Hansard -- Volume 19, Number 14 -- Thursday, May 11, 2000

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber I call committee stage on Bill 3.

D. Symons: I note that the first part of the bill section talks about: " 'prescribed debt obligations' means the prescribed debt obligation owed to the government by the corporation as a result of loans made by the government to the corporation. . . ." Looking at the information you supplied us on the long-term debt analysis buildup in B.C. Ferries, I note that you have the fast ferries down for $385 million as one of the parts of this debt that's now being removed from B.C. Ferries. However, fast ferry No. 3 is not completed, and I rather suspect there are a fair number of bills still out there to be paid that aren't owed to the government but rather owed to these organizations.

This bill takes effect as of March 31, 2000. Can you give me an idea of what the outstanding liabilities are on ferry No. 3 that will now not be captured by this taking over of some of the debt from B.C. Ferries? In other words, what debt will B.C. Ferries be left with as of the end of March 31, including any obligations that seem to be coming up to finish up fast ferry No. 3?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's about $30 million of ongoing commitments for the fast ferry program that is included in the capital plan that the Ferry Corporation released publicly last week -- or earlier this week.

D. Symons: Just so I have this straight, then, there's about $30 million, you say, that will be needed as of March 31 of this year to carry on the Ferry Corporation's work with the fast ferry program. That becomes part of this $400 million or whatever is now in the five-year capital plan of the Ferry Corporation.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can advise me, because the figure I've heard for the fast ferry program is $463 million. The $385 million that's contained in this write-down plus the $30 million that is now in the forward-looking debt management or capital plan for the fast ferry program takes us to $415 million. Can the minister tell me where the other $50 million or so shows up?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The figure of $385 million for the fast ferries in the document that I provided the opposition with, plus the $30 million in the capital plan for the corporation for 2000-2001, is for the actual vessels -- the ships themselves. There are other costs associated with the project, including modifications to infrastructure, terminals and others. Those are captured in the modification-to-terminals lines of the document that I have provided the opposition and in the minor-capital-projects lines of $27.2 million.

The Ferry Corporation could provide you a more detailed breakout of precisely where those specific smaller items are in a briefing, if you wish. The short answer is that you're absolutely right. If you take $385 million plus $30 million, we think that captures the cost of the ships themselves. There were other costs associated with the projects, and they're accounted for elsewhere in the document that has been provided.

G. Farrell-Collins: So the other $50 million is included in improvements to terminals, or changes of terminals and other minor capital projects.

What about the costs of the North Vancouver buildings, yards, etc.? Is that folded in with the cost of the ships themselves, or does that appear elsewhere on this list?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's captured in the "Elsewhere" column -- the net difference of $27.2 million comprised of minor projects that the Ferry Corporation undertook.

R. Thorpe: I just want to make sure. My constituents of Okanagan-Penticton are absolutely furious not only about fast ferries but about this extensive buildup of debt, which somehow this government is trying to characterize as: "It's just going away." So my question is on this over $1 billion of debt. I note that the government in its bill uses the word "extinguishes." Could the minister tell me who was ultimately responsible to repay that over $1 billion that is being written off -- extinguished? Who's ultimately responsible for paying that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's the government of British Columbia and the taxpayers of the province that support the government of British Columbia. I do not think this side of the House is pretending at all that the debt incurred by building the fast ferries at $385 million -- that's part of this $1.08 billion -- or the $316 million for the Spirit-class vessels of British Columbia and Vancouver Island or the $142 million worth of terminal improvements or the other minor vessels, if a $50 million vessel can be considered minor. . . . We are not pretending in any way that these are free or that you can somehow make the costs of building these go away.

What section 97 of Bill 3 does is to put B.C. Ferries on a basis where its revenues from a dedicated stream of fuel tax can get it in a sustainable position, where it turns itself around into a profitable corporation that provides quality service to people in coastal British Columbia and to those who are travelling to coastal British Columbia. We need to take this load of debt off their books and put it broadly on the books of government. This is what has been done here.

There's no way that this debt is vanishing; I want to make that clear. When we announced this back in February, we were very explicit of how this restructuring of the finances of the B.C. Ferries Corporation were going to work.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps the Minister of Finance, when he has some time, could meet with the minister responsible for Ferries and perhaps give that briefing to the minister of Ferries, who continues to always turn up the rhetoric with respect to this. What the Minister of Finance has said is that this, over $1 billion that's been written off, has been written off because of government interference. It has to be written off because of government incompetence, because the government didn't listen to some of my colleagues and to experts.

It has ended up in court cases, has ended up with hundreds of millions -- in fact billions -- of dollars having to be taken off the books of B.C. Ferries and put onto the backs of taxpayers in British Columbia. That's what's happened here. People who are working here today, young people, my children, my grandchildren. . . . That's where this debt has gone. It's gone onto their backs because of incompetence, because this government refused to listen. It wouldn't take sound advice. It didn't manage the corporation properly. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could pass those points on to the minister responsible for Ferries.

Quite frankly, the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton have no confidence in this government -- that it's going to be able to live within the new financial measures that it's putting in place for this Ferry Corporation. We heard yesterday from the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries: "Well, it's all going to be better in the future, because now we're going to bring in legislation."

Honestly, people are fed up with this incompetent government. They just have to stop putting these increasing loads onto the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia. You are breaking the backs of hard-working British Columbians. I just wish that the Minister of Finance would acknowledge that this is what this mismanagement has done. It has put a heavy load onto the backs of hard-working British Columbians.

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the record, I think I will read into the record exactly what this $1.08 billion debt, which is being taken off of B.C. Ferries and put into general government, consists of. For vessels, for ships, there are: fast ferries, $385 million; Skeena Queen, $24 million; Spirit of British Columbia, $147.6 million; Spirit of Vancouver Island, $149.3 million; Queen of Capilano, $26.8 million; Queen of Cumberland, $32.1 million; Queen of Chilliwack, $21.5 million; Queen of New Westminster, $51.9 million -- for a total of $838 million for vessels that are, I would submit, part of the highway system that serves coastal British Columbia.

For terminals there's $142 million worth of improvements to terminals, including, of course, the Duke Point terminal, which has been constructed in the last few years. Those are the major elements here that comprise this.

There are -- and there were -- other options for dealing with this. I suppose we could have ignored this situation at Ferries; I do not consider that acceptable. We need to deal with it and deal with it quickly.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member says: "You deal with it at the time." Well, the member for North Coast talked a little bit about the history of how the B.C. Ferry Corporation was made responsible for the debt incurred with building ferries. We have in front of us the debt that has been incurred by Ferries. We're saying, and have said, that it's time for a new approach to this, with a dedicated stream of revenue to B.C. Ferries -- taking this debt off the books of B.C. Ferries and putting in place the management and control tools to ensure that B.C. Ferries becomes and remains a well-managed corporation providing high-quality service. This measure in the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000, is part of doing just that.

D. Symons: I'd like to go back to the $27.2 million that comes under "Net Difference." The assembly building for the fast ferry construction cost $13 million, although it was budgeted initially to be $9 million. We spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 million in training for aluminum welders. All of these costs were supposed to be part of the fast ferry project. We also put another $5 million, gifted to the shipyards, in order to upgrade shipyards so they would be able to work and build on the ferries. So we're looking already at a figure here that's getting pretty close to $27 million.

That does not take into account all the other projects around the province that supposedly are captured in that figure. That gives me some concern -- that somehow this figure doesn't seem to be correct if we take this into account. Now, I wonder if the minister might explain.

I gather that some of these incidentals, outside of the $385 million for the actual construction of the ferries themselves, are going to be recapturable in the assets that you're going to sell. I gather those assets that you're selling are somewhere near the $7 million bracket. Can you give me an idea of whether that $7 million is captured in these figures here or indeed that, when you say any sales come back to the government, it will be something that will be captured later on? Those figures are not included here. The $27 million seems to me a little bit on the small side.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Two points, first on training costs: Since those are operations rather than a capital investment, they're captured as part of this $73.6 million shortfall in cash operations since fiscal '96 -- okay? That's one point I wish to make.

The other point, on the sale of construction facilities of CFI or sale of ferry assets -- fast cats or other assets. . . . The proceeds from those sales go not to government revenues but to B.C. Ferry Corporation. If you look at the amendment to the debt cap of $150 million that we passed yesterday, it says $150 million minus the assets from any sale of ferry vessels during this two-year period.

D. Symons: Are you saying now that the money that went for training of welders comes under operations of the Ferry Corp? I think that's what the minister just said a moment ago. You're putting it up under the $73 million here. The training for the welders comes under operations for the ferries, when you haven't got a ferry in operation. You're simply building the ferries. So the building expenses of that ferry come under operations. This seems, you know, an unusual way of keeping the books, when it should come under the capital costs of building the ferries -- which is what we were told they were during the construction time. We were basically told all of this is part of the capital costs of the ferries, but you're now calling it operations.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Finance critic and I were talking about the difference between the cost of the vessels themselves in the fast cat program and the overall cost of the program. I think there's a common understanding here that the difference is around $50 million, more or less. That's comprised of two streams. One is captured by the shortfall in cash operations, and the other goes into minor capital. The Ferry Corporation will be very pleased to provide you with a detailed breakdown of which goes where, if you need that information.

D. Symons: I'm assured by the minister, then, that everything's there, just in different pockets. So that's fine.

Just one other question, because you brought up the vessels that are worked on there. One of them is the Queen of Chilliwack -- $21.5 million. Can the minister confirm that was the work done on the Queen of Chilliwack to make it available for doing the mid-coast run -- Discovery Coast, I think it is called? Was that just the costs of refurbishing the ship for that run? It seems a little high for a refurbishment. If that's the case, I'm curious whether that might not be another NDP boondoggle, because as far as I understand, there's a lot of consideration of taking that ship off the run. It's losing money considerably every year. You're in the neighbourhood of a $2 million loss each year of that operation. Can you give me a little bit of explanation about that $21.5 million and the Queen of Chilliwack?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The $21.5 million includes both the purchase of the vessel and the cost of refurbishing it. I'm sure the member will wish to explore that and the cost of operating that run with the minister during estimates.

