1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1999

Volume 16, Number 14

[ Page 14047 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

D. Symons: It's my pleasure to introduce a couple of people that are visiting the Legislature today: Bonnie Spurrier and Faye Armitstead. They're here from Roslyn, Washington. It's our pleasure to welcome them to British Columbia and our fine Canadian weather today.

Orders of the Day

[1005]

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

K. Krueger: Last evening the minister and I talked about a couple of issues raised by the senior physician in charge of cancer treatment in Kamloops. One was the issue of a bone densitometry machine. We covered that, I think, unless the minister has something further to add this morning.

The second matter involved laboratory testing with regard to tumour markers in cancer treatment. I'm hoping that the minister had a chance to look into the issue with her officials through the evening.

Hon. P. Priddy: Just in relation to Royal Inland Hospital, the cancer markers that already done are PSAs and CEAs, which are for prostate and breast cancer. The hospital has the capability to do CA15s, which is breast; CA2125s, which is ovary; and CA19s, which is pancreas and stomach. I think the numbers of those would be small, but it certainly has the capability to do that.

Apparently the oncologist was advised by someone that this was a tertiary program and was rationalized to certain hospitals. We don't know who gave that individual that advice, because that's not accurate. We've checked with the CEO of the region, who was not aware of the issue at all, and it would seem that Royal Inland Hospital can do these without any impact on their budget or quality of service.

K. Krueger: So I take that as a green light for Royal Inland to proceed, because my advice certainly is that they do have the expertise, and the only issue was whether or not they had permission. Would the minister just confirm that?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct.

K. Krueger: I'd ask if we could have a quick update on the status of the project to upgrade the emergency ward at Royal Inland Hospital, and the radiology department.

Hon. P. Priddy: The project that the member raises is currently in the design stage. It's a $14 million project, and its expected completion date is June 1, 2003. It's the entire redevelopment of the second floor at Royal Inland to also improve space for emergency medical imaging, patient registration, switchboard and waiting areas.

[1010]

I don't know whether the minister will care to comment on that or not. Just in case she doesn't want to, I'll also ask if she has had an opportunity to look into the hospital security issue that I raised last night.

Hon. P. Priddy: There was a letter signed at the facilities table that took place last spring. It's actually an attachment to the collective agreement. As I'm sure you know, the facilities table is primarily HEU, although there are other members of that table. What that letter states is that where work is being contracted out, the union has the opportunity to submit a proposal for work to be done by the bargaining unit employees, and the employer will give the proposal due consideration. But there is no requirement to change the way it's currently being done.

K. Krueger: Is it true, then, that facilities around the province are extending their current arrangements with security -- providing contractors on a month-to-month basis, pending the outcome of the process that the minister just described?

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't actually know. We can check for you, member. There may be some facilities that are doing that. We didn't check that piece of information, because it hadn't come up last night.

K. Krueger: The reason it's a question that I would like a full answer to -- and I'll happily accept a written answer when the minister has had time after these estimates are concluded, if she'd prefer -- is that people, of course, have employment contracts with their employees. Some of them, as I understand it, had already submitted bids in an open tendering process for hospital security contracts. From their point of view, things are on hold, and the suspicion they have is that the HEU has some sort of inside track. Meantime their lives and the lives of their employees are obviously impacted, and their ability to make commitments and to run their businesses effectively.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that. Perhaps we could have some sort of commitment as to when these questions will be resolved, so that the security providers will either know that they are going to continue providing that service or that they aren't, and so that they can get on with their lives. As I said, I'd be happy to wait a bit for further details. The minister obviously needs some time.

[ Page 14048 ]

[1015]

The final issue that I'd like to raise is one involving aboriginal nurses in various facilities around the province. There has been an exchange of correspondence with the Labour minister, which I hope the Health minister has been copied on. A number of aboriginal nurses working for friendship centres and so on are working for substantially lower rates than registered nurses throughout the province. There's an interaction going on with the BCNU and, of course, a general unhappiness about this. I have correspondence from last November between individuals concerned and the Labour minister. I wonder if the minister is aware of this and could comment on it.

Hon. P. Priddy: Other than being aware of the fact that there is a wage discrepancy depending on where people work -- friendship centres is the example that the member has raised, but there are other kinds of examples as well -- I don't know beyond that. We will check for you. I don't know how far along they are with discussions with the BCNU or whether this is a bargaining issue as well, but we will check for you.

K. Krueger: We'll leave that one as an open question, then, as well. There is definitely an open file in the Labour ministry. The questions that are put to the Labour minister in this correspondence are questions like: why are these employers exempt from the HEABC, why are aboriginal nurses at these facilities not entitled to the BCNU provincial collective agreement, why are aboriginal nurses discriminated against by the NDP government, and why are health care dollars being used to hire consultants to defend these organizations at the LRB and to negotiate a substandard collective agreement? If the ministry has the power to legislate these employers under HEABC, the nurses ask why this isn't being done. These aren't my questions; these are the questions of people involved in the process. I'll look forward to when the minister has had time to look into it further. Unless she cares to comment further, I'll surrender the floor to one of my colleagues.

J. Reid: Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo have several great concerns regarding health care. I know that the minister is aware of some of those problems with the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital and certainly of the study that's going on there right now. The Central Vancouver Island health region has had problems with funding in the past. I know that other members have already quite thoroughly canvassed this issue, so I'm not going to go into that -- other than, of course, to say that this area continues to have concerns with those funding issues. There has been a shortage of acute-care beds in the hospital because of the need for intermediate and long term care beds. I'm sure that's going to be coming out in the study. As other areas have, we have had a crisis in nursing. Numerous starts to projects that have been cancelled or abandoned have left people in confusion as to the direction that the ministry is going in.

With regard to the report that's underway right now by two consultants for the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, would the minister indicate what is going to be done with that report? I understand that it's due by July 15. Hopefully it will be on time. Will it be a public document? How will the minister treat that report?

[1020]

J. Reid: With the advice. . . . I presume that it's going to be presented in a written form. Is that advice going to. . . ? It's certainly being presented to the board. Will it also be available, for example, to myself?

Hon. P. Priddy: Absolutely. Because their whole purpose has been to provide advice to the board, of course they will be doing that. I have no difficulty whatsoever with the board sharing that information. That's their information to share.

J. Reid: With the area of Parksville-Qualicum notably -- also North Nanaimo to some extent -- there is a large retirement component in the population. There are several issues that are very important to these people because of the retirement community. One is the lack of emergency treatment facilities in the Parksville-Qualicum area. I would like to know how the minister determines whether an area should have health care facilities and what criteria would be used in making that decision.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, the health authority makes that determination based on the demographics and the needs of their population, and it would then present a plan to the Ministry of Health.

J. Reid: With the health authority being in a position to make that decision and then present the findings to the minister, perhaps the minister could explain what the factors are, with some background to this area. In Qualicum Beach we have a population of over 7,000 people, and over half of the population is over the age of 55; and another 10,000 people in Parksville, and over 40 percent of that population is over the age of 55. So we're looking, with the surrounding community, at well over 20,000 people that don't have any emergency care facility in that area.

Perhaps there has been much discussion with the health board about this and there still seems to be some concern as to what criteria would be looked at as far as determining when, where and how a facility might be provided. I know the minister is completely aware of how important it is that there is early emergency treatment for victims of heart attacks and strokes. The Nanaimo Regional General Hospital is about 45 minutes away. This is obviously a concern to these residents,

[ Page 14049 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I can tell you what some of the criteria are that we would ask a health authority to look at in making that determination. Perhaps as another step then, the member could ask the health board what their consideration has been of some of these factors.

[1025]

I can certainly have a look. I don't think I'll be able to do that during estimates, but you may also want to ask your health authority if they've taken those criteria as a lens and placed them on the geographic area of concern of which you speak.

J. Reid: With the health authority and the decisions that they have to make, if they determined that this area does meet the criteria the minister has mentioned and if they would like to put a proposal forward, is there additional funding? Or do they have to find funding within their existing health care budget that has been set, which we know is already stretched to the limits?

Hon. P. Priddy: If the health authority was to make a determination that there was a need -- using the criteria for emergency services -- and it looked, on the surface, like that made sense, then what we would likely do is fund them for a planning study so that they could actually do more research about exact numbers, location and all of those kinds of things. After the planning study it's possible they would submit a proposal for capital dollars. We wouldn't expect them to be able to find it out of their current capital dollars, because those are all allocated. They would submit a proposal, and that's what we would look at.

J. Reid: Hon. Chair, I assure you that the comments that the minister has made will be taken back to the community and be worked on as a plan. We look forward to proceeding with this process.

The minister mentioned the importance of swift emergency care in the form of ambulance attendants, etc. This has also been raised in the community as a concern -- wishing that the level of training that ambulance attendants have can be increased and also that the ambulance might be better equipped, again considering the distance and the nature of the population demographics. Would the minister care to comment on how we should approach these problems and concerns with the training and equipping of the ambulances in our area?

Hon. P. Priddy: Of the close to 4,000 -- or 3,300; I can't remember the exact number -- ambulance paramedics in the province, about two-thirds of those are part-time, so training has been raised as an issue. Currently, paramedics are being trained to what is called the Canadian level 1, and there have been dollars put into the British Columbia Ambulance Service to do that.

There are 1,000 full-time and 2,500 part-time ambulance paramedics; I was close.

So there have been additional dollars allocated to the British Columbia Ambulance Service to bring everybody up to what is called the Canadian level 1 training level, which the Ambulance Service believes will provide people with a level of training that allows them to respond appropriately.

In terms of equipment, that's one that I would have to say. . . . Okay, I can actually tell you where, and then maybe I can get an answer, if people are concerned, about equipment in ambulances. The upgraded training that I just mentioned has been extremely well received. Training courses are scheduled for the following communities over this next year. I have a whole list of communities, but one of them is Nanaimo.

J. Reid: Would Nanaimo include Parksville-Qualicum? It's certainly Parksville-Qualicum where this issue is most acute.

[1030]

The information I have is that all the ambulances are similarly equipped. I guess I would need to understand more about the upgrade of equipment, given the information I have.

J. Reid: With the issues raised by the community. . . . Because of the travelling time and distance because no facilities are close by, certainly there is that need in the community, which has actually been proven by ambulance trips. If we didn't have a facility, then the question is: is there any way of improving the ambulance equipment and training so that in the interim, hoping to move forward to better facilities for the area, there actually is better coverage? That has been raised. Certainly I can pursue that further with the minister and look at possibilities.

The concern for intermediate and long term care beds. . . . It has been identified many times over the years that the levels are low and that this needs to be a priority, because this indeed is what will take the pressure off the acute-care beds in Nanaimo. Does the minister have a plan for the area of Parksville-Qualicum as far as intermediate and long term care beds go? I know, once again, that it goes back to the health authority. But still, in looking at a strategy, when you have a community, that population over the age of 50. . . . The regional health authorities are also struggling with this problem. Rather than just going back to the health authorities, I'm wondering what strategy the minister would have concerning this problem.

Hon. P. Priddy: I needed to check some figures. It's hard to break down Parksville-Qualicum versus. . . . We look at it,

[ Page 14050 ]

There are two pieces to this, I expect. One of them is the continuing-care review that will look at the principles of planning and working with regions about how they assess what they need. As I said to one of your colleagues last night, it's not always about how many long term care beds you need. You have to look at continuing care in a bit more of a context. Yes, you may need a certain number of beds, but you also need home support and other things. If we just take the number of people over -- I don't know; you can pick an age; when we pick 55, I get nervous these days -- 65, or whatever it is, we can't assume that all of those people. . . . About 80 to 90 percent of seniors stay in their own homes for very long lengths of time. You have to look at the beds that you might need but also home support, issues of living or aging in place -- that kind of supportive housing.

In the Central Vancouver Island region, last year on a short-term basis we provided some funding -- I think $2.5 million -- for people to purchase long term care beds and/or home support, depending on which would best meet the needs of the patients.

[1035]

J. Reid: I absolutely agree that there needs to be a broader look. It's not just the number of beds, whether for intermediate care or long term care, but there's a much bigger picture. Indeed, that whole picture has been suffering. It is the home care that's been absent, and it is the services that have been taxed. So the question again is about strategy.

This is obviously a retirement area, and therefore we're going to be carrying a large burden of these broad health care problems. When you have a concentrated population of retirees and aging people, then it certainly does carry those problems with it. So once again I would ask for that strategy -- that "Yes, we do have funding for beds." As we as a community are looking to try to care for the community in the years to come and the inordinate pressures put on the community because of the demographics, what is the strategy, then? How is the minister approaching this problem? What foundations are being laid now for the solutions of the future?

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I think that in this case, if we're looking at it from a larger strategy perspective, then there are a number of partners. It's not only the Ministry of Health that's one of the partners in this. In some of municipalities I've worked with recently, organizations in the municipality have actually come forward and looked at what we're now looking at much more: living environments for elders. This is sort of the whole aging-in-place concept, where you can move in and might not need very much support at all; and as you require more support, you are able to stay in the same environment.

When you look back at what traditionally has happened and what probably still happens, every time you get more dependent, you move somewhere else. So for the patient, they're really clear, too, that they're being moved because people see them as being more and more dependent and closer and closer to death. I mean, that's the way services were developed, but it's not a very good feeling for anybody who is part of that service. So we've both suggested this to municipalities and worked with municipalities or organizations in municipalities.

The example I use is the Lutheran church in Surrey, which is doing a very large facility. It's an aging-in-place facility. The ministry is buying beds. We'll buy some beds and low-cost housing from them. It's a partnership between the church, the municipality and the provincial government. We're trying to share that kind of information as much as we can. Those are the kinds of examples we'll be talking about -- like Abbeyfield housing -- when the continuing-care review is released. To be able to get everybody involved in that planning is part of the strategy, because as a provincial ministry, we can't keep up with that. Of course, elders can move to Nanaimo or Parksville-Qualicum much faster than we can put aside money and build facilities. So part of that strategy is looking for those partners and working with them.

J. Reid: There is concern in the community about long-term plans and about partnering, and certainly there are some examples in the area of a direction that the ministry has embarked upon and then pulled back from. I'd like to use one of those specific examples and see if I can get some information on it. It's a facility in Nanaimo on Tunnah Road. It was purchased, I believe, three to four years ago, and it was renovated to be a geriatric, mental health, residential facility. It has sat vacant all this time. So money was put into it to purchase it and renovate it to, I presume, bring it up to standards so it could be run as a medical facility -- as part of the overall plan for downsizing Riverview -- and this facility has sat empty.

[1040]

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. This facility was acquired, and there were renovations done to it. I don't know what the actual acquisition cost was. I think the total cost was about $400,000. This was a facility that in some ways, I think, got caught in what was happening with Riverview Hospital when the mental health plan came out and when people looked at going in a different direction for people with mental health issues.

We are reviewing facilities like this, and we do have some base funding that we've set aside to look at some of these issues. I, in hindsight, cannot tell you the reason for this, but apparently there is some concern that the building isn't wheelchair-accessible. I can't answer the question of why somebody would have bought it and not had it be wheelchair-accessible, if that was the intent, or user-friendly for people with mobility problems. It may not be, therefore, the best setting for psychogeriatric patients.

[ Page 14051 ]

J. Reid: Well, it's unfortunate that that much money would be spent on a facility and have it not be used, especially when there are mental health needs in the area that aren't being met. It's my understanding that the mental health funding hasn't been released yet to the areas. Would that be correct?

[1045]

So the Central Vancouver Island health region, in terms of. . . . Because it's very different from place to place, we said: "How would you meet those needs in your area?" And what the health authority there said is that they would be hiring additional assertive case managers in Duncan, Nanaimo, Parksville, Qualicum and Port Alberni. It would be developing 20 supportive housing units in Nanaimo and in Duncan. Additionally, it would be hiring two outreach workers: one to work in the forensic system, which of course meets the needs around mentally disordered offenders, and one in Nanaimo. Those resources are in addition to about the 68 direct and contracted staff and the 160 community living spaces currently in place.

J. Reid: So with the Tunnah Road facility that was intended for a mental health facility, when would the health authority know whether that could be sold? And would the health authority actually get the proceeds of that sale, seeing that they don't own it?

Hon. P. Priddy: Those discussions are just beginning now with the health authority, and absolutely they would keep the proceeds, because they have another thought about how they think they could better use them.

J. Reid: Another concern that has been raised in this community, which is certainly also connected with an aging population, is having a renal unit for the area. It's my understanding that people from the area now have to travel three times a week to Victoria for treatment. Seeing the extended time that the treatment takes, it's three days out of the week that they actually have to be here in Victoria. This has been quite a hardship. We've seen that the numbers of people requiring the treatment will be increasing, and so the projection is that there certainly will be an increase in the future. Could the minister share the strategy for dealing with this problem in the central Vancouver Island area?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. To travel from Parksville-Qualicum, say, to Victoria several times a week, particularly in the winter, is very difficult and takes a lot of time from a family member who may be doing the driving. That's why several months ago we opened a renal unit in Duncan, so that people don't have to do that drive over the highway. It's much easier for them to be able to go to Duncan, as opposed to going all the way to Victoria. I think that facility will be at capacity next month perhaps, in terms of the capacity it has to treat patients.

We are seeing an annual growth -- you're quite right -- in renal illnesses, primarily because. . . . Well, in a large part it's because of diabetes, and it's growing by about 12 percent to 14 percent a year. Partly that's because of the aging population and therefore the diabetes related to that.

The other thing, of course, is that we've been working very hard -- and where there's lots of work left to do -- around organ donations, because of course many of those people on renal dialysis are waiting for an organ transplant. But there is one open in Duncan, and the people I've spoken with when I was there -- and have received letters from since then -- have said that it's made a huge difference, rather than travelling all that distance to Victoria.

J. Reid: My last comment. Yes, there is the unit in Duncan. Apparently people are still travelling to Victoria. There's still the concern, and the question I asked is: what's the strategy? The minister agreed that there is going to be an increasing need for these units. So in this area, what should we be looking forward to in the future? How are we going to be preparing for this increasing need?

[1050]

We do have a provincial renal agency, and they do work with us, but also with health authorities and communities, to look at what an expected need might be in the future. But as I say, there is one in Duncan and one in Nanaimo, so we are working to increase that capacity within the Central Vancouver Island health board. If the member can provide me with additional information around people travelling to Victoria, I'd be pleased to check that out.

J. Wilson: I have a few questions for the minister, and hopefully, she can be of some help. In the central interior and in my riding of Cariboo North we run into a relatively high instance of fetal alcohol syndrome, and a lot of the people there feel that the ministry needs to address this problem in a more serious manner than has been done. It's estimated that one in five babies born is affected by FAS, and that's unacceptable. I would ask: has the minister got anything in place that will possibly address this problem -- through education or intervention or some means that we can deal with the situation that exists now?

Hon. P. Priddy: One in five babies is too many -- but then, for me, one baby is too many. For anybody who's ever actually seen or held a baby with either fetal alcohol syn-

[ Page 14052 ]

Let me speak to the part that our ministry is doing, and then I want to speak to a different part as well, if I might, hon. member. It's a very difficult piece, but in the prevention that we do as a ministry, with public health nurses, the public health nurses work very hard in their communities to talk about the dangers. . . . Let me first talk about before someone becomes pregnant, because that's really where the best kind of prevention can be done -- before someone becomes pregnant in the first place.

Our public health nurses talk in schools and in community groups to parent groups and to other organizations about the risks of using alcohol if you are even thinking about becoming pregnant or are sexually active and not using birth control that's fairly reliable, anyway. Now, that's a hard one, because of course what normally happens is that people become pregnant, and by the time they know they're pregnant -- at, say, four weeks or six weeks -- much of that damage has been done, because they have been drinking in the early part of their pregnancy. So from our perspective, it's the work you can do in schools -- and the Ministry of Education does some of that as well -- with students to say: "Look, you know, if you're sexually active and you're in any way at risk of becoming pregnant, please don't drink. You will have a baby that has extraordinary needs. Many people cannot meet the needs of those babies. Most of those babies do not stay in their birth families" -- although I think we could do a bit better job of doing that.

[1055]

The rest of it, I think, is partly. . . . The federal government, by the way, as you may know -- you always give credit where it's due -- has announced money for fetal alcohol syndrome treatment and intervention. The Building Blocks program that I started when I was in the Ministry for Children and Families is just the kind of program that's intended to support those infants and whoever the caregiving families are. But primarily, past birth, that's a Ministry for Children and Families responsibility. As much as I care passionately about it, you'd probably ask those questions of that minister.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

I would like to address a problem. People in the central and northern parts of British Columbia are having real problems with the way the ministry is operating the health care system. People who live there live in a different world than people who live on southern Vancouver Island or the lower mainland. There's really very little comparison. Over the past few years the ministry has systematically cut funding to hospitals in an effort to regionalize health care. What has happened is that you cut funding to a point where the regional hospital, which is Prince George, can't handle the load any longer, because it builds to a point where they are full most of the time.

Part of the way that this happens is that the ministry might not fund certain equipment or may not fund certain positions, or the health council can't hire people because their funding is cut. Then we end up sending people by ambulance all over the province. This is not an acceptable way to go out and address a lot of the situations that arise with illness or injury and this kind of thing. We cannot provide an adequate service to patients when we have to send them by ambulance from, say, Quesnel to Prince George and then by ambulance from Prince George to Vancouver and then back again. The ministry has downloaded the costs onto the patient. It's not an acceptable way to treat people, because of regional disparities. This is something that the ministry really needs to take a look at and address.

[1100]

Now, one of the things that the funding has done in the G. R. Baker Memorial Hospital in Quesnel has been to reduce the number of acute-care beds. We have gone from 44 to 38 this year, and the rationale, I'm told, is that because these beds are not filled 100 percent of the time, we don't need that many beds. There are times -- and a lot of times -- when all of those beds are full, and we have people on stretchers waiting for a bed. Just because we have a few vacant beds in the hospital part of the time should not be any reason to cut the number of beds.

One of the things that I don't believe the minister looks at is the fact that my riding has very high resource-based employment. We have a lot of industry there; we have a lot of industrial jobs. And we also have been trying to get it established as a retirement centre for people, because it's affordable living, good living and a good area. When you take the industrial base and the workforce -- the type of work that's done -- I find it disturbing that we would see a cut in the number of acute-care beds in that hospital. I'd like some assurance from the minister: can we not maintain our acute-care beds without any further reduction in the number of beds that we now have?

Hon. P. Priddy: It would be easy to say yes, and that's kind of what I want to say. We will continue to provide the

[ Page 14053 ]

[1105]

Now, are there additional pressures? Perhaps people have had additional illnesses, or there's been a higher incidence of accidents in a particular year. That may well be correct. But the funding for hospitals has been maintained and indeed increased in a significant way this year.

If I might, could I do one more thing while I'm on my feet? You probably don't have this letter yet, but it's in my office, so you will. I want to go back to the FAS for a minute, if I could. Is that all right with the member?

From our Health alternative payments branch, which is the other way of paying physicians, we've allocated 104 sessions for physician services for that particular program as a result of the quite significant efforts of the Quesnel child, youth and family network. You should have that letter in a day or two. They may actually not know that; you may want to call them and let them know that.

J. Wilson: Hospitals like the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital and the hospital at Williams Lake have been running deficits. There is really no way around it. Now, when the minister says that funding has been increased, does that mean that it has been funded to a point where the deficit no longer exists, or is this increase in funding above and beyond the point where the hospital is operating in the red?

Hon. P. Priddy: We are anticipating that all those hospitals will submit balanced budgets this year and will be able to do so.

We had a discussion -- I can't remember -- last night with someone who. . . . We talked about the fact that what's happened with deficit funding -- actually across the country since the seventies -- is that hospitals run deficits and Health ministries then pick it up. But it's one-time funding. Therefore in the following year they're in exactly the same position, because they're running a deficit and the Health ministry, whether it's here or in Newfoundland, picks it up, and that sort of cycle continues. What we've done this year is put it into the base so that people will not be in the same situation. So they should be able to balance and not have a deficit next year.

J. Wilson: Then by increasing the funding, we won't really see much improvement in service. We will simply be operating in a non-deficit situation. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: It does go beyond simply being able to balance the budget because you don't have a deficit. The percentage increases that I talked about for Prince George Regional Hospital will not only enable them not to have a deficit, but with increases of 11 percent in tertiary care and 7-1/2 percent in non-tertiary care, they should be able to do far more than simply not have a deficit. They should be able to advance services.

[1110]

What I am trying to get through to the minister is that this is part of providing a service. We need to continue to maintain the services that we have, rather than let them weaken and erode away until these satellite hospitals become nothing more than first-aid stations.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not aware of the particular difficulty he raises, and we can certainly look at that around. . . . I think what he mentioned was closing an ICU unit for one shift. Did I understand you correctly, member? What I would need to look at -- and we will, by the way -- is whether that's an issue of dollars or of not actually having the nurses to staff the ICU. So that is something that I would have to look at.

We have two things happening in the province with nurses. Well, we have a lot happening in the province with nurses, but one of them is that the additional hirings will make a difference, because we're hiring a thousand new nurses over two years. But secondly, there is a lack, if you will, of nurses who have ICU skills and renal dialysis skills, and so what we're doing is also looking at the nurses who are currently in the profession and want to upgrade. We'll provide them with the training to be able to do that.

Those are the two areas that I hear about the most: renal dialysis and intensive care units. Those are specialty nurses; those are not general floor duty nurses. They're nurses with additional training. So we will be working to try and find nurses who want to upgrade their skills. So far we've heard -- I don't know about your area -- from a number of nurses who are interested in doing that.

At G.R. Baker Memorial, they did have an increase in their budget this year. They also had, about three months ago, another $400,000 from the government to help relieve what

[ Page 14054 ]

The other thing I would say is that, given the way we're currently structured -- and I know the member knows this, but I just need to say it out loud -- we don't fund the hospital. We fund the health authority, and they manage within that. So the health authority, as well, has some influence on the dollars for hospitals.

J. Wilson: Perhaps the way the funding is provided to the health authority is not the best way to address the problem. The situation with the ICU, I believe and I've been told, is a matter of having enough people on staff to be able to operate it when needed. This comes back to a shortage of qualified people.

[1115]

There are a lot of times when something as simple as a piece of equipment could be purchased and put in a hospital, which will allow it to operate and provide services. It would almost appear that the people in charge of funding really don't have to answer to any aspect of the health care system; and if they don't support some things, then it allows it to deteriorate very quickly.

For example, six weeks ago the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital had its remote ultrasound removed. Why? I have no idea. It's gone. This was used 450 times a month. It's a very important diagnostic tool. It's no longer there. That is not providing health care service. We had the equipment. Why not maintain the equipment and keep the equipment there so that nurses or staff can use it? They can come up with a diagnosis much earlier. It saves a lot of cases of people taking an ambulance to go somewhere else to get the work done. In some cases it could even save lives if it's done on site at the time it's needed and not have to wait weeks or even months on a referral system.

Can the minister tell me why we would lose a valuable piece of equipment in this hospital? I think that it would be a very smart move to have that reinstated, have it replaced and allow the staff there to continue to operate it. It's not like it was a piece of equipment that was not used. To be used 15 times a day is certainly something that we need -- very much so.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is at G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital? And it's an ultrasound that was pulled out? Okay. On the surface, it doesn't make much sense. Nobody here knows, but we will find that out for you, if not today, certainly for the next day of estimates, hon. member, because we have actually worked hard to make sure that hospitals at least have a minimum amount of functional equipment that is serving the needs of people in that area. I would certainly not say that equipment budgets are rich, because they are not, and sometimes that's the area people get cut back in or choose to save dollars in as they're distributing their dollars. But they do have dollars for equipment replacement. Why this happened, I have no idea. We will find out for you. As I say, on the surface it doesn't look like it makes a great deal of sense, but we will find out for you.

As it relates to the nurses, my understanding from your colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena is that we will be exploring that in a more expanded way, in terms of how many nurses and from where, and are we going to be able to do it, etc. Perhaps during that discussion, that will be helpful for your questions.

I. Chong: I would like to begin my questions to the minister regarding some capital projects in the capital health region, with a follow-up to some questions I asked last year. The first issue is the Vancouver Island cancer clinic. I think it's been well known that there are approximately 2,500 cancer patients here on Vancouver Island and that the current clinic was only able to handle about 1,700 of those. So my first question to the minister, because the clinic is still being built, is: where are the other 800 patients that we cannot service at this time? Where would they be serviced? I would assume in Vancouver, but I'm wondering if the minister can advise if there are other locations being used.

[1120]

While I'm on my feet and they're checking, if I might, I'll return to a question that was raised by the member from Kamloops North. It's probably just a partial answer, but it's around aboriginal nurses. I don't know about the LRB, but the friendship centres are not unionized, and my understanding is that they're not anxious to join HEABC. They have not been particularly willing to do so -- so far. I know there has been a discussion at the HEABC board about that. We will be getting more information for you, but we wanted to let you know that. And I wasn't even sure if those were all non-union positions or not, and perhaps that's the purpose of their discussion with BCNU. We can get you a bit more, but that's a beginning of that answer.

I. Chong: While the minister is reviewing the notes that her staff have available for her. . . . I am pleased with parts of her comments, I guess, that the people on Vancouver Island are in fact being served in the lower mainland -- in Vancouver or Surrey, or even as far as Kelowna. But as I understand it, there were some patients -- and this could now not be the

[ Page 14055 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Just to go back to the Victoria clinic for a moment. Because they are working -- and have the budget to work -- extended hours, they're serving about 2,200 patients. The rest of the patients are going to either Vancouver or Surrey; they're not going to Kelowna. It's still hard to go away from home, but it's probably easier to go to Vancouver than it might be to go to Kelowna. So the rest are being served in Vancouver and in Surrey.

As to the question about Bellingham, in my time as minister we have not referred anybody to Bellingham for cancer services. So whether there's somebody -- although I would think it would be unlikely -- who. . . . I mean, if we haven't referred anybody in 15 months, most people's treatment would have long been finished -- unless there was some recurrence and they chose to go back there. But in the time that I've been minister, I'm told that we have not referred anybody to Bellingham for service.

I. Chong: Not to belabour the point, but I do recall the minister stating at one point -- whether it was through question period or through last year's estimates -- that there were still some cases at that time of patients being served through Bellingham. Certainly I can appreciate that, since her time as minister, no new cases have been referred. But again, I would appreciate just a confirmation -- when the minister is able to provide the other figures for me -- as to where Vancouver Island patients are being treated for cancer. Of the 2,200 number, how many are here in Victoria? How many are in Vancouver? How many are in Surrey? In her efforts to get that information to me, perhaps she can also confirm that there are no more continuing cases in Bellingham. And that would be fine.

I would like to move on and ask the minister -- again concerning the Vancouver Island cancer clinic. As the minister well knows, the parkade recently became a factor or a reason that was given as one of the delays, as to why the clinic was not built as promised. The cost of $8 million for a parkade was what was bandied about. I'm curious, if the parkade was an issue -- an $8 million issue at that, which represented close to 15 percent of the cost of the project -- why it had not been identified sooner and why we would not have been able to at least deal with that.

[1125]

Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding -- it was before my time -- is that the parkade was identified as an issue at the time. I'm told that it took much longer to resolve than people had ever anticipated. As the member knows, it has been fast-tracked, and I think that's particularly important. Thirdly, it did -- as many projects did -- get caught in the freeze and the review of all capital projects. If there's more information, somebody will tell me in a minute.

But I want to go back to how many people are being served in other places, if I can. There are 2,200 actually being served in Victoria -- at least, according to the numbers we have. I don't have the other numbers, whether it's 800 or whatever, but they are in Vancouver and Surrey, and I'm told that there are no people at all currently being served in Bellingham.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. I presume that the reason why she gave those answers was to save her the time of having to send me a follow-up letter, and that'll be sufficient.

Again to the issue of the cancer clinic. I note the member for Victoria-Hillside is here, and I appreciate his being able to listen to some of the comments that I may have to make. I have also indicated that I was very appreciative of his effort to request that this government move towards fast-tracking that. I want to state that for the record.

However, the original announcement in 1995 was such that the clinic would be open three years hence. It was announced in '95 for opening in 1998. The groundbreaking took place in April of '99. I understand that the new target date is April 2001, which means that it's been fast-tracked to the tune of. . . . One-third of the time has been lopped off, I suppose.

[1130]

Hon. P. Priddy: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The extended hours that are currently happening to serve the 2,200 patients are operating hours that are currently happening. So we've extended what's happening there. I do not understand from staff that there's any change in the target date. I worry about target dates these days, you see.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Okay. It's April 2001.

I. Chong: I appreciate the clarification, because rolled up in that explanation, I heard "extended hours" and automatically thought we were still talking about the clinic, as opposed to the patients being treated.

I would still like to raise the question with the minister, though, regarding the fast-tracking of the project -- again, which I very much support. I'm wondering how it is that we're able to fast-track the project without a revision to the

[ Page 14056 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: That took a bit longer -- sorry. My understanding from staff is that there has not been a need to revise the budget. We expect that the budget, albeit the project has been fast-tracked, would not need to be revised.

I. Chong: My question wasn't whether the budget has been revised. I'm curious. . . . Well, I guess it would be why the budget hasn't been revised, given that one-third of the time frame that was originally budgeted to have the clinic completed. . . . The three-year time frame is now reduced to two. With one year's less labour, you would expect that the budget could be revised, to be reduced. I was curious, if the budget hasn't been revised, just why it hasn't been. How were we able to reduce the work schedule to a two-year time frame for completion of the project? That was the essence of the question.

Hon. P. Priddy: A couple of things, but not so much around the budget changing. Because the scope of the project hasn't changed at all, the cash flow will have to be accelerated. It's not greater, but the cash flow will be accelerated because the project is fast-tracked. The budget itself is not impacted at all, only the speed at which it goes out the door.

I. Chong: Then I would assume that the man-hours required to complete it in the two years versus the man-hours required to complete it in the three years would remain the same, because you will just have more man-hours with more people working. That is what I would assume, if in fact the budget has not changed and the time frame has been reduced. I'll accept that just for the moment. If the minister wishes to respond, I'll first of all put another question to her so that she may be answering both, and we can speed this process up. I'd also like to ask the minister why it was that B.C. Buildings Corporation was chosen for this project. Was there any consideration for the private sector, to ensure that it could be built on time and on budget?

[1135]

But my understanding is that I know that people wanted it fast-tracked. As you mentioned, there were lots of loud voices both on your side of the House and on ours and from people from Victoria, who said: "Can we not do this faster?" There seemed to be some difficulties in getting agreement about how that could happen. There was satisfaction that BCBC was able to have people work together, to get it completed and to get it completed on time. That's the reason that BCBC is going ahead with the project. If the member needs more detailed information, I'll need to consult with the other ministers.

I. Chong: I would appreciate it if the minister could locate that information and provide it to me by way of a written submission. While we agree that fast-tracking was the right procedure to take, I am curious why BCBC was chosen versus allowing for the private sector to come in and, I suppose, provide the same opportunity. That opportunity wasn't there.

I also note that -- and if the minister isn't able to answer this, again I would appreciate her looking into it and providing it to me -- while BCBC was given authority and jurisdiction for the project, it was the member for Victoria-Hillside who was given responsibility for the file. Could the minister clarify for me what that means -- that the member for Victoria-Hillside has been given responsibility for the file?

Hon. P. Priddy: We often have, in various parts of the projects, MLAs who have a particular interest and want to spend time getting a particular project advanced or being the person who works with whatever ministry it is to make sure that the project is on time and advanced and that all the details are. . . . I don't mean the on-the-ground details, but that things are moving as quickly and as swiftly as they should.

Clearly the member for Victoria-Hillside has been very interested in this. He lives here, and he has -- as many other MLAs have, actually, in projects in their own area -- simply taken the lead on trying to make sure that all those things happen on time for the constituents who use the Victoria cancer clinic.

I. Chong: I'll just wrap up on this area. The reason why I questioned that -- what the responsibility for the file means -- is that I was curious whether the member had authority or the ability to override decisions of the BCBC, whether he would be involved in any of the budgeting or any of the cost allocations, and just what his responsibilities would be. As the minister well knows, I'm not comforted if the member has those opportunities, because I know his involvement in a past project -- being the union centre here -- was a dismal financial failure. I would not want to see a member be given any kind of responsibility to override budgeting or to speed up the project, where we would end up being over budget. That is the basis of my question -- responsibility, as I saw in an article.

[1140]

I. Chong: Linked to the cancer clinic project is, of course, the redevelopment of Royal Jubilee Hospital. Phase 1, as I understand it, is the diagnostic and treatment block, with an estimated completion date of March 2003. I would like to pose a number of questions to the minister, and maybe she can answer them all at once in an effort to speed up our process here.

Firstly, is the construction activity to date on schedule? Last year, when I asked the minister whether there were any cost overruns, she was not able to advise me of that. But I recently received a letter, May 11, 1999 -- some ten months later -- that indicated that there was an over-budget cost

[ Page 14057 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Rather than giving you my best guess, if you will, I would prefer if we could answer that question when estimates resume -- but we will have it to you today. We are, as I say, making best efforts not to have any outstanding questions.

I. Chong: I will wait for those answers -- as to whether the work schedule is on time and whether we are over budget anymore. In addition to that, perhaps the minister can include an explanation as to the cost overruns of last year -- the $5.9 million. One of the reasons cited was the fluctuating currency, which was recorded in the letter, and I'm not understanding. . . . I need clarification as to why there would be cost overruns attributable to fluctuating currency -- unless we're purchasing all our materials from the United States or abroad. So if the minister could also provide that within her explanation at a later date, I would appreciate that.

I know we are nearing adjournment before the lunch break, but I want to make note at this time of a couple of other issues, local constituency issues, that have been brought to my attention and which I would like the minister to be aware of. One has to do with the home care services in the capital health region, and in particular with regard to a constituent who contacted me. Actually, he didn't contact me; a neighbour contacted me. He is a senior citizen who went home after surgery. He was not able to receive home care. An infection in the wound subsequently occurred, and he only received home care after his neighbour intervened, contacted our office and we contacted the capital health region authorities to ensure that this senior was taken care of.

The difficulty, of course, is.. . . We all know the limited resources that are there, and I understand that. But I would hope, as a result of this particular case, that the health region or all health boards throughout the province are looking at issues where senior citizens are sent home after a surgery, and that before they are sent home, the question is at least posed to them as to whether or not there is someone there, or whether or not a home care support worker will in fact be made available upon that person's arrival home, to avoid possible infections that could be much more serious later. It's a simple solution, or a simple protocol, I guess, if doctors would just ask the question. Perhaps it hasn't been suggested that they ask.

[1145]

Seeing the time and knowing that people have some commitments, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported Bill 56 and Bill 73 complete without amendment, was granted leave to sit again.

Bill 56, Forest Land Reserve Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.

Bill 73, Private Post-Secondary Education Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:15 a.m.

FOREST LAND RESERVE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

G. Abbott: The only area in section 1 that I want to ask about is the identified land section. I know this is something that some members have asked about before.

When we're talking about identified land, we mean managed private forest land and only in the forest land reserve. Is it fair to say that the boundaries of the forest land reserve -- and I guess that portion of the agricultural land reserve that's managed forest land -- would be entirely contiguous only with managed forest land? In short, are there pieces of Crown land which could get captured in this mix of identified land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Here we are dealing with private lands, so the Crown land that has been identified as forest land reserve is already captured for management.

G. Abbott: The Crown land that has already been identified as forest land reserve has already been captured. Okay, I guess that's where I'm getting to. There's no great political import to this; I can see it more being a matter of a municipality at some point down the line saying, you know: "There are 15 acres of Crown land over here. We would like to use it for X, Y or Z." The response being: "I'm sorry, that's part of the forest land reserve." Can that kind of scenario happen? Or is that not something that could occur within this situation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Anything in the provincial forest land reserve -- in the provincial forests -- of the Crown land is governed by the land use regulation governing the allowable uses. So if there is a regulation governing that. . . . Should that land become private by way of licence, lease, lease to purchase and ultimately private, then Bill 56 would capture it. It would then be subject to Bill 56, once it became private. But the land use, for all intents and purposes, wouldn't change unless

[ Page 14058 ]

G. Abbott: I think we're getting this cleared up now, because there was a little confusion about it yesterday with the Minister of Agriculture as well.

Just so I'm sure I've got it right: if we've got a block of private managed forest land here and another block of managed forest land here, and there is a small piece of Crown land in between, it might show up on the maps. But until the ownership of that land is converted in a formal sense, it is not a part of the forest land reserve -- correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there could be a portion of land that is in the provincial forest -- and therefore in the forest land reserve -- that is Crown, but Bill 56 wouldn't apply to that land until it became private.

G. Abbott: I think we can move on.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

G. Abbott: Section 17(1) is sort of the critical section in terms of the requirements that are going to be imposed on owners of identified land within the forest land reserve. It's set out very briefly. But my understanding is that at some point there will be a reference or a link to the rather larger document, the 20-page document "Forest Practices on Private Land," or something to that effect. Is that correct? Can the minister set out what that linkage is going to be?

[1020]

G. Abbott: That legal version of the forest practices standards for private land is still in the development phase and the consultation phase. It won't be until a future point some months down the line that there is final agreement and final adoption, presumably by OIC, of those regulations. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're going to attempt to bring in the regulation as soon as possible. Essentially, the consultations are complete. There may be some consultations with the private land organization during legislative drafting for clarification, but we want to deposit it as soon as possible. But it will be by OIC. We intend to give them six months' lead time between deposit and bringing it into effect, to give them time to gear up. That's, I think, an agreeable time frame with that organization.

G. Abbott: Subsection 17(1)(c) says "management of critical wildlife habitat," and in the definitions section we have the definition: "critical wildlife habitat means critical wildlife habitat as defined by regulation."

Can the minister, in the context of 17(1), lay out first of all who is going to determine, with respect to private managed forest land, what is or isn't critical wildlife habitat -- how it will be identified? Who will set out the management regime for that critical wildlife habitat area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The process would be that Ministry of Environment officials would designate what is on the list, as they do now under the code. But they will only do that if the habitat requirements of those species can't be met on public land. They aren't going to designate land if it's not needed for the conservation of that species. The critical wildlife is a subset of the identified wildlife, and it's the same process as used for the code.

[1025]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes. It would be rarely and under a section coming up: section 12(a)(e.2)(iii)(A). This is on. . . . I don't know what page of the bill it's on. Anyway, it's section 12 of the bill. It says that even if we do it, it can't exceed 1 percent of the total area of land identified.

G. Abbott: On 17(2), the reforestation section, can we get a clearer understanding of what the requirements are going to be with respect to reforestation? I presume there will be instances where the owner of the land, for whatever reasons, may want to wait an additional length of time before reforesting. How would the reforestation requirements in this section compare, for example, with the reforestation requirements on Crown land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that it's somewhat less on the private land, and it's because it is designed to accommodate different management objectives. It's specified under the section on successfully regenerated stands, so the stocking standard really is 400 crop trees per hectare on the coast and 600 crop trees per hectare in the interior. It would vary with the type in the main code, but it is more than that.

G. Abbott: Would I deduce from the "somewhat less" that there is greater flexibility around the timing of reforestation activities than there would be on Crown land?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. That would be in the regulation, of course. It is two years in the main code, and it's longer here. They have a little more flexibility; that's the plan. I'll try to find where it refers to it in the draft guidelines.

G. Abbott: Just let me know whenever you find that.

[ Page 14059 ]

[1030]

Section 4, sections 17.1 and 17.2 approved.

On section 4, section 17.3.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief officer is the general manager, currently, of the Land Commission and the Forest Land Commission. That won't change with the legislation.

G. Abbott: The suggestion here in section 17.3 is that before identified land is going to be classified as managed forest land, the owner has to submit to the chief officer in writing a management commitment meeting the prescribed requirements. I think I should ask this question: will that also apply to all of those properties that are in the reserve now? Will they be asked to submit these management commitments?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

G. Abbott: So presumably, unless they're prepared to submit a management commitment, their land would be removed from the forest land reserve. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If they fail to comply -- and I have to point out that there are, in section 13, transitional plans, so they have some time to do that -- they won't be dropped out of the forest land reserve. They would lose the forest land classification and therefore the tax advantage.

Section 4, section 17.3 approved.

On section 4, section 17.4.

G. Abbott: Nothing in 17.4 particularly caught my eye until I went to the "Penalties" section. Again, my recollection here -- I can't find the "Penalties" section at the moment. . . . But when I looked back under "Variances," section 17.4(4) reads: "The owner who receives notice under subsection (3) that a proposed variance has been accepted must comply with the variance and any conditions specified in the notice." That all seems benign enough. . . . That's why I'm wondering why there would be a million-dollar fine, potentially, for breaching that. That's the only thing that kind of caught my eye about this particular section.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fines, of course, are to backstop the enforcement. If someone is given a variance, then they have to live up to the variance; or by default, then, they would be subject to the penalty provisions.

G. Abbott: I just have some difficulty understanding what could be contained in a variance that -- if, for whatever reason, the owner failed to meet it -- would provoke a million-dollar fine or imprisonment up to six months, which seemed to me to be very substantial, at least from my modest perspective.

[1035]

Section 4, sections 17.4 and 17.5 approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Abbott: The first question here is on "Entry on Land and Premises." This contains fairly standard language around the ability of an official to enter at a reasonable time, etc., property for purposes of inspection and so on. The question here is: who would the official be in this instance? Would it be someone dispatched by the Forest Land Commission -- or I guess it'll be the Land Commission soon? Who is the official likely to be, or who could it be? What is the range of people who could be the official under this section?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the definitions section, " 'official' means a member of the commission, or a person employed under the Public Service Act, who is authorized by the commission and is designated by name or title to be an official for the purpose of a specified provision of this Act or of the regulations." So basically, it's an employee or a member of the commission.

G. Abbott: So for example, there would not be the prospect of a Ministry of Forests official having jurisdiction in this situation. It would only be officials from the Land Commission.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. I didn't give you a complete answer. It could be a MELP or MOF official, and the reason is that there may be expertise required that isn't in the hands of the very small staff of the commission.

G. Abbott: Let me see if I have any more questions with respect. . . . Do you want to do section 29.1 and pass it, or do you want to wait and go through section 6? It's fine with me either way.

The Chair: We can go through it seriatim.

G. Abbott: Okay, I'll move that section 29.1 pass.

Section 6, section 29.1 approved.

[ Page 14060 ]

G. Abbott: In the penalties provision under "Administrative Remedies," 29.11(3) says: "The time limit for levying a penalty against a person under subsection (1) is 3 years after the facts on which the penalty is based first came to the knowledge of the chief officer."

I guess that invites two questions. Why three years? Perhaps there's something in the legal statutes which would direct us to three years. Also, how will that three-year benchmark be established? Will there be some official notice provision that goes from the chief officer to the owner? In short, how will the three-year time frame be established?

[1040]

G. Abbott: I won't belabour the point. It's just that when issues become legal issues and someone says, "Well, you didn't act in the appropriate time frame," there needs to be some base point at which the chief officer can say: "Well, in fact, on June 29, 1999, I received a report from a Ministry of Environment official, and I have noted it" -- to establish that baseline.

And the other part of the question was. . . . He can make a note of it, and I guess he can refer back into his records and say: "Well, here's the baseline." Is there an obligation on the part of the chief officer to notify the apparent offender that the chief officer has launched an investigation or has received a complaint and that he is moving to assess its validity? Is that something that's going to happen here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the person who would be the apparent offender would get notification if there was to be a search done or if we needed information of some kind from them. But there is no obligation in the act here to notify someone as soon as information comes available to the chief officer. It's there to require him to take action and not let something go on for a long period of time. It actually limits him to three years.

Section 6, sections 29.11 to 29.21 inclusive approved.

On section 6, section 29.3.

G. Abbott: This section deals with the loss of the managed forest land classification and in legal language runs through the processes of notification, appeal, possible reinstatement and so on. Can the minister give us a good, simple explanation of what the process would be here in terms of someone potentially losing their managed forest land classification?

[1045]

Section 6, section 29.3 approved.

On section 6, section 29.31.

G. Abbott: I just want to ask this question, because this is the first point at which we see a reference to an advisory panel. I don't believe that there is a definition of advisory panel in the front of the. . . . No, there isn't. We don't have a definition, so I'd like to get an idea from the minister as to what it is. We get an explanation on the left that says that the chief officer may utilize advisory panels made up of landowners to review proposed variances." Can the minister explain when and where the panels will come into play, the size of them and that sort of thing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The size of a panel would depend on the situation and the nature of the issue at hand, but we have said that it has to have at least one landowner on it. This grew out of the idea of having a peer review. So it could be a group of all landowners. But the chief officer would make a determination if he needed some expertise around a certain subject. He might put a person like that -- a wildlife biologist, say -- on the panel, or a fisheries or riparian expert or something. The plan would be that this panel would go out and talk to the landowner and try to achieve compliance. So it would be a panel of people who are knowledgable and understand the situation and have probably worked in similar situations.

G. Abbott: Everybody is happy at this point, because we haven't started yet in terms of process. I want to anticipate when people will be less happy about this or that. That's always an unpleasant thing to do, but I want to do that.

The explanatory note with respect to section 29.31 says that it allows the chief officer to utilize advisory panels, made up of landowners to review proposed variances. What I would read in that is that advisory panels are exclusively made up of landowners. I'm understanding now that that is not the case, but that on some advisory panels, landowners may in fact constitute only a minority of the committee. Is that correct? Maybe we can just get more clarity with respect to the composition of panels.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the draft regulation, there's more specificity. In fact, this is probably an error in the note. It has evolved since then. So what is contemplated is that the chief officer must not appoint a person to the advisory panel unless, in the opinion of the chief officer, that person is all of the following. So these are the criteria in looking for people: they have to be familiar with the act and this regulation; they have to be capable of assessing the environmental impacts of forest practices; they have to be capable of carrying out the work in accordance with any procedure and standards developed under section 35; and they have to be independent of the person to whom the referral relates. Then another section says that at least one member of the advisory panel must be an owner of identified land that is managed private land.

[ Page 14061 ]

[1050]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we've advised the private land owners how the criteria for the panel selection. . . . That's what I just read out. We're not aware of any disagreement with that. I think there is an understanding that you're trying to help the person, so you need the expertise there. But if it doesn't work, then it's much more elaborate and more complicated to get into other levels of enforcement. The whole idea was to put in a panel that works. It seems to me that you have to have expertise there. I would say that it would be similar to the way the agricultural advisory panels work for environmental management. It has to have credibility in the eyes of the landowner, or it won't work. I'm quite sure they won't accept the advice.

Section 6, section 29.31 approved.

On section 6, section 29.4.

G. Abbott: Just a quick question with respect to this, because we find very similar language in sections 29.4, 29.41 and 29.5. In 29.4 it's "the official"; in the next one it's "the chief officer"; in the next one it's "the commission." In each case it essentially says that the official can vary an order or decision made by the official under this Act or the regulations on new information." Then it does the same with the chief officer and with the commission. It all seems very straightforward. What's the reason for these three sections?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Each person who makes a decision has to be empowered in the legislation. The whole idea is that they have the powers to revisit a decision -- to nip a problem in the bud, as it were -- to stop having to go through a more formal appeal.

Section 6, sections 29.4 to 29.5 inclusive approved.

On section 6, section 29.51.

G. Abbott: The reference to the Supreme Court -- is that simply to clarify what is the usual practice, in any event, for decisions of boards and commissions and so on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is an enforcement provision. If someone didn't comply with the various regulations and orders, they can be ordered to comply. But the chief officer could apply to the Supreme Court to get an enforcement order.

G. Abbott: It's essentially the same process as a municipality would go through to, for example, enforce a stop-work order or a demolition order or indeed any other thing. So I'm happy to say aye to everything right up to division 4.

[1055]

On section 6, section 29.81.

G. Abbott: Section 29.81 gets into the penalty section and again goes through the different things that a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment for not more than six months applies to. Is it clear what these penalties are for, particularly in comparison to those that follow in subsection (2), where we've got a fine not exceeding $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months? We've talked about the $1 million as the top-end figure that could apply in a very serious situation. I just need some more explanation about how we arrive at those fine figures, particularly.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The $1 million fine is possible for contravention of some of the key environmental values that are cited here. The $500,000 is for lesser offences, and it goes down from there.

Section 6, sections 29.81 to 29.91 inclusive approved.

G. Abbott: You can go right up to part 5.2, on audits. I don't think other colleagues have questions.

The Chair: I might as well just quickly go through the subsections, then. Division 4 passes?

Division 4 approved.

On section 6, section 29.96.

G. Abbott: The audits to be carried out in this section -- who will be doing the audits in this? Will it be the Forest Land Commission or the amalgamated land commission? Will they be appointing auditors from outside? I thought we'd talked about this -- that the auditors would not be, for example, from the Forest Practices Board. Perhaps we could get some clarification on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commission appoints the auditors. In all likelihood, they will be consultants or contractors. The commission, again, has to have people who are familiar with the act, capable of making the assessments, capable of carrying out the work and independent of the person who is being audited.

G. Abbott: Is the question of who would do audits a matter of continuing discussion? I don't know who would do these things, apart from the Forest Practices Board. Who would be engaged to do a process like this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a pool of consultants who have auditing experience now. It would be from that pool of people that the chief officer would probably garner his auditors.

[1100]

Sections 6 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just as part of the record, the restocking has to take place in five years and be successfully generated in 15.

[ Page 14062 ]

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 11:02 a.m. to 11:04 a.m.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

J. Weisbeck: I just want to clarify a couple of things, because the last day we left off with some discussion about the consultation process. First of all, in Hansard you will notice that I spoke of not receiving consultation in the drafting of the act; I wasn't referring to any prior consultation to that. I think the minister, as well, has received the same correspondence that I received, and there was obviously a deep concern by the members of the British Columbia Career Colleges Association. They're concerned that there are certain parts of this act that are going to have quite a large impact on them.

[1105]

I want to note here one comment that this person made:

"While we agree our industry has had some consultation on the design of the fund, we are now most critically concerned with the details that will make this operational. We have been bombarded with correspondence from members who express grave reservations about how this fund will ultimately be delivered.

"Frankly, Mr. Minister, our members are still reacting to the accord and how that will affect us. (And please believe it will affect us.) We believe that it is critical to our industry and our industry support for this fund that the other concerns raised in our letter be addressed. As we stated in our letter of June 17, we expect to work with your government to identify the process where these concerns are heard, addressed and where real consultation on the details can occur."

Hon. A. Petter: Confused.

J. Weisbeck: There's a little bit of confusion, and I think that. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: I'll straighten it all out for you.

J. Weisbeck: Would you like to stand up and straighten that out?

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to. I have with me Stella Bailey, who is the manager of legislation in the policy planning and legislation branch of the ministry, and also Jim Vanstone, who is director of the student services branch of the ministry.

I think there was some confusion because of change of personnel or personalities at the B.C. Career Colleges Association and also the process that was followed. This work has been underway for some time, and Derek Hamill, who is, I believe, the vice-president of the Career Colleges Association, was very much involved in the consultations that took place, including reviewing drafts of the legislation. He subsequently became a member of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission and in that capacity continued to provide input.

The reason that the consultation terminated 18 months ago -- or wound down 18 months ago -- was because at that point the legislation was more or less brought together with the intention that it be introduced. It did not make it onto the schedule for last session, and therefore it made it onto the schedule for this session.

Meanwhile, as it were, back at the association a new president came on. I think the new president wasn't necessarily aware of some of this history and the involvement of Mr. Hamill and his review and role in helping to draft the legislation, and that has resulted in some of the confusion that took place.

I received some of the letters that the member did, and I asked staff to assure themselves that the legislation -- obviously legislation may not in every way reflect every desire that the Career Colleges Association has -- was reflective of the consultations and in fact offered to the president of the association that if she would prefer, we could withhold the legislation from this session and engage in a further round of consultation.

Her response back -- and that's been confirmed in writing -- was no. Having now reviewed the situation, they would like the legislation to proceed. I think there is now a greater degree of understanding and familiarity about the consultation process that did take place and that did involve their own vice-president, albeit a consultation process that has not been active in the past year because in fact the legislation had been brought together with the possibility of introducing it the prior year's session.

I'm not going to pretend that every aspect of this legislation meets every desire that the association would have. Certainly it does reflect the consultation and input of members of the association through the task force and, in particular, the involvement and input from Mr. Hamill in his capacity with the association and then subsequently with the post-secondary institutions as well. It's our best effort to try to capture that input and at the same time reflect other interests, like those of protecting the consumer. I think that situation has perhaps now been better clarified, as a result of discussions between staff and members of the association.

The Chair: I'll just remind all members that we are dealing with the bill in committee, and we'll be dealing with the actual text in the context of the bill. I would ask that the committee members keep their remarks and their questions to the actual text of the bill.

On section 1, member.

[1110]

[ Page 14063 ]

Hon. A. Petter: This will be a new fund that will be set up. As a result of setting up the fund, of course, most of the institutions will then no longer have to provide securities or bonds, although there is a provision in here for high-risk institutions to still do so. For the most part, yes, it'll be a new fund. But the benefit to the institutions is that they will no longer be required to maintain forms of security and bonding that are currently required and are quite onerous, as the member well knows, under the current legislation.

J. Weisbeck: There's some money sitting now in the private post-secondary fund. What value is that? And what will happen with those funds?

Hon. A. Petter: There's an amount of money allocated by the institutions. Some of it may be in cash, but most, I think, is in the form of securities and bonding. Once the institutions come under this new regime -- assuming they're not required, under the new regime, to maintain any form of security or bonding as high-risk institution -- they would then be permitted to withdraw that form of security or, should they actually have cash into the fund, get the cash back.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Weisbeck: Just simply, the Inquiry Act. . . . It's in the previous bill, but does this give any expanded powers to the commission? Or is this particular section just applied to add the fund to it, basically?

Hon. A. Petter: What this simply does is take the existing powers that the commission has under the Inquiry Act and apply those powers to the question of claims relating to the fund.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Weisbeck: This appears to be becoming more and more involved with the business of the private post-secondary institutions. This section is obviously fairly expanded. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. What is the intent of this section? It looks as if, as I said, you're getting more and more involved with the business of the administration of these private post-secondary institutions.

[1115]

What this does is make it clear that that power extends to the examination and evaluation of a building that was used in the operation of an institution or of the records once that institution has closed. The records can be examined for the purposes of trying to provide students with rebates and with funds that are necessary and to enable the commission to recover what it can from the institution in order to ensure continuity of students' studies.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Weisbeck: I guess I'm a little concerned about this particular addition here. It seems to be quite vague. It's talking about "security in a form and amount satisfactory to the executive director." Is there some sort of guideline that this individual is going to follow? How do we arrive at those numbers?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, this essentially replicates the discretion that the executive director has under the current regime. It allows the executive director to apply that discretion, in the case of the new regime, to institutions if he or she -- depending on whether the executive director is a man or a woman at the given time -- feels it may be necessary in order to deal with institutions that are a particularly high risk. This is the problem -- again, I think the member identified it in his second reading comments -- about having a common fund, on the one hand, but also having institutions of variable experience, history and security. It was felt desirable to provide some discretion to the executive director, which may never be used but is available, where there is a particular concern about an institution and its solvency and ability to protect the interests not only of its consumers but of others who contribute to the fund. You don't want the established institutions paying into the fund to be insuring the shakier ones.

In addition to there being a risk-based contribution to the fund, this is an additional safety valve that's available to the executive director now and will continue to be available. It will ensure that for those institutions that are particularly high risk, the executive director is able to require some additional form of security to protects the interests, as I say, not just of the consumers of that institution but also of other contributors to the fund.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

J. Weisbeck: This is basically the meat of the whole bill. Section 27.1(5) says: "The fund may be invested by the commission, but only in the manner authorized by the Trustee Act." I guess I'm a little concerned about this whole term about having funds available or invested. Who are these individuals accountable to, and who determines what investments are made?

[1120]

[ Page 14064 ]

The Chair: Perhaps what we can do is go through each subsection seriatim again, as there are a few separate pieces there.

Section 7, sections 27.1 and 27.2 approved.

On section 7, section 27.3.

J. Weisbeck: In the second reading debate, I referred to a letter from the B.C. Career Colleges Association. They had a number of concerns, and I'd just like to give those at this point.

Section 27.3(a) states that the commission may authorize payments to be made from the fund for two reasons. The first is if a school "ceases to operate or for any other reason ceases to provide the program for which the fees were paid."

We're extremely concerned that "for any other reason" is far too broad and open to problematic interpretation. There are many reasons a school may not provide a program, but the fees already paid for such a program are already covered under PPSEC's refund policy, which is binding on schools. Our understanding, the one on which we based the support of the bill, is that the tuition assurance fund is to replace the requirement for a bond or a line of credit which a school must now have. The payments for the tuition recovery fund should only be those which would currently be taken from such a bond or a line of credit and issued on the same terms and conditions.

The second reason for authorization of payment is to cover "costs incurred by the commission in administering the fund, including the costs of (i) investigating and processing claims against the fund, (ii) ensuring that claims can be met. . . ." As costs for these items are currently already covered by the PPSEC's registrations prepay, this would appear to be double-dipping. If the minister could please respond to that.

Hon. A. Petter: Dealing first with the double-dipping concern, what this is in fact designed to do, again, is not to allow double-dipping. It won't allow that. But it does mean that where there are extraordinary costs incurred by the commission in trying to determine the financial circumstances surrounding closure of an institution, for example, those costs are not visited upon other post-secondary institutions within the system. So it does allow the commission to recover some of those costs from the particular institution that was in default, so as to ensure fairness.

With respect to the first component, I think the concern that's being covered here is: if you're a student attending an institution and the institution doesn't close its doors, but suddenly the program you registered for and paid tuition for ceases to be offered, surely the expectation is that the fees you paid for that program should be refundable. This simply closes that loophole, which would otherwise have been available.

I mean, to take an extreme example, you have a program to offer computer training in a business college, and suddenly the college decides there's no more computer training. I've paid $10,000 for a three-year computer training course. I shouldn't be disentitled to having my funds refunded simply because the college continues to operate as a business training college. The fact is that the program I registered for ceases to operate. The view is that the institution should not be able to escape the obligation to refund that money to me simply because it continues to operate in some form or another. This simply plugs that particular loophole.

Section 7, section 27.3 approved.

On section 7, section 27.4.

J. Weisbeck: This is another concern that I had. This individual is the president of the Centre for Digital Imaging and Sound. I referred to this in second reading, but I'll just refresh your memory:

"I have one concern regarding section 27.4(3) and (4). This gives absolute power of disbursement to the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. One of the issues of our industry is the interpretative nature of the general directives in designating tuition pay-outs. Where surety bonds have expert representatives who peruse pay-out calculations, this new fund would fall under the sole authority of PPSEC. We would like to see a third, independent party or representative appointed by BCCCA who shares in that responsibility.

"If tuition funds are too generous or calculated in error, it would affect the overall costs of the tuition assurance fund, which would be borne by the private schools.

"It is my understanding that participation in the tuition assurance fund will be mandatory for private schools. The consumer is represented by PPSEC. Who represents the industry? We need some authority in the management of our fund."

[1125]

On the other hand, we don't want to create a proliferation of agencies and processes. It is the commission's mandate to determine the amount in accordance with the legislation and to ensure that the amount is refunded. The commission has representation on it from the private sector providers. Provided the commission keeps to its mandate, it would be unwieldy and unnecessary to have it engage in a lot of further process. So I think the interests of the institutions are well protected, because the commission is tied to the purpose of the act. If it exceeds that purpose and overcompensates students, then there is recourse on either a question of law or excessive jurisdiction. If it doesn't, then there are no grounds for complaint.

Section 7, sections 27.4 to 27.7 inclusive approved.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

[ Page 14065 ]

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the way the system is likely to work, because this will be subject to regulation. . . . But KPMG has been retained by the ministry to develop criteria that will apply in determining the risk assessment. It will likely take account of the track record, solvency and asset base of various institutions. Institutions will then apply using those criteria and, based upon that, will be allocated a risk assessment in accordance with the criteria.

I don't expect that that's going to incur a huge amount of additional cost for the commission. The expectation is that it'll be done through the application procedure and application fee that currently exist. If KPMG is able to come up with a good, clear model, it should be possible to have this take place without incurring a huge additional cost to institutions, which in turn should mean that the problem that the member raises will not result. I don't think there's an intention right now to do some experience-based costing on the actual application -- at least, not to this point.

[1130]

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: Hang on one second. Is there another bill coming up here?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: No? Okay. I guess it's up to me to move that the committee rise, report the bill complete and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:31 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada