first time we've come across issues like this -- of sharing information between governments -- in bills, and I know that the Minister of Advanced Education and the Attorney General critic have done this dance in this past. What I might suggest, if the minister is amenable, is to stand this section down for about five minutes and move on to the areas where the critic has some amendments, and I'll let those two individuals hash it out. It may not require something, but it may, and we can deal with that, if he's amenable.

The Chair: Is it agreeable to the committee to stand down section 16?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Then section 16 will be stood down.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

[10:30]

I think we have an opportunity here today to send forward a very positive signal to the business community that in fact we are changing the way we're doing business in British Columbia, and we are listening and we do want to work with them. Our Legislature works with committees, and one of the great things about our committees is that we can bring outsiders in -- the public, various stakeholders -- and they can consult and build better regulations.

Therefore I wish to move an amendment to section 19, which I gave notice of earlier today.

[SECTION 19(1) by adding the words "and the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology."]

On the amendment.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm a parliamentarian. I'm open to a good amendment, but I don't think it's a good amendment, if I might say with respect. I appreciate the member's intent. He's got good intent here. I see a number of problems with it.

The first one is that it's. . . . The act says right now, as I understand it, that the Lieutenant-Governor shouldn't "make a regulation that affects the administration of a designated Act except on the recommendation of the minister responsible for the designated Act. . . ." Then the member adds: ". . .and the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee. . . ." It seems to me that that's potentially going to delay things. Sometimes these committees meet; other times they don't. I wish they met more often, but the procedure of the House is that they don't. This will add, I think, a further hurdle -- more red tape, in a way -- so I think it is unnecessary.

If this were secret stuff, I would feel more inclined to accept this, but I don't see that. It is transparent. The regulations are gazetted. There is a procedure here, as I've already outlined, and I think this would just add red tape and time to it. Therefore I'm not in favour of the amendment. But I looked at it very closely, and I appreciate the member sending it to me.

R. Thorpe: Well, I'm saddened and very disappointed by the minister's approach here. The government has the power to say when the committees meet; they have that power. So what this minister is saying is that he is going to be the champion, but he doesn't have the confidence in his government to activate the committees. Why did I pick the Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology Committee? This is about economic development and changing technology.

So I'm very, very saddened and disappointed that the minister is disregarding one of the recommendations from the first report of the Business Task Force. I think the minister has missed a tremendous opportunity to send a very positive signal to business and to the members of that committee that are working to make change and to streamline regulation in British Columbia.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

R. Thorpe: I wish to move an amendment to section 21, which I gave notice of earlier today. I would just like to add the words that I've indicated.

[SECTION 21, by adding the words in boldface and by adding subsection (2) so that the section reads as follows:

Commencement and Review

21 (1) This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

(2) This Act and all Regulations made under it must be reviewed at least every 4th calendar year by the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology.]

[ Page 10441 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I would like to speak on the amendment. I appreciate the member's bringing this amendment to my attention. What the red-tape task force was saying was that what they wanted to see was some action. You can pass lots of legislation. They want to see things actually happen. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: "Come on, show us what you've done." The previous bill, the member for Richmond-Steveston pointed out, actually made some changes. As I pointed out, this is enabling legislation, so the member for Okanagan-Penticton is quite right to say: "All right. Come on, we want to see you be accountable." I think that this is what his amendment is trying to do.

I looked at the amendment. I might have worded it differently. I would have talked about tabling a report in the House rather than in the committee. But I don't believe it's necessary. I'll tell the member why. This is transparent. These regulations are gazetted. We will know -- don't make any mistake about it. If the minister gets a few of these things through, the minister will be talking about it. The critic, if nothing happens, will be talking about it. The business community will know about it; they will be making a lot of the recommendations. The department will come forward with recommendations. So I don't think it's necessary, quite frankly.

However, I think the member is onto something, and I appreciate the intent of this amendment. I would commit to providing all regulations every fourth calendar year to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. I would further commit to bring forward to my hon. friend, as I've tried in the past. . .to make him perfectly aware of any regulations that are passed. And I will bring that to the attention of the House. So not only will it be gazetted, made public and go to the critic, but it will also come forward to the House. I know that that's my commitment. You can change ministers; I appreciate that and so on.

But I will go so far as to recognize that the hon. member has a point with respect to accountability. I don't agree with him on the exact nature of how to do it, and that's why I would reject the amendment and give that commitment to the business community.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's words. We will hold the minister accountable to his words. But I believe the minister has once again lost an opportunity to send a tangible, positive signal to the business community of British Columbia. I'm sorry, but I laid it on a platter for him, and he refused to take advantage of it.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm passing an act with 21 sections.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 21 approved.

On section 16.

Hon. I. Waddell: On section 16 and the matter raised by the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, I say again: I appreciate his concern, because I have some of these concerns. While I think that this is the way to deal with it, I want to confirm to him that we're not attempting to extend powers. We're confirming what we think are already existing powers to enter into agreements. As I've said, it's within the context of this specific section. It's business; it's not personal, and we think that it's to help business, not to hinder business.

Secondly, I'd like to confirm that the Privacy Act does apply to this legislation, and I think that will cover it. If it doesn't and there are some problems arising, I would be open to revisiting this at some future date.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's statement of his intent and his understanding of the privacy issue around this provision. We'll just have to watch it, and hopefully, some of the potential risks will not come to pass.

Section 16 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 43, Business Paper Reduction Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 39.

PUBLIC EDUCATION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT
(second reading)

A. Sanders: A number of evenings ago now, I rose to make an amendment to Bill 39. Specifically, the intent of that amendment was to recognize that the government had underestimated and incompletely funded the total cost of Bill 39. Specifically, the breakdown of the underestimation was with respect to the agreement-in-committee, to the existing collective agreements that would ensue from Bill 39 and to the capital construction that would arise from both the agreement-in-committee and the collective agreements that were rolled over as a result of Bill 39. My concern in bringing forward this amendment was that the confidence of the public in the British Columbia school system would be undermined. To me, this is a very large concern, at a time when parents are wondering whether they are getting what they need from the school system.

In recapitulation, I based my thesis on four different arguments, and these were as follows:

1. The $105 million that government had said they had put into the public school system several months ago, which was supposed to be equivalent to $93 per student, was in fact money that was necessary but would do nothing more than bring forward a status quo position in education.

2. The Premier's announcement on the reduction of portables by 50 percent over the next five years was in fact a facetious circumstance.

3. The agreement-in-committee which will be our Bill 39, plus the thousand classrooms that this agreement-in-committee had supposedly brought forward, had not been completely thought out.

[ Page 10442 ]

[10:45]

The second circumstance is the portables. The Premier has said that portables will be decreased by 50 percent in five years. There is very little evidence to base that on and a lot of evidence to show that in fact this cannot possibly be true. In Richmond, for example, 17 more portables will be needed in September 1998 just to provide the space for the additional special education and ESL teachers that it will be necessary for that district to hire. The cost of a portable is around $50,000 each, with a $20,000 cost for set-up and $15,000 a year for maintenance. We do have 60 districts in the province, but for one district -- mind you, it is one of the 15 fastest-growing districts -- that comes to a $6 million expenditure for which there is not a single penny provided within the agreement-in-committee. In addition, the estimate for supplies for a special education teacher is around $10,000 per teacher, and there is not one penny in this agreement to supply monetary investment for the classroom necessities for a special education teacher in any of the 60 districts.

I'd like to just quote two other sources. I think it's appropriate and important to quote those in the know, rather than have them remain in the political field of this House. One Vancouver trustee, in terms of the portables, has said: "The get-rid-of-portables initiative of the Premier's is impossible when class size is lowered. Even with the Premier's so-called new money, one cancels out the other. More divisions in a school means less gym, library and computer time for classes." Again, one of the trustees who works in the system feels that the portable reduction strategy of the Premier is absolute nonsense. Robert Pickering, of the board in Surrey, says: "Surrey is expected to have 380 portable classrooms this year, and we will likely need to see more as growth continues. If the provincial government doesn't approve more money for portables, the school district will be forced to cut programs and services to provide the space." The chairman of that school board says that in 1998 they will need the equivalent of five full elementary school classrooms to create the additional room needed because of decreasing class sizes in the K-to-3 initiative in the agreement-in-committee. We're looking at some real numbers that certainly do not add up to supporting the agreement-in-committee that this minister wishes to bring in and says is a wonderful thing for all of us.

Thirdly, let's look very briefly at the agreement-in-committee itself. This agreement has two problems. The first is that it isn't an agreement negotiated in good faith, and secondly, it's an agreement that's bad for kids. Neither of those is more important than the other, but I personally am more concerned about the fact that it is a bad agreement for children.

Let's look at those two arguments -- first, that this agreement was not negotiated with the employer; it was brought forward by this government. I took the time to look at some of the New Democrat propaganda that was put out before the last election. One of the things said before the last election in "It's Time for a Change" was: "Restoring the authority of local school boards, New Democrats see a better way." That was one of the little bullets they had as a reason that the citizens of British Columbia should elect this government: that they would restore the autonomy of the school boards. In my travels, I also came up with this ad: our Minister of Education, his smiling face shown in the paper, saying: "Working Together for the North -- Your Team."

One of the things that this minister said was really important -- at least, I assume that, because of his ad -- was that he wanted to see an open and balanced government that dealt fairly with the people of the north. He wants to see increased educational opportunity by ensuring local control of local schools and continued support for the University of Northern B.C. So this was the team that was going to lead us into the election in 1996 -- with the Minister of Education dead centre in this ad, saying that one of his priorities, in conjunction with the general propaganda put out by the party, was to restore the authority of local school boards, and as Minister of Education, he ensured local control of local schools.

It's been a long time and obviously a short memory for this minister, who brings into this House an agreement-in-committee that does everything but restore local control. I have described it as the SCUD missile to the school boards, which are effective bargaining representatives for the communities in which they live. Bill 39 goes a long way toward undermining the authority that school boards have been elected to represent in their local communities.

We have a three-year agreement in Bill 39 that is funded for only one year. For the other two years, there is no information or agreement or guarantee from the minister or the Premier that there will be any further funding. It is a three-year agreement that has been voted against by 55 of 60 school boards in the province. It is an agreement that has been denounced by B.C. parent advisory committees, by B.C. school trustees, by B.C. principals and vice-principals, by the British Columbia Public School Employers Association -- by everyone except the BCTF and the minister and his cohorts. Isn't it a surprise that we have those two groups in support of it? They were the only ones who were involved in developing it. In fact, they were the only ones who had any say. Basically, everyone else was left out.