D. Symons: Just one last question, then. I think the minister said the purchase of the vessel. . . . I believe it was owned by B.C. Ferries, and it was operated by B.C. Ferries. So I'm not quite sure where the purchase of the vessel comes in.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The advice I'm receiving from senior staff of B.C. Ferries is that this was a purchased vessel. We will get any information you require and how much of $21.5 million is purchase and how much is refurbishing.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a few closing comments on this section, more in response to the comments by the minister of the list of the debt -- what makes up the $1.08 billion of debt. He went through a list of the various vessels and the improvements to the terminals, etc. I guess the difference between some of the work that was done, for example, on the two Spirit-class vessels and some of the work that's been done to the terminals, as opposed to the half-billion dollars or so that's been spent on the fast ferry program, is that those ships work. They generate revenue for the corporation. The terminals contribute to the quality of service that ferry users receive.

The fast ferry program has resulted in a deterioration of the service that the ferry users of the province receive -- a deterioration in the reliability of the service, in the quality and the quantity of the service -- and as a result has eroded the capital base or the ability of the Ferry Corporation to build other capital to improve ships. Now we're faced with a capital plan for the next five years which contains within it no plan to expand capacity but merely to upgrade and replace existing capacity. We now have $400 million that we're going to spend over the next five years, to result at the end of the day with older ships operating to roughly the same capacity and no new significant ships on the line that will result in really significant increased capacity or service levels for the users.

The issue isn't whether or not the Ferry Corporation needs to go out and invest in capital. The question is how for many years, despite the knowledge of the essential bankruptcy of the corporation, the government continued to proceed with a program that was not being supervised properly, that -- anyone watching from outside was aware -- could not possibly have been on budget. That's where the negligence comes in. That's where the people of the province, I think, are so upset. They're now faced with the position where there is debt at B.C. Ferry Corporation, which everyone hoped would have been sustainable -- that the capital plan that had been put in place was something that the Ferry Corporation would have been able to sustain by itself over a period of time.

Certainly it was clearly known to government, at the time they took office in 1991, what the structure was. The B.C. Ferry Corporation at that point had previously, in 1989, been put on notice that it was now responsible for its debt, that it would have to have a capital plan that was sustainable. Despite that, the government embarked upon a capital plan that it couldn't service and by any calculation would be unable to service. As early as late 1996 early 1997, government was aware that in fact the Ferry Corporation, for all intents and purposes, was bankrupt.

That was never made public to the people of the province, so their outrage at seeing a write-down of this debt -- unfortunately, perhaps, but one can say understandably -- overflows not just onto the fast ferry program but onto all programs. I think the government has broken the trust with the people of this province around what's happened with B.C. Ferry Corporation. There's a huge amount of skepticism out there that the new capital plan will actually be attainable. It may; it may not. There is a huge amount of skepticism out there when they are told that these ships will last longer now. We've had an explanation as to why that is, and we'll see whether or not that bears out over time.

It's difficult to tell whether or not the people were misinformed the first time around in the early and mid-nineties by the then minister, or whether they're being misinformed now. I hope the minister understands the skepticism which we on this side of the House have, which the general public has. It's something that I suspect the government's going to have deal with and be accountable for at some point in time. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to move beyond this section.

YEAS -- 32
Evans	Sawicki	Kwan
Lali	Hammell	Pullinger
Bowbrick	Brewin	Boone
Orcherton	Calendino	Zirnhelt
Randall	Robertson	Cashore

Conroy	Miller	MacPhail
Dosanjh	Petter	Lovick
Priddy	Ramsey	G. Wilson
Farnworth	Waddell	Gillespie
Streifel	Walsh	Kasper
Goodacre		Janssen

NAYS -- 30
Whittred	Hansen	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Neufeld	Coell
Chong	Sanders	Jarvis
Anderson	Nettleton	Penner
Weisgerber	Dalton	McKinnon
Masi	Roddick	J. Wilson
Barisoff	van Dongen	Symons
Thorpe	Krueger	J. Reid
Hawkins	Hogg	Weisbeck

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour this point. We've had the debate for several years going. All I want to make clear is -- and I don't have a particular question for the minister on this at all -- that in fact what we have here is called the "Hydro rate freeze." Initially it was set up so that the rates couldn't rise above a certain level. Several years ago, when it was clear that rates really should be coming down, the government came in, amended that legislation and put a floor on the hydro rate freeze instead of just a cap, which held the rates higher than they would normally have been. So I just want to make clear to the public that what we have here isn't so much a benefit to them but in fact has become a benefit to the government over the last number of years, that instead of freezing rates at a low level, it is in fact. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member, just one moment. If we could just lower the noise level for a moment, members. . . . Thank you. Continue, member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't mind; I just talk louder.

Instead of having a piece of legislation that holds rates from rising, this one actually now holds them from lowering. I guess technically a rate freeze is a good example for it, as opposed to a rate cap. I just want to make that clear, put that on the record. I don't have any specific questions for the minister on it, other than to make that point.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his comments. I too will be very brief on it and just make clear for the chamber and for the people watching this that this does extend the rate freeze from March 31, 2000, until September 30, 2001. After September 2001, the B.C. Utilities Commission will resume its regulatory responsibility for hydro rates.

There has been much debate in this chamber about hydro rates. I'd only make the following points. They are competitive. They're among the lowest in North America, some $400 million a year less than the market value of electricity for customers. We think this is good public policy. We're pleased to be able to extend this freeze for a further 18 months.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report Bill 3 complete with amendments.

YEAS -- 35
Evans	Sawicki	Kwan
Lali	Hammell	Pullinger
Bowbrick	Brewin	Boone
Orcherton	Calendino	Zirnhelt
Randall	Robertson	Sihota
Cashore	Conroy	Smallwood
Miller	MacPhail	Dosanjh
Petter	Lovick	Priddy
Ramsey	G. Wilson	Farnworth
Waddell	Gillespie	Streifel
Walsh	Kasper	G. Clark
Goodacre		Janssen
NAYS -- 31
Whittred	Hansen	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Abbott	Neufeld
Coell	Chong	Sanders
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Penner	Weisgerber	Dalton
McKinnon	Masi	Roddick
J. Wilson	Barisoff	van Dongen
Symons	Thorpe	Krueger
J. Reid	Hawkins	Hogg
	Weisbeck

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2000, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply in the Douglas Fir Committee Room; we shall continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber, we shall debate the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm pleased to present the 2000-2001 budget estimates of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors. I'd like to introduce the ministry staff members who are here today to help us respond to questions. They are Leah Hollins, the deputy minister; Janet McGregor, ADM, corporate services; David Babiuk, associate deputy minister for regional programs.

Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge the contribution these people and the rest of the staff in the ministry make in keeping public health care in British Columbia accessible, affordable and second to none.

I'd also like to acknowledge the nurses, doctors and other health professionals -- workers in health facilities and others -- who make the health system work for all British Columbians every day. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the people of our health system who are here to serve and the people who receive those services, the people of British Columbia.

Health care is the most important service this or any government provides. It's a social program that I think British Columbians value the most and in fact a social program that Canadians value the most. Public health care -- medicare -- is built on the principle that quality health care is a right, not a privilege, and that access to quality health care should never depend on the size of your wallet. It is a symbol of our commitment to each other, of the cooperative way we work in this country and in this province for the greater good of all.

I'm pleased to report that British Columbians, despite increasing systemic pressures, continue to enjoy the benefits of one of the finest health systems in the country. A Maclean's survey in October '99 ranked British Columbians as the healthiest people in Canada, with the lowest death rates from both cancer and circulatory diseases. On average, we spend 90 percent of our lives free from disabling health problems. When we need to rely on the services provided by our hospitals and community care facilities, they are there for us.

Each year, approximately two million British Columbians go to an emergency room. About half a million will receive some form of in-patient surgery or treatment. The vast majority experience a system that works smoothly and treats people who are at their most vulnerable both effectively and humanely. That's something everyone who works in the health system and every British Columbian can be proud of, just as I'm proud of this government's continuing commitment to public health care.

B.C. is the only province in Canada that has increased health care funding nine years in a row, more than offsetting the federal reductions to health care. This year we're investing an additional $549 million into health services, bringing total health care funding to more than $8.3 billion. The funding will increase and will provide more medical services, fund more prescription drugs, provide more home support and open more long term care beds.

Even with these improvements, and even after the year-after-year funding increases, there's no question our health care system is being strained by the growing demands that we place on it. We need to acknowledge that we may expect more from health care than we did ten or 20 years ago, largely because of our advances in medicine and technology. Ten years ago there were no waits for MRIs in B.C. because the technology was just being introduced. Ten years ago our patients didn't receive angioplasty because it wasn't a routine treatment. There was no triple marker screening to detect fetal abnormalities. Demand for HIV/AIDS drugs was negligible. Knee and hip replacements were rare. We didn't immunize against hepatitis B or have high-priced drug therapies like Rebatron for people suffering from hepatitis C.

The reality is that we face an environment of growing demands and rising costs. If we look back over the last ten years and see the advances that have been made in technology, and we take that out ten years and look at how technology is growing, the demands and the opportunities are exciting. The ability to revolutionize technology and the way we treat disease and illnesses is something that I think all of us can look at in awe and with hope. The Human Genome Project and the hope that it offers people around the world in terms of the advances that we've made in treating medical illnesses is truly amazing. But with that comes a very high price tag, because these technologies and these advances are not cheap. They're incredibly expensive, and they create a tremendous pressure on the system.

The reality is that today's health care system goes far beyond what was envisaged in the 1960s when medicare was created. Over the next five years, the demand for health services will continue to grow. Some say the estimates will increase -- the demand will increase -- by as much as ten percent each year. Our challenge is to take a health care system built in the sixties and shape it to meet the needs of the twenty-first century. It's not enough to maintain the health care system. We need to renew it, while retaining the fundamental principles of medicare: public funding and universal accessibility.

Accelerating the process of renewal is my number one priority this year. We've taken some significant steps already. We're working closely with our health care partners to improve patient care. In March we reached an agreement with the British Columbia Medical Association that will improve access to medical care for patients and lead to better management of the health care system. We're close to finalizing a compensation package for doctors in rural and remote communities. We've committed to funding 400 new spaces in nursing programs at B.C.'s colleges and universities this year so that we can graduate the next generation of caregivers and help ease the pressure on hospitals.

Our budget for 2000-2001 also continues to fund the nurses' collective agreement, which sets up one of the most competitive nursing compensation packages in Canada -- the key component of our strategy for attracting and retaining nurses.

We're working with the mental health community to implement the vision outlined in the mental health plan over a seven-year period, and in fact we have made progress in 79 of the 81 commitments outlined in the plan. We're working with health authorities to ensure that we have appropriate continuing care resources to meet their needs. Finally, we're working in a new spirit of cooperation with the federal government to help them realize the need for increased investment in the health care system.

One of the biggest challenges we face with health care in British Columbia is how we deal with the financial challenges facing the system. One of the issues that needs to be resolved is that when medicare was set up in the sixties, it was done on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis. The services covered by the Canada Health Act would be paid for 50-50 by both the province and the federal government.

Over the years that has changed. Now approximately 85 is percent borne by the province and 15 percent by the federal government. The federal government has withdrawn somewhat from the health care field. This has to change. They have to be brought back to the table, and they have to realize that there is a leadership role for them to play in renewing not only medicare but how we deliver services, how we approach certain programs and how we deal with issues around nurses, the shortage of technology and the requirements to train more people and to have more specialists, physicians -- you name it. There's a role for them to play in terms of Health Canada and how we deal with the issue of Pharmacare and drugs. There's a role for them to play in terms of how we get people moved around in the system from one part of a province or a territory to another.

We want them back at the table. But we recognize that it has to be done in a way that recognizes that both sides of the partnership have something to bring. The goal of the province -- and it's been my goal so far in my meetings with the federal Health minister and the federal government -- is to say that we want to sit down and work with them, that we're prepared to put forward a plan and to cooperate. At the same time, we expect them to recognize the province's primary role in the delivery of health care, to understand the needs around our priorities and to step up to the plate with regards to funding. I'm pleased so far about the direction we've been heading, and I'm pleased with the response we've been getting from the federal government.

It's also about more than just money. It's about taking what we have and doing a better job with it. It's about recognizing advances that have been made in technology and treatment, and being innovative. That's why we have to have better, more productive partnerships with our partners in the health care field who recognize that innovation is one of the key areas that we have to focus on.

We need to embrace innovation within the context of a publicly funded health care system in order to address the pressures that are caused by an aging and growing population, the changes in technology and the changes in the way we treat illnesses. That's why I've invited leaders in health care from across the province, from other parts of Canada and from as far afield as Australia to join me at B.C.'s first health innovation forum at the end of the month. Together we will look at how new approaches and new ways of thinking can achieve more effective and efficient health care delivery, in particular in areas of reducing pressure on our hospitals and improving care in a community.

Some examples of innovations include the walk-in crisis stabilization unit at Kelowna General Hospital, which evaluates and stabilizes individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. The unit helps prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and provides follow-up services so that in-patients can be discharged sooner. The Simon Fraser health region's CareLinks program has contributed to a significant reduction in inappropriate hospital admissions. The Partnerships for Better Health self-care tele-care initiative was piloted in Victoria to ensure better access to health information. These are the kinds of initiatives that help make us sure that patients get the right care at the right time and in the right place.

One of the key areas that we've noticed in terms of how technology has changed has been around information technology and the advances in that field to deal with data inputs and allow institutions to talk to each other in a way that never happened before. I see this as one of the biggest areas where we need to make an advance and we need to make improvements within the system.

It's unacceptable that hospitals or health authorities can't talk to each other, let alone hospitals within the same health authority that don't talk to each other because they're using different types of technology. We have to change that. We need to be able to look at a system in this province whereby we can compare inputs right across the province -- all the way from physicians being able to access the system, into Pharmacare, into acute care hospitals, into long term care facilities -- so that we can compare inputs and see who's doing what and how they're doing it, who's doing it well and who's not.

In that way we can find all kinds of efficiencies and make sure that the resources that we are deploying in the health care system are being deployed as efficiently as possible and in a way that is having the best benefit to patients. At the end of the day that's what it's about: patient care delivery -- making sure that it happens and that people are getting the care when they need it.

As I said, these kinds of initiatives are what's required to make sure that patients get the right care. That's why the innovation forum is so important. Ultimately, our goal is to make the system work better for patients. Part of that is ensuring that we have a strategic plan. Our strategic plan is another key element in meeting this goal, because this document lays out, in very broad strokes, a path of change for our health services system over the next three years. It looks at areas such as access to services, the quality of care we provide and the work environment, and offers specific goals to guide our approach over the next three years.

These goals do not stand alone; they complement both the provincial health goals set out by our provincial health officer and the health service plans prepared by health authorities. Overall, what we hope to achieve is better standards of care throughout the province and a more effective way of measuring how we're living up to those standards in various regions of the province.

At the end of the day, our goal is to reduce pressure on hospitals, which are at the heart of our health care system, and to renew the system for the twenty-first century while ensuring better care today. We're taking action to address the most immediate and urgent health care priorities of British Columbians. We're making sure that British Columbians get the very best value and the highest quality care from every health care dollar through an improved planning process. And we're working closely with our health care partners to instil a culture of innovation and cooperation that will help us meet the changing health care needs of British Columbians within a strong publicly-funded and universally accessible system.

We can assure that better health care is a reality for all British Columbians today and in the future. And what's interesting, Hon. Chair, is that the challenges that we face here in British Columbia are the challenges that we face right across the country. What we have to recognize is that we don't exist in isolation. Not only do we have to work in terms of what's taking place here in B.C. and addressing the problems we have, but we have to look outside. We have to make an effort that recognizes not only that the province has to work with

the health authorities, the physicians, the nurses, the ambulance workers, the front-line workers, the workers within the hospitals and within the health care system here in B.C., but also that we as a province have to work cooperatively with other provinces to identify where the key pressures are and how we can work more efficiently as provinces to deliver better health care in this country. We also have to recognize that we have to work with the federal government.

The system is supported by the public. They expect it to work, and they expect us to do our job to ensure that it is sustainable over the coming decades. For us to do anything less would be a failure and a betrayal of the public's expectations of the health care system.

I look forward to the upcoming estimates debate, to hearing from my colleague across the way discussing the budgetary implications for health care in the province, how we move things forward. I await his remarks with anticipation.

C. Hansen: I wonder if the minister could tell us when he first knew that we were going into estimates at this sitting this morning.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yesterday afternoon, probably sometime around 3:30 or 4 o'clock.

C. Hansen: I want to start, just for a minute, by talking about the purpose of the estimates debate. We have a ministry that has a budget of $8.3 billion of taxpayers' money. It is the largest ministry in the provincial government. It allocates about 39 percent of the total provincial budget and basically, I think, has a range of programs under its responsibility that affect every single British Columbian in a very profound way.

The estimates process is one that I think has been long established in our parliamentary tradition as the opportunity for the opposition and members of the House on all sides to examine how those dollars are going to be spent -- the programs that are put in place. It is one of the fundamental roles of any Legislative Assembly in the British parliamentary system to review, adjudicate and approve spending by government. There is no other power in the parliamentary system that is more important than that power, which rests with this chamber -- not with the government, not with the executive council, but with the entire legislative chamber and all 75 members who sit in this chamber.

So we have a process. I know my colleagues and I will have questions on virtually the whole range of aspects of the ministry over the coming days -- their questions on behalf of constituents, people that have written us letters and phoned us, groups we have met with that are anxious that their issues be put forward. I know that for people who observe an estimates process, they see an area that is as controversial and as sensitive as health is, and there are often times in that debate that are really quite tedious. So I think anybody that's going to try to follow this debate can stand forewarned that a lot of is a fairly detailed process of examining how moneys are being spent in government. I apologize to those that try to, but don't always, find it stimulating. But it is certainly a very necessary and important process that we go through.

In preparing for this estimates debate, there were several documents that we had asked to have available to us that I think are very important documents for us to be able to review before we can do our job in holding this government accountable for $8.3 billion worth of spending. One of those documents is the performance review, which we received last week. It is certainly a good first step at an accountability process that I hope we will be able to expand on in the years to come, to ensure that more light can be shed on planning within this ministry, as it is in other ministries.

There are several appendices which were not included in the report that was given to us. There are actually four of them. One, which is appendix B, is the ministry's strategic plan, is a document that's been in the public domain now for several months. The other three documents are not public. All we have in the performance review is in fact the tables of contents. I had requested these documents in order that I and my colleagues in the opposition might be able to review these documents before the estimates process started. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us when we might expect to receive those documents.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We received the request yesterday. My staff are preparing the documents, and you will get them as quickly as we can get them to you. But you will get them.

C. Hansen: There's another document I had written to the minister about previously, which I had asked that he provide to us and allow us at least a week to review before we get into the estimates process. That's the B.C. Buildings Corporation capital projects agreement. I'm not sure if I have the title of that correct. It's the agreement between the Ministry of Health and BCBC whereby, my understanding is, BCBC will be overseeing the Ministry of Health's capital projects. I wonder when I might expect to see that document.

C. Hansen: One of the documents that's referenced in the appendix of the performance plan is something called an environmental scan. I'll just read the description that's included in here.

Certainly it's a document that I would say is quite critical if anybody is to do a proper review and hold this government accountable for its health care spending. I wondering why this document wasn't made public at the same time the performance plan was made public.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, that was one of those documents that was requested yesterday. My staff are busy compiling the documents that the hon. member requested, and we will make sure that you get it.

C. Hansen: It is customary in this House that those ministerial briefings take place prior to estimates, and I was

certainly grateful to the deputy minister and her staff for arranging for those briefings yesterday, at which there were several requests made for information. It's certainly understandable that the ministry staff have been unable to pull that information together on such short notice, given that this estimates process was called today. But we look forward to receiving that information as quickly as possible, before we get too far into this estimates process.

The reason why I think that's vitally important is that I see the time that is spent in this House as being very precious time. There is a lot of business that needs to go through this chamber. In estimates -- in that process of holding government accountable -- I believe that a lot of that information can and should be dealt with outside of this chamber, in the form of briefings and in the form of information that we can gather in dealing directly with officials.

When we get down to the. . . . As often happens in these briefings, where a question is put to ministry officials, the answer is: "Well, that's an issue you'd better raise with the minister, because it is a political issue." That's what this debate should be about. Let's focus in on the issues of concern, not the details. Given the way the government has chosen to schedule these particular estimates debates, that process has not had a chance. I find that quite regrettable, because what it means is that I am not sure that the time we expend in this House is going to be able to be used as effectively as we might otherwise have been able to do.

There has been a lot of talk in the opening weeks of this session about a new style of government, about a new openness in government. We've actually had discussions about having a legislative schedule that actually works for everybody in this chamber and that isn't a legislative schedule that is strictly commanded by the government, for the convenience of the government, but rather one that allows all 75 members to do their job in this chamber on behalf of their constituents.

I had suggested, both to the minister's staff and to officials, that we approach these debates in a very cooperative way -- that we actually schedule these things in a way that makes the best use of staff time. I know that in years gone by there have been literally dozens and dozens of ministry staff that have had to sit in the wings waiting for a particular subject to come up.

My hope was that we were going to be able to avoid that this year by being able to schedule these things in a reasonable way that actually allows not only the members of this chamber to plan their affairs but also the officials in the department, who, I'm sure, got phone calls last night, probably at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., telling them, "Whoa, the government has suddenly decided that we're going to call Health estimates for 10 o'clock on a Thursday morning" -- people scrambling to try to totally rearrange their lives, members of the chamber. We're ready; we have been for some weeks. But I know for a fact that your ministry staff are being greatly inconvenienced by this government's lack of ability to schedule estimates debates and schedule the business of this House in a way that is truly cooperative and in a way that allows the best use of everybody's time.

We have also suggested that there are a lot of issues that we would like to put to the minister's office and to the officials in the ministry, so that we can focus some of these debates to allow ministry staff an opportunity to prepare the briefing notes on the specific issues of concern that we have. My colleagues will be raising issues in terms of each of their constituencies, in terms of how health care is delivered from community to community around British Columbia. What I had proposed is that we actually set out the various issues that we want to put forward, so that the ministry staff could prepare those briefing notes for the minister, so that again we can use the time in this chamber most effectively.

Hon. Speaker, I believe there is a lot that the public expects us to do outside of this chamber in terms of cooperating. These aren't partisan issues; this is all part of a process of accountability. I would like to ask the minister: is it a deliberate effort to basically reject our proposals for cooperation? Or is this happening in spite of the minister's wishes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm a little surprised by the member's comments, because he has been around here long enough to know how this place works in terms of how House business is determined between the House Leaders and how long it takes to get estimates going. It's a combination of a number of things. In terms of the length of debate, when it comes to estimates, that is very much in your hands as to how long we want the estimates process to be. We deal with legislation, and legislation is debated. Again, that's a question of how long members wish to choose in terms of legislation. There is a sense of: "Okay. What is ready, in terms of estimates, to go?" We have been expecting that health care would be up early this year. That has not been a surprise; that has been talked about around this House. My staff are ready, and we are prepared. I think that is not a fair criticism.

On issues of reforming the estimates process, we agree. We want it to be reformed. We think that it can function in a much more productive way than it has in the past. That's why there has been discussion ongoing. That's why we have tabled a proposal on how we reform the House. And that's why my understanding is that it has been agreed to. Every single point except one -- on how we change estimates practice and how we reform this House in terms of parliamentary reform -- has been agreed to by both sides. That point is around the questioning of when and how soon legislation must be tabled for a potential fall sitting; that is the only outstanding issue. Every other issue has been agreed to.

So the question is: what is parliamentary reform, and why don't we have the agreement? If that's the one issue, surely we can resolve that. Everything else has been dealt with, particularly around the issue of estimates and how estimates debate should proceed and in the formatting which it should take in future years. A great deal of work was done in the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sat with the late member for Delta South. A great deal of work was done in terms of how we reform the estimates process. That work was the very heart and nuts and bolts of the proposal to reform this House. That proposal was at the very heart of how we reform the estimates process in this chamber.

I think what the question comes down to is: why can we not get an agreement? Is it because we're hung up on when legislation should be tabled -- in the spring or the fall -- and on how it should proceed? If it is, and you guys have a problem with that, explain why.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Is it that you don't want the process to improve? The process that's been tabled, the process of how

the system moves forward and the ideas to reform the estimates process were developed in the Public Accounts Committee. That's the initial genesis. It was done by both sides, under the leadership of a member of the opposition. It is that proposal that forms the nuts and bolts of the reform process that's been tabled and agreed to, and we're stuck on one point. We move on one point. I challenge the hon. members opposite to come and say: "Yeah, we've got an agreement." There's no reason why we can't have an agreement.

Now, having said that, we have agreed -- and I've discussed with the hon. member -- how the estimates debate shall take place. I've asked how he wished to proceed. His staff will be along when we need them; they'll be here and in place so that we can go forward. We are very cooperative. I've spoken to the member about how he wants to move forward on estimates debate. I don't see any reason why that will not happen, and indeed I fully expect it to happen.

So what we need to do is recognize that we should get on with the estimates process. It is a cumbersome process. We all know that, and we want it to change. We should move as expeditiously as possible. I'm ready and my staff are ready. I expect, and I'm quite confident, that the member opposite is also ready.

C. Hansen: Certainly we are ready; we have been ready for some time. I think the minister, as he went on talking about these grandiose negotiations that are taking place on a different level, in a different forum. . . . That's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that we went to great lengths to try to see what we could do to move the estimates process through much faster and with less burden on Ministry of Health staff as a result of the overtures that I was making, as Health critic, to the ministry. Forget about these other negotiations. Sure, they've been bogged down, but that's not the point I was trying to make. All I'm saying is that I find it regrettable that the government has chosen to reject some offers of a cooperative approach that would have allowed much better and more effective use of staff time, in terms of the ministry's senior staff.

I do want to move on. Perhaps I will turn it over to my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon to proceed.

A. Sanders: I'd like to start off the Health estimates by talking about those British Columbians who suffer from mental illness. We have around 60,000 British Columbians who are seriously mentally ill. Of our population, 1 percent have serious conditions of schizophrenia or manic depressive disorder. We have around 800,000 people a year -- one in five -- who will suffer some kind of mental illness in the next year, whether that be related to eating disorder, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, impulse control disorder or dementia. A large group of those people will suffer, in addition, from substance abuse. These are all drains on our system, and certainly they are conditions that need to be looked at very seriously.

So how seriously have mental health illnesses been looked at in British Columbia? Has this been a topic of much discussion in the Legislature? Has it been a topic of many dollars' concern? Before this Minister of Health was appointed, we've had a revolving door of other ministers. The last two Ministers of Health took great pains to find every news camera they could to talk about their programs for mental health, what we were going to do under the NDP for the mentally ill in British Columbia through the mental health plan.

In 1998 the mental health plan committed $125 million over seven years towards the mentally ill -- to get the mentally ill off the street and into subsidized housing. The money was promised two years ago, and it was never budgeted for. There was no money to deliver. It was an empty promise; it was a delusional promise. It was something that was never in the budget to have. Because of that lack of funding, we have left the mentally ill to deal as best they can with inadequate medical treatment, inadequate shelter, drug and alcohol addictions and jail. In 1998 we promised affordable housing and subsidized housing for the mentally ill. That was not delivered.

In British Columbia we have Canadians who are the only Canadians who do not have unfettered access to the new anti-psychotic medications that can make their lives reasonable and give them the opportunity to live a normal life.

In British Columbia, for the mentally ill, there is no Closer to Home. It's "home alone"; it's on the street alone, in flophouses alone and in jail alone. We know that our mentally ill are frequent flyers at the emergency departments of every hospital in this province. We know that the treatment there is inadequate. We know that expressions such as "treat 'em and street 'em" are the diagnostic tool that we use to look after the mentally ill. We know that many of them have nowhere to go.

What I was hoping for during Mental Health Week last week was that this government would make some promises to help mentally ill British Columbians -- not empty promises that have no foundation in dollars, but promises that had some substantive backing and an actual plan that would talk each year about how that plan was going to come in.

I was hoping there would be a reaffirmation to fund the mental health plan, including early intervention and many of the other principles in that plan. I was hoping that there would be a guarantee to implement the plan under a framework of accountability; there would be sound business management practices outlined for introducing the plan; there would be an agreement, finally, for unfettered access to new anti-psychotic medications for those who are mentally ill, so that they could have the same access as people do all across Canada -- except in British Columbia. I hoped that there would be a plan to develop safe, supportive housing for the mentally ill, to get those people off the streets and out of our jails.

None of those came during Mental Health Week. In fact, the Minister of Health didn't even make a ministerial statement about mental health; it was best to let well-enough alone and not bring up the topic. After all, we already had several hundred demonstrators outside, talking about what a lousy job government had done for the mentally ill over the last several years.

This minister has said that he's committed to mental health and to introduction of the mental health plan. I just have to say that you cannot be committed unless you deliver the money. If you deliver the money, then you can say that you are committed. Until that money comes, there is no delivery.

There are a number of things I want to talk about in this part of the Health estimates. I want to give the staff a list, so

that they can do the best in their preparation as possible, seeing that they haven't been given any time to do so. I would like to talk about the mental health plan with respect to the housing, facilities, programs, service delivery -- all of which we never got but were promised.

I'd like to talk about the evaluation of the B.C. mental health system by the mental health advocate. I'd like to talk about regional and provincial coordination of those programs with respect to mental health. Many of my colleagues will be talking about their individual constituencies and problems they have had with respect to their facilities and services. I'd like to talk about the serious problems we have in forensic mental health and why we must address those. And I'd like to talk about what I call the ministerial flaws.

One of the very serious flaws we have in the Ministry of Health right now, which I would urge the minister to consider looking at very carefully, is the delivery of services to children. The delivery of services to children and youth, along with drug and alcohol addiction programs, eating disorders and all aspects of mental health, are not under the Health ministry.

There is good evidence from the advocate for children that since many of those programs were transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families, the programs have gone, but the dollars didn't follow; they have been absorbed into other programs. As a result, we have a serious problem with our youth in British Columbia receiving mental health services, drug and alcohol counselling and ancillary programs in their communities. This is a serious problem. You cannot move from one ministry to the other because you turned 19. I think the minister has to consider how that can be best fixed so that service delivery to our young people is not impeded.

We have the opportunity to treat youth. We have the opportunity to stop the problem, and we're not doing it. I just would like to start my questioning to the minister by asking him what his vision for mental health in British Columbia is and whether he sees that this is an area of concern for his government.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate and understand the member's comments around mental health, and I'm pleased to see her level of concern. I want her to know that on this side of the House we are also concerned. We are also committed to ensuring that we have a full, effective range of mental health services -- that the mental health service system works for the people who require it and that we're able to deliver the care, the services and the drugs they need when they need them.

We have made considerable progress over the years in doing that. We recognize, for example, that we need to provide more services in other parts of the province. We also recognize that there is a long-term place, for example, for Riverview in the system. We understand that there are issues around the introduction of new drugs, and we have processes in place to deal with them. We also recognize that we have a mental health care plan that has to be implemented and in fact is being implemented. It may not be as quickly as some people would like, but it is being implemented. We have taken concrete steps around areas of legislation and around best practices. My job, as I have said publicly, is to ensure that that plan is implemented and funded. It's going to be.

The member raises some key issues, too, around housing. When you are talking about people with mental illness, it's not just a question of the health care system; it's also a question of the support system around them. That support system includes governments. That support system includes their family and advocates in how they access the system and in them being involved in the decision-making system.

I want to touch for a minute on the importance around the support system that government can provide that is outside the strict definition of health, because it is important. That does include one of the key elements: housing and the ability of people with mental illness to get accommodation in their communities and in areas of the province where, because of the way we have dealt with mental illness in the past, there have tended to be an influx of people. It's because that's the only area where they have access to either hospital care or institutional care, because it's not available in their part of the province.

Along with that is one of the key issues: stigma. One of the biggest challenges that people with mental illness face is stigma -- a lack of understanding by the public, a lack of willingness on the part of communities to recognize it and deal with it and the burden that ultimately comes back to the health care system and to government in terms of providing services that people need. Housing is a key part of that.

We are one of two provinces in this country that continue to build social housing. Some of it is available to people with mental illness. Units are targeted for people with mental illness. We have said in the plan that we need to build a significant number of units. A number of units have been built, but we need to do more. That's why the implementation of the plan is crucial. That's why it takes cooperation, not just with Health but with the other supportive social service ministries outside of Health, to ensure that those non-health components of the plan are implemented. That's what I see as one of the key roles within my ministry -- that we have to move that forward.

We also have to ensure that the delivery of services in terms of how it relates to children and to adults -- whether it is in one ministry, as some people have suggested, or whether it's in two separate ministries. . . . We have to ensure that people who are dealing with both departments -- people who are dealing with children and people who are dealing with adults -- have communication with each other and that there's not a question of a wall between the two. Even if you have it under one ministry, the potential is still there that, as someone works their way through, there generally tends to be a handoff at 18 or 19. There are issues around privacy and confidentiality in medical records -- all those things.

But if the member's point is that what's important is that the continuum of services is available from first diagnosis and first contact with the system -- that comes to early intervention, and I'm sure we'll talk about that later on, but early intervention is crucial -- and that somehow the information and the recognition of what's happened to an individual when they come into the system are there all the way through into adulthood, so that we can look back and see, and physicians can see, what treatment is being received, how patients have responded, what services they've accessed, then I agree. We have to ensure that that takes place and that we don't end up in a compartmentalized system -- "Okay, now you're 19. You're kicked over here" -- and there's no ability to access the records on what's taken place before.

Finally, the other point I want to touch on is that mental illness, in terms of the amount of care that's provided or that's

received by the families around the individual, is probably more intensive in many ways than many other illnesses. It's for a long period of time, and people with mental illness require support of their families. That's why it's important, and one of the things that's been said in terms of the people advocating for mental illness is that there's involvement by the consumers in the family in terms of treatment and in terms of support. Government's got to recognize that. That is the key component of the mental health plan, and it's one of the areas that we need to focus on.

So mental health is a key priority for me. I've said it publicly, and I'll repeat it here again today. In fact, in the innovations conference that's coming up at the end of the month, the keynote speaker is an individual who has considerable experience in the areas of mental health and substance abuse and treatment. They're there for a specific reason, because I want it as an opportunity to help raise the profile of the issue and to help raise the importance of mental health within the health care system.

There is a fundamental debate taking place in this country right now on the direction of health care. It looks at all the stresses and challenges. I think that if you look at the debate that's taken place so far, mental health has been absent from that. The needs of mental health involve a lot of support outside the direct health care system. I have said that one of my goals is to ensure that mental health is not the poor relation, that it is very much part of the debate around health care and the future of health care in this country, because it is an integral part of that. It is also, if treatment and services aren't delivered effectively, a significant cost driver in our hospitals and emergency rooms. So I just repeat that I do take it as a priority. The government does recognize the importance, and we will be moving forward.

This Health minister is committed to the mental health program. He said so in Hansard, when asked does the mental health plan require money: "Absolutely. Are we committed to the plan? Absolutely."

Well, here are the figures, hon. Chair, in the budget, and there is no money this year for the mental health plan. We were supposed to have $125 million over seven years. We got $4.3 million the first year, $5.7 million the second year and nothing this year -- empty rhetoric when it comes to delivering the funds that are going to put the mental health program and plan in place. You can't say you're committed to it unless you back it up with some money.

So if this minister is committed to it, then I'm on his side. But it's not his boss who's helping him. There's no money from Finance and no money from Treasury Board for the mental health plan -- nada, nothing, zip, gone.

Every year in a seven-year plan, of which this is year 3, there should be around $17.85 million delivered into the mental health plan to establish any credibility in the fact that it was going to be here. Can the minister tell me how much money has historically been invested in this mental health plan and where it went?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the exact dollar figure, so far $10 million has been annualized since the introduction of the plan. Now, I think it's also important to recognize that a part of the plan is the development around the legislative framework which is required for the implementation of the plan. That has taken place. Second, it's been around things such as best practices. A lot of the preliminary work has been done.

What has also taken place is a recognition that mental health is as much around some of the other services that go along with the mental health plan -- for example, the changes that have been made around Pharmacare in terms of the development of plan G, which deals with mental health needs and drugs. That's increased by over 28 percent since '97-98.

I don't think it's a question of saying that you take the money that's required to implement the mental health plan and say: "Okay, it should be divided equally amongst seven years, and that should be the allocation each year." Some years, some parts are going to require more money than others. I think what you have to look at is: what are we going to implement this year? What are we going to implement next year? And how do we fund it?

A. Sanders: First of all, the money isn't annualized. It's not $10 million annualized; it was $5.7 million for one-time projects. That's what the announcements say.

Can the minister point to a line item in this budget that shows me and this House that we are debating -- 2000-2001 -- how much is for implementation of the mental health plan, other than wages and wage increases? Where is that money? What line item is it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to make two points. First, the $10 million is annualized, so it is annualized within the budget. I see the members shaking their heads, and I am saying that, yeah, it is. It's been annualized, so it's in there each year.

Secondly, in terms of this year alone, there are a number of initiatives identified in the plan that are being moved forward. They include supportive competitive employment, consumer peer support, issues around clinics in the north, the hospital diversion program, the concurrent disorder program and neuropsychiatry work, for a total of $2.4 million. Those were announced in January, and what I am saying is that they will be annualized. It's not going to be a question of them disappearing at the end of next year; I am telling you right now that these will be ongoing.

A. Sanders: First of all, if the $10 million had been annualized, we'd have $30 million extra in this budget for mental health, which doesn't exist. Secondly, the projects that the minister has announced as annualized are not in this budget. So I'm confused as to where this figure is. Where is this money? Is it coming out of another project? Are we going to dump something else in health care for this money the minister has now promised for mental health? Where exactly. . . ? What line item shows me annualized money of even $10 million? It's just not there.

The $10 million was put in the base budget. So if it was one-time funding, it would be there, and then it wouldn't be there the next year. The budget has been increased by the $10 million, so it is there.

Second, in terms of the specific projects that I outlined a moment ago and the cost of around $2.4 million, what I told the hon. member is that those projects in fact will be annualized. The money will be from allocations within the current ministry budget.

A. Sanders: Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)

G. Plant: The debate this morning will continue under the heading of the court services branch. I want to begin, in fact, by asking a question or two about the status of waiting times in the province's courts. I am indebted to the minister's officials for having provided me with very comprehensive statistics about waiting times.

I want to start by examining provincial small claims court. The minister knows that small claims court is the place where ordinary folk with small debts -- small claims -- go to try to enforce their claims. I'm sure he would agree that it is a tribunal that depends for its effectiveness and public support upon a reasonable measure of timeliness in the provision of its services. So I want to ask the minister to respond to what appears to me to be a number of occasions where I would suggest that both the waiting time to obtain a settlement conference and the waiting time to trial are unacceptably long.

As I recall the way the small claims court rules work now, settlement conferences are not optional. That is, parties are pretty well obliged to attend at a settlement conference. I think the intention behind that requirement is to ensure that the parties to a case have an opportunity to come before a judge in a relatively informal way to see if there is some common ground that might form the basis of a resolution of the matter, short of a full trial.

When it appears, as it does from my statistics, that the waiting time for a settlement conference in the Victoria law courts in provincial small claims court is just about 11 months, that seems to me to be an unacceptably long wait. It does, I hasten to point out, appear that that is the longest wait time for a settlement conference. There appears to be a range of waiting times across the selected locations for which I have been provided statistics. In Richmond and Burnaby, for example, the wait-list appears to be five months to get through a settlement conference. In Kamloops they seem to be able to do it within a month. But in Victoria it's 11 months; in Delta provincial court it's almost 10 months; in 100 Mile House it's six and a half months. I wonder if the minister has some observations on this particular aspect of the wait time that litigants experience in provincial small claims court?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. Well, I know the member has the same information that I have, because we provided it to him, in respect of the differentials in wait times. I agree with him that some of the wait times are, in my view, too long. I think that's clearly the case in Surrey, for example, where there's 12 months to settlement conference. Victoria, which I think you referred to, is almost 11 months to settlement conference.

This is in part, I take it, because there has been a focus on reallocation of resources in the court system to deal with serious criminal matters and the like.

Having said that, we cannot neglect the need to provide an expeditious form of settlement of small civil suits. So I agree with him that in those areas where there's a spike in these charts. . . . And some, of course, are one month or two months -- or three or four months -- to settlement conference. Many communities are. But these others, which tend to be more the exception, the two we referred to -- we need to address that.

One strategy for addressing that, in addition to simply adding more resources to the courts, is a court mediation practicum program -- which the member may be aware of -- which is designed to provide out-of-court mediation services and an alternative to in-court mediation services. That is being done on a pilot basis and, I believe, is being piloted initially in Surrey, but I would hope it could be expanded to other courts as well. This is. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: Oh, it's now in four locations -- I'm sorry. Robson Square, Surrey, Delta and Nanaimo Provincial Court are all piloting that particular initiative. I think it does have the prospect of perhaps reducing some of the wait times and channelling cases out of the courts that can be resolved through this less formal form of mediation.

In addition, I have met with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, and this is one of the issues we discussed: the need to work together, in terms of our providing resources and the court targeting resources to deal with these particular initiatives. I think the settlement conference has been a very successful initiative, frankly. There is a very high degree of success through settlement conferences, and that has been an initiative that I think has been helpful in providing an alternative to a more expensive form of arbitration. But clearly I agree with the member that in the case of Victoria, for example, and the case of Surrey, those wait times are longer than they should be. We need to work to get them down.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's diligence in uncovering that. I was actually not accurate in saying that Victoria was the longest on this list. Surrey is longer.

There was an issue, by the way, that arose yesterday with respect to the accuracy of court transcription technology that I'm given to understand the minister has received further information on. Before we pursue this topic any further, I wonder if he could enlighten us as to what it is he has learned about that subject.

Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for the question. I was going to raise it myself, so I appreciate his reminding me.

Yes, I referred yesterday to the fact that there was an evaluation done of the introduction of the automated transcription service. I think I alluded to the fact that evaluation had shown that in fact the automated transcripts had a higher degree of accuracy than the transcripts that have been produced by court reporters.

What I have is. . . . I can quantify that now. The evaluation of five demonstration trials at the Vancouver law courts determined the transcripts made from audio recordings were in fact 40 percent more accurate than those produced by court reporters. I think it's important to put that on the record, because it does confirm the discussion we had yesterday -- that any transcript is prone to having some inaccuracies. The question is not whether it's free of inaccuracies but how you can minimize the inaccuracies. What this suggests is that audio recording is more successful at minimizing those inaccuracies or discrepancies than the transcripts that were produced by court reporters.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's efforts in providing that information.

I want to return to the issue of waiting times for provincial small claims court. The chart that the minister's staff provided to me has two columns of wait times. The first column is the column of wait time for settlement conferences, which we've already looked at. The second column is the wait time for trial. To illustrate the way the data appears on the page: for the location of the Victoria law courts, the waiting time for a settlement conference is 10.85 months, as I said earlier, and then the waiting time for trial is five months. What I'm not sure of is whether that's five months after the settlement conference. I suspect it is, but perhaps the minister could confirm that.

Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, we'd be sending all the wrong incentives if in fact you'd get to trial in five months and it took twice that to get to a settlement conference. So the member is right: they're additive in the sense that the trial wait time is the time following the settlement conference.

I think it is important to look at both numbers. In the case of Surrey, for example, it does take a year to get to a settlement conference, but if the settlement conference is not successful in resolving the matter, then it takes only a further month and a half, on average, to get to trial. I think this reflects the fact that there are different emphases and different resources being allocated within different courts -- some more to settlement conference, some more to trial. Perhaps it also reflects that, in some cases the settlement conference procedure is more successful in some areas than in others.

The member is correct if his assumption is that the time to trial is the further time once the settlement conference has been concluded. Of course, it only becomes relevant if the settlement conference was not successful. I'm happy to say that settlement conferences have been highly successful, as I said earlier, so it only applies to those litigants who do not achieve a resolution through the settlement conference.

G. Plant: So we get a bit of a flavour, then, of how the numbers work. The minister is right. It appears that in Surrey, it takes a year to get a settlement conference but, if that procedure fails, only a month and a half to get to trial.

On the other hand, in New Westminster you can get a settlement conference in two months, but if that fails, there's a 19-month wait for trial, as it appears there is in Burnaby provincial, Port Coquitlam provincial, Maple Ridge provincial. This means that in looking, at least globally, at these figures, it seems that across the Fraser Valley -- loosely speaking -- anywhere from Burnaby out to Chilliwack, it's about a year and a half to two years to get to trial, if you have to get to trial in provincial small claims court.

I do want to come back to the issue of how successful settlement conferences are. But I guess the question is: what other strategies does the ministry have for dealing with what I'm sure the minister will agree is an unacceptable waiting time for small claims court in these locations that I've identified? And there are others that could be enumerated. I think I probably caught the most egregious ones.

Hon. A. Petter: The critic, as any good critic would, is fastening on to the small claims number, I suppose, because in fact they do disclose wait times that need to be brought down. What he isn't focusing on is the very good news that wait times in respect of adult offenders in the provincial criminal courts have in fact come down substantially. The two. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: Well, no. But the two are related, because clearly the courts have decided, for the most part, to make their priority in terms of resources to get those wait times down. Now that those wait times are substantially down, it does create the opportunity, in terms of freed resources and any incremental resources, to now start to focus in on this. In fact, part of the discussion that the Chief Judge had with me was about that objective. The courts have to deal with this, but not at the expense of increasing the other.

But there is a relationship here, and this does reflect the outcome of having successfully targeted resources to deal

with what was seen to be a more pressing problem, in terms of clearing those wait-lists and wait backlogs in the adult criminal courts. Now that considerable success has been achieved in that regard, it now sets the stage to start to focus in particularly on those courts that have long wait times either for settlement conference or for trial.

In addition, as I've already said, another strategy is this informal mediation practicum program, which I think can assist parties to achieve settlements without having to necessarily resort even to the settlement conference procedure. We'll see how those trials go, but I am told that the settlement rates in respect of those are quite successful. I'm hopeful that may provide further opportunity to take some of the pressure off the courts, saving for the courts those more intractable cases that will only be resolved either through the more formal settlement conference or, failing that, through trial.

G. Plant: I don't quarrel with the minister's attempt to put the numbers with respect to small claims court into the context that he does, given that he also acknowledges that there is serious work now to be done on the small claims side of the ledger, as it were.

There is a danger, I guess, of being drowned in statistics, but the minister points to what he describes as the high rate of success in the use of settlement conferences. Does the ministry track the numbers that indicate the number of cases that are disposed of successfully by way of settlement conference? Can the minister give us a general indication of that information? If that information is tracked by location in the same way that the waiting times are tracked, I would be delighted to receive it, if it could be made available. I don't want any effort to be expended in trying to break down the information if it's not already there; but if it could be provided without too much effort at some point, I'd be grateful.

In the meantime, what does the minister mean when he says that settlement conferences are very successful?

Hon. A. Petter: I have some statistics to hand that deal with the mediation practicum project and both the voluntary and the mandatory mediation in that context. We don't have the numbers to hand on the settlement conference, but I'd be happy to try to find those for the member. My recollection from the discussion I had with the Chief Judge was that certainly the court's view is that it has been highly successful. I understand there is an evaluation taking place on that as well.

Let me just share these numbers with the member, because I think they are instructive. First of all, in terms of satisfaction rates, of those who engaged in some form of mediation -- voluntary or mandatory -- 92 percent of those surveyed would choose mediation again if given the choice. The settlement rates are positive: in voluntary mediation, 67 percent success; in respect of mandatory mediations, 53 percent success. By success I mean a full settlement resulted. That was based on the valuation from May of '98 to July of '99.

Preliminary data, which I don't have here but which is referred to here, suggests that providing a mediation option results in significant savings in terms of the number of court appearances and the amount of time spent at trial as well. As I say, I don't have the statistics on that -- it seems to me almost a corollary -- but there may well be more specific data on it as well.

G. Plant: I suspect that sometimes what happens in settlement conferences is that there is a narrowing of the issue between the parties, and that makes the trial a little more efficient.

The statistics that the minister has just given actually open the door to another aspect of the problem that I want to pursue for a moment. It appears, if I heard the minister right, that at least in respect of this pilot project, the success rate for voluntary mediation is 67 percent and the success rate for involuntary mediation is 53 percent. I think the difference is statistically significant, so the question is: why is mediation less successful when it's imposed on parties, as opposed to when parties choose it voluntarily? Maybe it's just because mediation, by its nature, is a process that is intended to work best when it's made voluntary.

Here's the challenge the system faces, it seems to me, and this is not a challenge limited to the issue of mediation. Every time the justice system introduces another option, another step, in a proceeding which is intended to provide litigants with an opportunity to achieve a resolution of their dispute more quickly -- perhaps in a climate of less adversariality -- what the system has done, among other things, is simply create one more step. You can't get a trial in a small claims case without a settlement conference. In lots of cases, that's probably a good thing. But as the minister knows, small claims court is. . . .

It's a subject that we will be pursuing, I guess, in a minute or two. I think that was the bell. Do we have to. . . ?

The Chair: No, we'll just recess for the. . . . That's the process. Committee members will recess for the term of the division. We'll reconvene when the division in Committee B is complete.

G. Plant: I was in mid-flight, I think -- or maybe full flight, as the minister might have said. The thing about small claims court is that it actually is, among other places, a debt collection forum; that is, it's a place where people who have sent bills and haven't had them paid go to try to enforce payment on the bill. Obviously any protracted delay in the process of the court simply slows down the ability of the plaintiff to crystalize the debt as a judgment in order to begin enforcement proceedings.

In that context, the introduction of vehicles like settlement conferences and mediation may sometimes simply provide recalcitrant defendants with the opportunity to further avoid and delay the obligations that they have. I think that ought to be a consideration anytime the government is considering amending court processes.

So I guess the question. . . . As I said at the outset of the discussion, I think there is some support for -- at least a concern about -- the issue from the fact that apparently mediation processes, when they are imposed on litigants, are successful just slightly more than half the time. That means that for half of the litigants who've been exposed to the mediation process, it was simply one more step along the road to judgment. If they then have to do a settlement conference and then have to do a trial, it can get to be a bit burdensome. Perhaps

when we resume, the minister will have an opportunity to explain how he sees the various competing forces balanced here.

The Chair: Members, there's a division in Committee B. We will recess to accommodate that division and reconvene here at the termination of the division in the other committee.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me just introduce two officials who weren't introduced previously. Alison MacPhail, who's the assistant deputy minister of community justice, is sitting behind me to my right -- the left, for those on the other side of the room. Ron Tucker, sitting next to Alison, is a legal adviser in the dispute resolution office.

I appreciate the member's question. The choice as to which processes should be mandatory and which should be voluntary. . . . I think one could argue back and forth. In this case, the choices reflect either decisions or recommendations of the court itself in respect of effecting that balance. I would point out that the rates of success vary. In some cases, I think they're higher than the numbers I gave previously.

But I think that what is most significant is the satisfaction rates. Even where people don't get a successful outcome in the sense of a full settlement, which is the measure of success here, there's still a 92 percent satisfaction rate, and people would choose mediation again -- which I think is a pretty impressive statistic. As the member points out, if you define success in this way, you may end up with a mediation that does successfully limit or resolve some of the issues and thereby enhance the possibility of a resolution through an arbitration subsequently.

Two mandatory processes are in place. One is in respect to the informal mediation with respect to construction cases. It was a recommendation of the court that we make that mandatory and seek to achieve settlements in that way. The other, of course, is the settlement conference process itself, which is a process that the court itself put in place.

What I would say is that I think it's an interesting question the member asks. Is there a better way to channel? Are there some cases that should be mandatory that are currently voluntary or, conversely, some that are now voluntary that should be mandatory? I guess these are things we need to monitor and evaluate -- and the courts the same. But at the end of the day, I think what's been put in place here is a positive balance. The balance is one that reflects the court's best view. After all, the courts are the ones that are trying to administer this in a way that effects settlements -- the court's best view as to what the appropriate balance should be.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. It leads me to two fairly practical questions. With respect to the mediation and construction cases, could the minister refresh my recollections. Are the mediators in this case appointed from outside the court? Or are they Provincial Court judges who are given this assignment?

Secondly, where the mediation project is at work, does it, in effect, add another step? If mediation fails in construction cases, for example, are the litigants nonetheless then required to pursue the settlement conference step before they get a trial date?

Hon. A. Petter: In response to the first question, the answer is that the mediators are drawn from outside the court. They have to be trained and have experience as mediators; they are drawn from outside the court.

In respect to the second question, the answer is yes. The settlement conference step would still be there. Although, if it were the judge's view that there was no opportunity to improve upon the informal mediation or a settlement conference, that could be a very short step. On the other hand, if it was the view that a more formal form of mediation in the form of a settlement conference could improve and perhaps effect a full settlement, then it could be a fuller process. But that step remains.

Another interesting statistic from a different area, but one that I think shows that even imposed mediation can be quite successful, relates to the settlement rates with respect to notices to mediate with respect to motor vehicle cases. I appreciate the notices are in a sense voluntary, but they trigger a mandatory process. In those cases the mediation settlement rates have exceeded 70 percent. So we can argue about how much success is enough to make the process mandatory as opposed to voluntary. But overall, I think we are seeing quite an extraordinary rate of success and an even more impressive rate of satisfaction.

G. Plant: There are two points that I think need to be made in respect of the minister's last answer. The first is to deal with the part of the answer that contended that if a mediation process failed, it would be open to the settlement conference judge to realize that settlement was unlikely in fairly short order and to bring that part of the proceeding to an end. I don't mean to be unfair to the judiciary when I point out that that is an investment of perhaps 15 or 20 minutes or a half-hour of the judge's time, who reopens a file, walks down the hall, sees the litigants in the courtroom, determines that it's obvious there isn't going to be a negotiated resolution and says: "All right, people, back to the trial list."

As we've discovered, in some places that can mean waiting a year and a half. For the litigants, it may mean a day off work for each of them, a day spent sitting around in court waiting for a judge and a day when, for them, the system isn't working at all. I appreciate what the minister says when he says that these processes are recommended by the courts. I guess I have to say that my own experience as a civil litigator was that the judiciary, notwithstanding the best intention in the world, does tend to see the judicial process through its window of convenience and efficacy. The judiciary tends to be less well informed, I find, about the actual cost of litigation in real dollars, as well as the cost of inconvenience.

One of the risks, of course, is that if the process becomes too burdensome, people will simply stop using it. I will be asking the minister if he does have some statistics about provincewide small claims court filings, just to let us know whether that's up or down.

The second thing I want to say is. . . . I don't for a moment want to pretend that this is a simple problem to solve. It does seem to me, however, that taking a big step back from

the details, if you will, in looking at the forest rather than the trees, almost every attempt I know of over the last decade or so to create alternative methods within the judicial system for resolving legal disputes has had the effect of simply adding one more step.

Rule 18A is my favourite example. I think any study of rule 18A that asked the right questions would probably determine that the rule has added to the societal costs of civil litigation in British Columbia by figures that I don't want to guess at. What it does really is give litigants, who aren't as interested in achieving an efficient resolution of a dispute, simply one more opportunity to drag the thing out.

The specific issue, though, that I do want to come back to is. . . . We've gone down this road. Now we've identified construction as one place where there is a mediation project at work. ICBC is another area where there's a mediation project at work. The last area -- that is the big one -- is the project to create an order-to-mediate rule as part of the Supreme Court rules. This is a project that the dispute resolution office has been working on with the legal profession. It raises, really, in pretty precise terms the very problem we're talking about. That is: do you make mediation purely voluntary -- that it requires both parties to civil litigation to agree to it? Do you make it a compulsory thing? That is to say, it is required as a condition of proceeding with an action. Or do you create some hybrid mechanism?

It seems to me that the government is, at least at this point, proposing the third alternative -- that is, giving any party to the litigation the opportunity or the option of triggering a mediation by delivering or serving a notice, which then would oblige the other parties to at least attend a mediation session. I am intrigued by that as a resolution, as an attempt to strike a balance among the kind of considerations I've been talking about.

What is the minister's view as to whether or not this is the best way of striking a balance for the litigation process? I apologize for the fact that I've really left two questions there -- one about small claims court filings and the other about this new order-to-mediate rule. But we can deal with them as the minister is able.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me roll back the tape a little bit to the member's. . . . I think it was perhaps his first point, but it was also his last point in the previous intervention. That has to do with the introduction of these pilot projects, which provide for an out-of-court mediation process -- which in the case of construction is mandatory, which was the court's recommendation. Those are pilot processes. I think the member makes a good point: is it really worthwhile to ask those people who do not effect a full settlement in those processes to then have to go through the further process of a settlement conference unless they choose to do so? I think that's an excellent point.

In reviewing these pilot projects, I anticipate that the courts. . . . If they decide that these pilots are ones they want to see institutionalized and we decide to institutionalize them, that's one of the questions we should ask: do we really need to have. . . ? Could this be an alternative to a settlement conference? Could parties choose to go to mediation in lieu of a settlement conference? Where it's mandatory, could that then provide a basis for going straight to trial if it fails?

I think those are very good questions, and I'm not at all invested in the current regime if it can be improved upon -- let me put it that way. I think these are good mechanisms that are being experimented with and, in some cases, more than experimented with. But I think we should be open to looking at ways, from a consumer point of view, of improving the system.

Again, I want to subscribe very much to what the member says -- that certainly making the courts more efficient, from a court-centred point of view, is one important objective. But if it makes it less convenient from a consumer point of view, that should be a concern as well. What we should do is try to make the system work best for everyone -- more efficient in terms of taxpayer costs and more efficient in terms of the ability of people to get disputes resolved efficiently. So I appreciate the member's suggestions in that regard, and I am confident that those kinds of considerations will be taken into account by the courts themselves and certainly by me, to the extent that we have future input into making decisions.

In respect to the question about voluntary versus mandatory and the sort of model that was put in place in respect of motor vehicle situations, where you have one party bringing in notice to mediate, which effectively is voluntary but then triggers a mandatory process, of course parties could always and can still engage in voluntary mediation. That can take place without any triggering mechanism. I suppose by institutionalizing it you can encourage it, and by providing access to mediators one can encourage it.

The courts felt, in the construction cases, that -- and that's Provincial Court now -- the complexity of those cases was such that a mandatory mediation process would be helpful in effecting resolutions in a less costly and more timely way. But I do think that as we look to expanding opportunities for mediation, particularly in the context of Supreme Court cases, the model that was pursued. . . . I think I had a bit of a say in that at the time, when I was responsible for ICBC.

This model that has been tried, in respect of triggering mediation through notices to mediate where one party feels that a mediation process would be helpful -- I think that does effect a good balance. I'm not sure in every case, but I think it's been quite successful. I already indicated that settlement rates exceed 70 percent. The consultation process we've had suggests that we should now look at expanding that opportunity or at least put in place the power to expand that opportunity to a broader category of cases than just those that are now covered in respect of motor vehicle accidents.

I guess a shorter answer is yes, I do think it effects a good balance. But we have to be careful that one size may not fit all. In some disputes, one party's judgment that triggering a mediation process should then determine that a process takes place may be appropriate, and in other situations it may not be. But in general, I think it's been very successful where it's been piloted -- where it's been tried in respect to motor vehicles -- and there's every reason to consider its expansion into other areas.

G. Plant: Does the ministry track small claims court filings? And is the minister able, with present resources, to give me an indication about that? If he would prefer, he could provide the answer to me later.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm told we do indeed track small claims filings. We don't have the numbers here; I'd be happy to

provide them to the member. But in general, the number of filings has been down in the last three years. If the member would like those numbers, I'll make sure that we provide them to him in written form, if that would helpful.

G. Plant: That would be, and I appreciate the minister's offer. We did start this discussion awhile back with a bit of an overview of the statistical information that the ministry provided to me about the status of waiting lists in provincial small claims courts. The minister made the point in that context that there had been a bit of an exercise in fixing priorities around judicial resources as between civil and criminal court matters in Provincial Court. He pointed out that there had been a bit of a priority underway in attempting to reduce the backlog in the provincial criminal court system. His staff gave me an overview of the status of provincial adult criminal court trial times.

At least, it certainly looks as though there has been a significant reduction in the months of time to trial across a wide number of courthouses in British Columbia. Really, almost everywhere there's been progress, with the exception of the Bulkley Valley, where I'm told there are specific issues that are being examined.

There are two particular court locations that I think I want to draw the minister's attention to and ask him for some comments about. The first is the district of Hope. The statistics that the minister provided to me show that over the two-year period, December '97 to January 2000, the time to trial for adult criminal matters in Hope Provincial Court has been reduced from ten months to nine months. At nine months it represents, I think, the second-longest wait-list in the southern half of the province -- at least on the information that was given me.

I have in fact received a copy of a letter that I think the minister also received from the district of Hope dated March 1, 2000, in which the mayor of Hope points out that the courthouse in Hope sits on Tuesdays and Thursdays. However, first appearances and custody matters take a large portion of the available court time, and that results in frequent adjournments of trials set for these days or the inevitably apprehended concern about increase in plea bargains. The district has made the request that an additional two days of court in Hope every month would alleviate the present situation and create a much more efficient and desirable process. I've also got a copy of a letter from the detachment commander in the Hope detachment of the RCMP to somewhat the same effect. I wonder if the minister can indicate what action, if any, the ministry will be taking in response to the questions raised by the district of Hope.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I've written back to the district of Hope indicating that we will be providing the resources for those two extra days as requested.

B. Penner: I'd like to join my colleague in supporting some attention being given to the Hope courts, having spent some time there prior to being elected. I know they have some serious concerns that need to be addressed.

I'd like to draw the minister's attention at this time to the perennial topic of the Chilliwack law courts and note that they are now just about the worst location in terms of Provincial Court criminal trial delay. They have not shown any improvement, according to the statistics provided by the Attorney General ministry. As of January 2000 it was still taking 11 months to set a matter for a half-day criminal trial, and that's the same as it was back in December 1997. While the Abbotsford courthouse is no longer at 14 months -- I think it's now down to around a ten-month delay -- there has been no improvement in Chilliwack.

There have been many announcements and promises made in years past, even going back to the late 1980s and a previous government, but no action has actually resulted -- at least none that was very significant.

This week there was a very troubling incident; I'm not sure if the minister is aware of it. I'll refer to a newspaper clipping this week from the Chilliwack Progress dated May 9. The headline is: "Deputy's Neck Slashed in Courtroom Attack. Prisoner Slashes Two with Weapon, Then Tries to Bolt." The article goes on to refer to two deputy sheriffs who were injured, albeit not seriously, during an attempted escape by a Kent federal inmate.

This is not the first time such an escape attempt has been made in what is supposed to be the most secure courtroom at the Chilliwack courthouse. The last time this happened was on July 18, 1996. I was there the day that happened, and I can tell you that it's frightening for all concerned. The minister would not be surprised to know that there are oftentimes civilian people in the courtroom who could easily be taken hostage. Happily, that did not happen in either case.

But here we are. It's almost four years since the last time this happened, and it has happened again. People in Chilliwack are still waiting for action from the government rather than words. I ask the minister what his plans are to deal with the situation -- first, in terms of the backlog and, secondly, in terms of security.

Before I sit down, let me share with the minister the comments of a person who works in his own ministry. It's from a prosecutor who works in Chilliwack, and he's given me some words in a letter in response to a letter I had written, inquiring about a charge that was dismissed. A case involving a Mr. Charlton was dismissed essentially due to lack of adequate court time.

I'll quote briefly from this letter from Mr. Goodfellow dated May 1, 2000: "The real travesty was lack of court time to schedule earlier trial dates in this and other matters. This community requires twice as much court time as is currently available and allotted. Unfortunately, a certain number of perfectly legitimate cases are lost due to our inability to schedule and reschedule trials in a more timely fashion. This was one such case." I'm sure many others have occurred over the years. With that, I'd invite the minister's comments.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's interest and concern in the Chilliwack situation. I am aware of the incident he referred to in respect of the attack in the courtroom. The advice I received from ministry staff is that the attack was not related to the nature of the facility. It relates, I suppose, to security provisions in a general way, but one shouldn't assume that a different facility would have made it less likely for that attack to occur. That does not diminish the seriousness of that incident and of the need to treat it as such, but I want to distinguish it from the question of the facility.

I have, since coming into this position, been made aware of the demands in the Chilliwack area in respect of the issue of

courtroom facilities. I know there have been discussions back and forth around the question of whether to upgrade the existing facility or whether to pursue a new facility. Based upon that, I've sought and obtained approval -- in fact, I believe the announcement is being made today -- for additional funding to be provided to construct a new facility in Chilliwack. That will bring the total funding for the facility to $7.6 million for a new four-courtroom facility, hopefully to be completed by next spring. I think that's good news for the member and for the community. I think it does meet some of the concerns and needs in the area. There's also an Abbottsford upgrade underway.

So I'm aware of some of the pressures in the Fraser Valley and the Chilliwack area. I've already talked about what we're doing in respect of Hope. In what short time I've had as a minister, I've tried to move this along. I hope the member is supportive of the decision to construct a new facility within his constituency.

B. Penner: Perhaps some people would accuse me of being from Missouri, but I'll believe it when I see it. We've heard it many times, and if in fact it's true, it is good news for the community. I'm sure the community will welcome the announcement and the eventual construction. As I've said earlier, we've had announcements in the past but haven't seen any actual action taken on the ground.

I just want to address the minister's comments that the state of the facilities in Chilliwack in no way was related to the attempted escape -- or the escape that did happen -- earlier this week and the injuries that resulted to staff. In the same newspaper article that I referred to earlier, the article goes on to say as follows: "Chilliwack senior Crown counsel Gregg Goodfellow said this week's incident is a good example of why Chilliwack needs a new courthouse with up-to-date safety features. . . . People's lives are at risk as a result of this, and they shouldn't have to be." He said: "The courthouse is not adequate to deal with serious federal inmates."

Due to the location of Chilliwack and its proximity to a number of federal institutions, the Chilliwack courthouse is a place where many federal inmates are processed to deal with offences that arise during their time in custody. Therefore a significant part of the workload that is dealt with in Chilliwack relates to federal inmates. Inmates coming from Kent prison, as this gentleman that attempted to escape on Monday attests to, have nothing to lose. He's already serving a life sentence for murder. The last time that an escape attempt happened was in a similar situation. The gentleman, I think, was serving two concurrent life sentences for first-degree murder and certainly, in that individual's mind, didn't have much to lose by attempting to escape.

There was an earlier incident, as well, where the person didn't manage to get out of the courtroom. It happened in the lockup in the back of the courthouse, where one guard was seriously stabbed by a federal inmate from Kent Institution. That person, Mr. Mike Brennan, had to be hospitalized and treated for the injuries and an infection which occurred as a result. Regrettably, Mike Brennan passed away a couple of years ago. It was not necessarily directly related to the injury he suffered on the job, but there has been a troubling pattern of incidents at the Chilliwack courthouse.

A moment ago the minister did make the announcement about more than $7 million being allotted to a new four-room provincial courthouse. I just wonder if the minister can confirm whether that's merely an approval-in-principle or whether all the various contingencies have already been addressed. What, if any, catch is there to there to the announcement?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, on the first question of safety, I'll just pass on the advice of staff, in respect of those who are familiar with these facilities and who know of this incident, in saying that this incident occurred, as I understand, with a prisoner trying to get over Plexiglas. It really is difficult to relate that to the safety features or lack thereof of this facility.

That doesn't mean there isn't something that can and should be done to avert these kinds of incidents. In fact, we talked earlier in this debate about the use of technology. This is exactly the kind of situation where the use of technology and a video hookup from the Kent facility or other high-security facilities where there are serious and dangerous offenders can avert the need to have to transport a prisoner from the facility to the courthouse, which of course carries its own risks, or have the prisoner present in the courthouse, which carries further risks -- as we see in this incident.

The use of the kind of technology we were talking about earlier -- the video conferencing technology -- can do much to avert this kind of situation in the future and prevent it from happening. I think that would do more to promote safety than a new courthouse -- which isn't to say that a new courthouse isn't necessary. It clearly is.

On the second question, the member uses the pejorative term "catch." There are no catches; there are conditions that have to be fulfilled. The funding is subject to a determination for the exact location of the new courthouse and a cost analysis comparing government and private facility ownership. Those are normal steps that flow from the approval of the funding. The funding is there. We will now have to work through our facilities