One of the concerning things that the Premier said about this agreement-in-committee is that he called this his historic agreement. I mentioned two nights ago, when we were talking about the agreement-in-committee, that in the time I've been in the House, the Premier has had a few other historic agreements, a few other highlights in his career that he has chosen to expound upon and use the phraseology of "historic agreement." I just wanted to review some of those historic agreements, because I think that the agreement-in-committee, Bill 39, fits nicely into that package of how we view this Premier's historic agreements.

The first historic agreement that occurred during the tenure that I've been interested and involved in the political scene was the Bonneville historic agreement. There we had $250 million of taxpayers' money float downstream. In May 1995 the historic agreement of Bonneville basically drowned 250 million tax dollars and made them unavailable to the rest of us in the province. The second historic circumstance for the Premier was FRBC. At that time, in May '94, the Premier called this a historic agency. We spent most of the time in this House last summer trying to prevent the government from

[ Page 10443 ]

Now here we are again with that same old tired phrase, the same track record, the same history and the same Premier. Now we have what I call the education accord, which would be our Bill 39. The Premier has made lots of promises during the time that I've been in this House, and I believe that this Bill 39 agreement-in-committee will pretty well be another historic example of the historic accords that this Premier has brought forward.

Let's look at some of the resultant circumstances with those accords. We've got the jobs and timber accord, the first historic episode, where the Premier promised 40,000 jobs. In fact, we've lost well over 7,000. We have, unfortunately, the Guarantee for Youth failed accord from last year, where we now have 22 percent summer unemployment for students, the highest in a decade. Now we have the education accord, Bill 39, with a promised $150 million. Really, it's going to be a matter of seeing whether that is delivered. We'll have to wait for the sequel, but I'm quite sure that based on the track record, the history and the historic nature of the promise -- based on all of those facts -- this will go the way of the dodo bird in terms of what we get out of it.

Bill 39 comes in with bargaining interference and strong-arm tactics by the Premier. It comes in with the feeling of a my-way-or-the-highway kind of agreement. And really, what we will find in Bill 39 is exactly what I predicted. Three months ago I predicted that the Premier would legislate this agreement. I told the minister quite some time ago, several months ago, in the House that if I were a betting person, I would certainly bet on the fact that we would see this legislated. At that time it was suggested to the minister that we do something reasonable, that we put $150 million on the table and have both partners in the bargaining group, the teachers and the employers, come forward and have an agreement that was good for all of us. The minister refused at that time and then used fearmongering to suggest that we had to come to an agreement, because there would be a strike in the fall if we didn't. Well, this minister had months in order to make that work. The choice not to do that was, in fact, a very conscious one.

One of the things that is very concerning to me when I look at what's going on is that I'm wondering if the backroom deals are, in fact, continuing. We had this agreement, this Bill 39, result from a backroom deal. That's bad enough, but at this time I'm wondering what else is going on. What I refer to is just last week the secretary-treasurers received a letter from a Mr. Rick Connolly in the Ministry of Education asking them to prepare for 18 children in primary grades in the year 2002-2003. This has never been discussed. This is not in the agreement-in-committee. This is not anywhere other than in letters written from the ministry staff to the people who work in the administration of the school districts. I would suggest that there is more horse trading going on and more backroom deals and pre-election promises being made. Otherwise, we would not be finding letters such as this coming from Mr. Connolly.

[11:00]

Last evening I talked about what the election platform for this government will be and what they're working towards in terms of the agreement-in-committee and getting their ducks in order for the next election. It will be 18 students in K-to-3, 25 students and 80 square metres per classroom in grades 4 to 7 and around 25 kids per classroom for the rest of the grades. Just following the historic agreement and the historical analysis of how these people think on the other side of the House, I think I'm looking now at: what else have you traded away, hon. Chair to the minister? What else have you traded away in the school system? What other parts of our kids' education have you cannibalized for your friends in the BCTF? What are you going to do to meet the political goals that you set out? One of these times I'd be very interested in hearing the truth -- not only the truth but the whole story. There are a whole lot of things that this House has simply not been informed about with respect to what's gone on in Bill 39 and what's going on in the Ministry of Education.

I'm going to give a real quick critique of the five areas of the agreement-in-committee and why they are not good for kids, parents or communities. The first is the K-to-3 initiative. For those who perhaps haven't followed this particular bill, this agreement says that we will undergo a change in the size of classes in school districts. The minister likes to try to imply to the public that he's the only person concerned about the number of kids in classrooms. Well, there's no one in the province who isn't concerned about class size. But there is also a need for flexibility in that class size.

Every single contract, every single collective agreement in this province, has class-size provisions. What we will have lost when we move up to September is the flexibility in class size. We will find in October, when we have new kids move into our school districts, that if there is one too many children as a result of that, they may have to be bused to other schools outside of their community, their neighborhood. That is a very real thing. It's happening now in districts, and it's going to happen more in September. The minister knows it; he tries to underplay that, but it's certainly a very important issue for those who will be involved. Last time, I pointed out to him a letter from a lady in Revelstoke who's already found that her child is going to be bused out of her neighbourhood into a school where her other children do not attend.

[ Page 10444 ]

These things will come to pass. I know the minister will say they won't, but in fact they will. These are the kinds of things that parents are going to find out when their kids go back to school and after the end of September 1998. They're things that this minister is going to have to answer for, because we will have told him in this House that those things are going to occur.

In the agreement-in-committee that this minister wants to ram down our throats, we're also going to have some new provisions for non-enrolling teachers. The ministry, in this agreement, is going to put $5 million into those non-enrolling teachers to staff 60 districts. When I did a survey, I found that some districts needed 19 percent, 20 percent and sometimes 30 percent of the entire amount to fulfil the criteria of the agreement. Therefore the $5 million is not going to stretch over those 60 districts, and a whole lot of districts are going to have to cut in other areas in order to facilitate the agreement-in-committee.

We've got 44 teachers in the special education group and 13 resource teachers going into Richmond. We don't have 44 specially trained ESL teachers available to hire in this province right now, so we're going to have a decrease in the quality of ESL teachers. This comes from secretary-treasurers and principals and vice-principals, not from this member. People who work in the schools say that those individuals are not there; they are not trained. We are going to have more teachers, yes, but they're not going to be the quality of teachers that we perhaps have in ESL right now.

The other concern that has been brought forward about the agreement-in-committee is the lack of responsible language. This agreement was not written by people who do arbitration and agreements as a profession. It appears to have been written by a bunch of amateurs who were trying to get a backroom deal together. The language is considered by those who usually do mediation to be very inclusive and not arbitratable. As a result, many have called the agreement-in-committee a grievance gold mine. This agreement is poorly written, and it will result in costly arbitration. Those costly arbitrations will siphon dollars out of the education system at a time when they are dearly needed and certainly should not be in arbitration on circumstances, grievances within school districts, that have arisen because the minister did not have an agreement appropriately written in order to be safe for us to use.

Other districts complain that they've been penalized in this agreement -- that if they were responsible and saved, for example, their library staff and cut in other areas because they felt the library staff were important, this agreement will not provide them money for those staff. In fact, the groups and districts that did cut will be the ones who will receive the money under the agreement that is now going to be Bill 39.

There are a tremendous number of concerns and complaints about this agreement by every group except for the minister and his ministry, the Premier and the B.C. Teachers Federation executive, the ones who brokered the deal with the Premier's Office. Even the people who were on the negotiating team for the BCTF rejected this agreement. These are people who have the knowledge that the agreement is not going to work and certainly is not good for teachers.

Another clause that is very concerning is the early retirement that is outlined in the agreement-in-committee. What we have there is the agreement-in-committee changing conditions for early retirement. What we have, and what has occurred with this, is that a number of teachers who had decided to retire have revoked their retirement and will retire a year later. This is because there is an incentive to stay on. There has been, in the agreement-in-committee, an incentive package for them to stay on with respect to severance.

I have a letter from a very angry teacher in my own school district. He has very good reason to be angry. This is a gentleman that I've known for quite some time, as he used to be a patient in my practice many years ago. He is one of the senior teachers at Vernon Secondary, who coached a lot with the younger teachers. What happened is that there were four or five younger teachers who were going to be hired at the school based on early retirement of a number of more senior teachers. Once the agreement-in-committee came in, three or four of the senior teachers revoked their early retirement and decided to stay on. As a result, the younger teachers -- who this agreement was supposed to get into the school system -- in fact have been laid off and will not have jobs at VSS. That, to me, is unconscionable, because we all know -- at least those who have worked in the system -- that it is the younger teachers who are the ones who do a lot of the coaching and extracurricular activities.

Mr. Dennis Gendron writes:

"Dear Mr. Ramsey,

"I am writing this letter out of frustration over the timing of the recent announcement regarding incentives for teachers to retire in 1999. The plan may be fine in and of itself. However, by making this plan known now rather than in the fall, it has had disastrous results in staffing our district.

"I am a teacher at Vernon Secondary, a school that must eliminate four teachers next fall. It looked as if those positions would be handled through the teachers who were already taking advantage of an existing early retirement incentive plan. With the exception of one, the teachers who had planned to retire this year have rescinded their intention to do so. It is also their belief that they should hang on for another year because of a possible $20,000 bonus next year. Many other teachers in our district have since changed their minds regarding retirement at the end of the school year as well.

"By announcing a new retirement incentive plan this spring, you have guaranteed layoffs of many young, enthusiastic teachers. The anticipated bonus that many are expecting by delaying their retirement will end up to be a colossal waste of tax dollars. I'm asking you to reconsider the implementation of this plan at this time."

We've got teacher on-call benefits in this agreement. Because of changes to the way that teachers on call are paid, they will sometimes earn more than the teachers they're

[ Page 10445 ]

This agreement can't do one single thing correctly that it set out to do -- not one thing. There is not one group of people, other than the minister and the Premier -- who dearly wanted an agreement so they could get the rest of the public sector to follow suit after a zero-zero-and-2 from the teachers -- and the executive of the BCTF, who wanted to make sure they didn't have to lose any contract provision when they were getting a provincial contract. . . . These are the only two groups who benefited from this contract.

[11:15]

Our province and our kids are going to pay for this agreement in a whole lot of problems at the elementary school and secondary school systems: cut programs, busing, split classes, bumping in classes, less band, fewer other conditions, more portables, schools that don't exist -- for this historic agreement, the Premier's one bask in the sun with respect to education. There is nothing good about this agreement, other than it gives the Premier an out to settle with the other public sector employees. There is nothing good for kids in the school system.

I am hoping that the minister will consider the amendment I have put forward -- to give this bill a bit more chance to air out, to give people the opportunity to see what a terrible piece of legislation it is. Hopefully, the minister will do so.

R. Masi: It's my privilege to rise tonight to speak on the amendment to Bill 39, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act. First of all, I'd like to say that I want to support the decision of 87 percent of the B.C. school trustees who rejected the agreement-in-committee. It is our feeling -- and I know it's our critic's feeling and that of everyone on this side of the House -- that the only way to properly address staffing and associated organizational issues -- which, if not handled properly, will lead to severe problems in the coming September and October opening of the schools. . . . The only real way to address these issues, I believe, is to return to the bargaining table and put the $150 million on the table. It's my guess that things would be settled pretty quickly if you put some resources into the right person's hands.

It's difficult now with local agreements which seriously inhibit the ability of teachers, principals and district administrators to organize classes and to meet student needs. If, on top of the local agreements, you add on the centrally imposed agreement, you totally destroy any flexibility to meet local needs. I suggest that the minister put the $150 million on the table and just see how quickly the employers and teachers can craft a new agreement. I don't think it would take very long. When you look back over the years, they have a good history of coming to agreements if the resources are there.

This agreement, Bill 39, unfortunately, will hurt students. It perpetuates the imposition of rigid, unworkable conditions on class size and composition. The agreement limits the ability of schools to make practical and creative decisions at the school level. That's really where it counts -- at the school level. These decisions should work for students and bring about a more effective use of scarce resources. There's no question that elementary schools will have to reorganize again, and possibly again and again during the year, because of the inflexibility of the program.

There is a huge body of educational research out there that talks about class size. The minister is putting this forward as probably the prime piece in terms of his rationale for justifying this piece of legislation. It was interesting to note the other day that the Premier, in the Premier's estimates, was pushing this same perspective -- always class size, class size, class size. But there is a body of educational research, as I said, that says very clearly that smaller classes have no direct effect on student learning. I'd like to turn to a couple of reports here, and I assume that the minister is acquainted with these reports.

The first one I'd like to talk about is Dr. Suzanne Ziegler's report to the Canadian Education Association, November 1997. She begins talking about one-to-one tuition. . . .

Interjection.

R. Masi: Hon. minister, '97 is fairly current.

She begins talking about one-to-one tuition, which ideally and experimentally is the most efficient and the most achievement-wise method of teaching, but of course it's never been a possibility. However, we have the additional concept of the socialization aspect, which most adults view as very important and valuable also. So we know that school is seen as not only an academic but a social necessity, and we know -- and this is interesting, because I'm sure this is the political tack that the minister and the Premier are using these days -- that if parents believe that with smaller classes, their children will benefit more from individual teacher attention, this would translate into cognitive gains. That's the assumption, the belief, that most parents have.

We also know that teachers want smaller classes, and they also believe they will be more effective with fewer students. But really, we're talking here about more favourable working conditions, because you have fewer students to monitor, less work to evaluate, fewer report cards and more manageable classes. But these are working conditions, and these do not necessarily relate to academic achievement.

There's been much debate over the last 20 years about the value of decreasing class size in terms of increased per-pupil cost. The debate, when we're talking about class size, should be in terms of measurable increases in academic achievement. Ziegler also states that this is the ultimate justification, and I concur with that. We have to talk about academic achievement, not working conditions.

Ziegler also points out that a large body of research has been carried out -- in Toronto by Shapson in 1980, and in Tennessee by Finn and Achilles in 1990. Both of these are landmark studies. Both have come to the same conclusion: that decreasing class size does not affect students' measured achievement unless and until class size is less than 20 students. In the Toronto model, the experiment was held with 16 students. In Tennessee, on the basis of thousands of children, their large classes ranged between 22 and 25 students. That's what the minister today is aiming for, supposedly as a great advance in education.

The findings in Tennessee and Toronto are that differences in achievement tests in reading and mathematics are statistically significant, but there's sharp disagreement in the educational literature -- it disagrees here -- on whether improvements are significant in the lay sense when you're

[ Page 10446 ]

Strong arguments have been made over time, with research, for alternative interventions as superior and more cost-effective ways of increasing achievement. Ziegler goes on to say, in reference to research by Slavin in 1989 and 1990 and Odden in 1990. . . . They state: ". . .since much [of the] strongest effects have been found for 'class' sizes of one to three, a far more cost-effective use of. . .teachers is not to reduce class size to 20 or even 17, but instead to provide tutoring. . .for individual children. . . ." So instead of hiring a teacher to reduce class size to 17, which we recognize as an effective number, the same teacher could provide individual tuition to 15 of the lowest achievers in a class of 25 to 30 students for 20 minutes a day, with a much greater pay-off in achievement. These are not my opinions; this is based on educational research. There is a much better effect, when instruction is delivered one on one, in tutorial situations.

The Ziegler report goes on to state the reasons why smaller classes do not make a difference in achievement. The common explanation for this is that even if you lower the class size, teaching methodology is virtually unchanged from large to small classes. Pupils do not actually receive more attention in a class of 20, as compared to a class of 35. In the absence of changed teaching techniques, class size by itself is not a factor.

My comment on Bill 39 is: is it predicated on working conditions or student achievement? I think that's the issue in a nutshell: are we really talking about what is good for kids or what is good for a union agreement?

Ziegler also goes on to state: ". . .when class sizes are lowered, it is virtually always in the name of improving student achievement. . . ." However, in the Tennessee districts, where small classes are institutionalized -- and this is where the major study took place -- the gain and effect is a mere 0.04 to 0.06 -- which is a trivial change. However, these districts, even though there is a slight change perhaps in student achievement, now score above the state average instead of far below. So if you're talking about perception, this is perhaps what the minister is aiming for. The academic pay-off is really small in terms of these smaller class sizes, but the political one is extremely large. Essentially, that's what we're talking about here: the political impact of lowering class sizes.

They did find in this study that there are some typical, unintended consequences of large-scale legislation on class sizes that were very evident. The first one they point out, of course, is severe classroom shortages which, as our critic pointed out, will be a factor in British Columbia. Ziegler went on to state that the lack of research support for decreasing class sizes to the moderate range of 20 to 25 has been used in some cases as prime evidence that increasing funding cannot help achievement. What we're talking about here is what use we are putting the $150 million to.

It's not necessarily a logical argument that increased funding cannot help achievement. It's how it is used. Just because one strategy is not effective, one cannot conclude that there is no way to improve achievement by increasing funding. So I don't disagree with the minister or the Premier that more funding is needed in education. The point is: how is it going to be used? We know that research can clarify benefit and cost -- and has done so, as far as class size is concerned. We know that very small classes improve achievement, but we're only talking about 17 and under. Moderate decreases do not, and that's what we're looking at in British Columbia. We're looking moderate decreases. So there will not be any appreciable change in academic achievement by Bill 39. We also know that very small classes -- 17 and under -- are not really very cost-effective.

I would also like to turn to the research of Dr. Tom Fleming of the University of Victoria, who did a research project entitled "The Class Size and Effects, Literature: A Topographical Review, 1975-1995." I believe this was commissioned by the Ministry of Education. Tom Fleming begins with a quote from Rousseau's Emile that's kind of interesting -- that the ideal pedagogical situation is one teacher, one child. Yet even he counselled his readers to turn to Plato's Republic for guidance on mass education. I'll let the minister and the members read that on their own.

Fleming cites Robert Slavin in his study on the small effects of small classes -- and again I repeat: small effects of small classes. "The search for substantial achievement effects of reducing class size is one of the oldest and most frustrating for educational researchers. The search is approaching the end of its first century; eventually, it may rival the search for the Holy Grail, in both duration and lack of results."

[11:30]

He does refer to the OECD report, Paris, 1974, which is somewhat historical. That report stated that "student achievement is either not related to class size, or is higher with larger classes," which is an interesting quotation. A 1978 report by the Educational Research Service, from a major review of 41 studies, confirms that "reducing class size alone would not increase pupil performance."

I keep referring to this same body of educational research. Perhaps the minister has read the same stuff, but we don't seem to have derived any results from this report that was commissioned by the B.C. government. Another report Fleming refers to is by Eric Hanushek, "Moving Beyond Spending Fetishes," dated November 1995, which is somewhat current. He states that the pupil-teacher ratio in the United States fell from 1 to 26 in 1960 to 1 to 17 in 1990, but reading achievement is the same in the 1990s as it had been in the early 1970s. Science achievement has fallen, and math is only slightly improved. A further study by Tomlinson in 1988 states that reductions in class size by themselves are costly, unlikely to result in improvements and have little effect on student achievement.

In his report to the ministry, Dr. Fleming discusses the question of optimum class size. He cites George Flower in the Quance lectures of 1964: ". . .it all depends. . .on how you organize within your school system. . .it depends on the internal organization of the individual school." I believe that point should be well taken by the ministry, because essentially what happens at the front line and in the school. . . . Schools need flexibility to provide the proper services to students. He also goes on to state that in their cluster analysis of variables related to class size, Robinson and Wittebols consider the

[ Page 10447 ]

Also cited by Fleming is Logan Wood's 1989 study, "Class Size: The Bridge Between Diagnostic Information and Actions for School Improvement." She noted "the importance of connecting findings on class size with research findings on effective schools, effective teaching and mastery learning. . . ." Dr. Fleming refers to Dr. Glen Robinson in his summary statement. In his "Synthesis of Research on the Effect of Class Size," 1990, Dr. Glen Robinson says: "Certainly, class sizes should be within reasonable ranges. . . ." I don't think anybody has any dispute about ranges in class size. This is the essence of what we're talking about here. It ". . .should be within reasonable ranges in which the most effective teaching and learning can occur. But in terms of increased pupil learning, research evidence does not justify an absolute limitation on class size or small overall reductions in class size or pupil-teacher ratio as a matter of general policy in isolation from the many other factors involved."

In the face of this overwhelming body of educational research, I have to ask: what does the minister do, and what did the agreement-in-committee lead us to? What has happened, of course, in the face of all this educational research, is that the minister imposes an absolute limitation on class size. Contrary to all the current educational research that's around today, he sets the number at 20 to 22 pupils per class, while knowing that there is no positive or upward achievement effect unless classes are 17 or under. He disregards scholarly research which clearly states that class size alone has little or no effect on achievement unless combined with the school organization factor, which in this case has been severely inhibited.

We see that the minister has in fact disregarded all the evidence. All the educational research evidence that's come forward shows alternative interventions to be superior and more cost-effective methods of increasing achievement. In the face of overwhelming evidence, we see the minister pumping funds into an ineffective scheme that will not increase student achievement one iota. What I see here is just a deal cut in the Premier's Office, which is totally politically motivated, totally disregarding the best interests of the children of B.C. and totally disregarding a huge volume of educational research.

I have to ask: who were the advisers? What advisers were given to the Premier's men in this case? Was there any consideration of educational research regarding school organizations? We know that schools can organize. I might point out to the minister -- and this may be long before he arrived in this province -- that there was a minister here in 1972 who made a dramatic move in lowering the overall pupil-teacher ratio in British Columbia. This may have been the most significant change in education until that time, but it gave the schools the resources and the flexibility to deal with the problems -- and they did a good job. That may have been the last great forward leap in education.

I would very strongly suggest that we have to look at the flexibility that each school can have. Schools are staffed with highly trained professional people, including teachers and administrators. No administrator is there to subject any teacher to unwieldy, large classes. That is only as a result of a lack of resources put into the school system. I suggest that this type of centralized imposition on the school system is definitely an inappropriate way to develop schools to reach their maximum potential.

It may have been one of those things that they had to do politically, or something like that. But I see here a bad deal for kids. I don't see anything in the agreement that indicates that students will achieve better results or that teachers will be any more effective in the school system. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.

M. Sihota: I just want to take a few minutes to respond to the points made by the hon. member for Delta North. In my observation, he has generally contributed in a very thoughtful way with regard to the debate around education issues. I don't want to respond in a rhetorical fashion, but I want to make some points with regard to the comments that he made. As I listened to his comments, I could discern that he was outlining a series of studies that made a link between smaller class size and academic achievement. And there are a couple of things that I want to say about that.

First of all, I don't think academic achievement is the only criterion on which we should be making these kinds of public policy determinations, and I would trust that the hon. member will agree with me when I say this. I'll come back to that point in a minute.

The other point I want to make in a broad way, which I'll come back to in a minute as well, is that I don't accept those findings in those studies.

If you spend time looking at kids in K-to-3 and if you take time, as I have over the years, and try to deal with the social problems that we find ourselves dealing with all too often in society, it's evident that an investment on the front end of a child's experience is essential in terms of diverting the child from problems later on in life. I don't know if smaller class size will have an effect on one's ability to pass a math test or to score As in science or to be proficient in English literature or reading. But I know this: a teacher working with a smaller group of children in a class can have a profound impact on that child's growth and development in a non-academic sense.

I know that there are subjective aspects to smaller class size that I don't think we should diminish in the course of this debate. I know that watching teachers operate in schools in a smaller setting has the ability to assist a child who may have a fragile confidence to develop a stronger sense of self-assuredness and self-confidence. If this agreement saves that child, gives that fragile child a better sense of who they are, a better sense of awareness, then I think it's worth it to engage in the social experiment that is occurring by reducing class size down to 20 and ultimately lower than that in kindergarten-to-grade-3. That's what we're talking about: the front-end years. I think it's worth it.

I think that it is inevitable and wholly logical that in a smaller class size, children will have a better opportunity to develop interpersonal skills. Over all these years that I've been involved, I have been struck by how poor interpersonal skills are. And I think that kids in a smaller setting and smaller classes. . . . An attentive teacher paying a little bit more attention will help kids to overcome some of those handicaps in being able to relate to one another and to develop interpersonal skills.

I don't care if the studies say that there's only a 0.017 percent -- or whatever the member said -- change in academic achievement. But I do care about the fact that this change, as profound as it is in this collective agreement, can help a child better improve in the development of interpersonal skills, because they're going to carry that for the rest of their lives. I know, from what I've seen over the years -- from people I've interviewed for jobs, and the like -- that it's never the marks that count. It doesn't really matter whether you score A pluses; it's their ability to be able to communicate with

[ Page 10448 ]

[11:45]

I've had my say. We'll talk about this in the halls. I'm happy to debate it, but I tell you you're wrong. The subjective elements. . . . What you achieve in smaller classes, on the front end of a child's experience, is very essential in our ability to deal with a lot of problems later on. We all know it, and this agreement takes us in that direction.

J. Weisbeck: First of all, I would just like to make a comment to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I think the concern here is -- and I fully support the member for Delta North -- that it's absolutely essential that we have flexibility in our system. I think that class sizes don't do that.

I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 39, which is moved by the member for Okanagan-Vernon. This amendment declines to give second reading to Bill 39, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act, for the reason that the government had underestimated and incompletely funded the total cost of the agreement-in-committee, the existing collective agreements and the capital construction arising from both of the above. As a result, it will undermine British Columbians' confidence in the public school system.

Not only will this bill undermine British Columbia's confidence in the public school system, but it will also undermine the confidence of British Columbians in the democratic process. We talk about this being a historic bill. Certainly, in disregarding the collective bargaining process -- by the so-called champions of collective bargaining -- I think this government has reached an all-time low. Not only is this bill bad legislation, but it also shows the arrogance of this government toward public input and democratic input. It becomes clearer and clearer every day that the NDP truly doesn't care about public input. They're so caught up in their ideology that they simply disregard British Columbians' concerns.

The ink isn't even dry on Bill 26 -- and we saw the ramrod tactics of that particular bill -- and we see another example of the members across circumventing the democratic process and excluding one of the stakeholders in this decision-making. This government goes through all the motions, asking for public opinion, but they just disregard whatever opinions they receive in favour of their own agenda. I had the opportunity to attend the Premier's summit in Kamloops, and each committee talked about its concerns about the economy. They came out loud and clear: "Don't mess with the Labour Code." And what do we do? We have Bill 26 come forward. This government completely disregarded the public's input.

Once again, in Bill 39, the NDP have disregarded the natural bargaining process -- damn the torpedoes, push ahead -- creating more uncertainty and another lopsided agreement. At a time when the public wants more input, more involvement in public affairs, they are getting less. This government has given a slap in the face to democratically elected school boards, and once again the public is feeling left out of the decision-making. The introduction of this bill has seen the beginning of school board demise and the centralization of decision-making. With Bill 39, this government is making the assumption that things are equal across the province. The whole process is to create a one-size-fits-all direction for education, the very thing that we should be moving away from. The regions must have the flexibility to address their regional concerns.

We certainly see this in post-secondary education. The biggest concern right now in post-secondary education is flexibility, being able to offer programs that are adapted to the regions. And regional differences do exist. For example, we know that in 1994 there was a study done that shows that lower mainland graduates had higher university eligibility rates and were more likely to enrol directly in universities and colleges. This is in comparison to areas like Vancouver Island, northern B.C. and the interior Kootenays, where the graduates didn't have the same process. So finally, there are wide variations in performance in intellectual and developmental measures among school districts, schools and subgroups of the student population. So what is good for Vancouver isn't necessarily good for my riding of Okanagan East. We must allow that flexibility.

I said that the confidence in the democratic process is being undermined. We often accuse the public of being apathetic about politics, and certainly you see that during election time. The decreased numbers at the polls would certainly indicate that. Hon. Speaker, I think the public isn't apathetic; I think they're angry. They do not trust this government, and you can't blame them when you see a bill like Bill 39 being introduced. It's no wonder that they're becoming so apolitical when their wishes are ignored.

On June 29, the minister introduced Bill 39. The bill will impose the agreement-in-committee negotiated between the BCTF and representatives of the provincial government. The argument used by the minister for the introduction of this bill is that the school trustees and the B.C. Teachers Federation could not reach an agreement. It was important to come to an agreement before children went back to school in September. I don't think anyone denies the fact that it was a difficult negotiation, but now it appears that the government was not dealing with the school trustees in good faith. It appears that the government, while dealing with the BCTF, had an additional offer to sweeten the pot -- $150 million sweeter. So what the trustees had to negotiate with was far different than what the government had offered the BCTF -- same game, but a different deck of cards.

During the estimates, the member for Okanagan-Vernon asked the following question: "Was the $150 million that was put on the table by cabinet put on before or after BCPSEA asked the ad hoc group to come in and facilitate bargaining?" There was no answer by the minister. "For the record, the minister has not answered my question. I asked: after February 15, when they were asked to go in and help out in facilitating a discussion, did they know at that time that the $150 million was [not] available?" Once again the minister did not answer. The hon. member did not receive an answer. So knowing that, it certainly makes this whole negotiation suspect.

[ Page 10449 ]

I'd like to pass on to the minister some of the comments that the various stakeholders have given to me. Unfortunately, I certainly can't repeat in the House the first one I got; it's very unparliamentary. The chair from BCPSEA stated:

"Although school trustees were frustrated with the flawed process that led to the [agreement-in-committee,] they carefully considered the agreement on its merits. BCPSEA had sought a number of clarifications of the [agreement-in-committee's] provisions from the ministry and, after due deliberation. . .the board of directors recommend on May 21 that the school boards reject the proposed agreement."

"Since 1994, we have maintained one reality, that of a co-managed employers association with direction provided by the provincial government and local school boards. It now turns out, though, that wasn't the proper reality. The true reality lies much closer to direction provided by the provincial government, and the major question facing us now is defining the role of school boards in the management of education labour relations and collective bargaining."

"Notwithstanding our dismay at the lack of integrity of unprecedented interference in the bargaining process by the government in shutting out one of the parties to the agreement, we did honour the request of our bargaining agent, the B.C. Public Schools Employers Association. We have reviewed the contents of the deal in depth in terms of its impact on the school district we were elected to serve" -- they were elected to serve. "On that basis, we voted to reject the proposal for the following reasons."

In the case of school district 23, he states:

". . .in this district we chose to put more resources into school-level learning assistance, as opposed to district-level special education resources. Now we find that we have to hire more special education resource teachers, which the government says it will fund. At the same time, however, we are required to maintain the higher than average ratio of learning assistance teachers, which it will not fund. Some other portion of the budget must be reduced to maintain a ratio of learning assistance significantly greater than the provincial average."

"At present, we have a 10 percent growth potential for new students arriving after September 30 in the school year. The new language removes that buffer for kindergarten classes for next year."

The third reason is new on-call rates. He relates that teachers on call will make more than the equivalent teachers that they replace. Creating this discrepancy is obviously a concern for them. He concludes by saying:

"I cannot, however, leave the matter without comment on the process used by the government. We recognize and share the minister's frustrations at the lack of progress in negotiations. In one form or another they have been underway for over four years without any sign that a deal was possible. Action was required to force the parties to settle. In any other dispute, government, in its role as legal protector of the collective bargaining process, would have appointed some third party to mediate and, if not successful, to arbitrate a new collective agreement. In this case, however, the government chose to reward one party exclusively. Why was this case different?"

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 midnight.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada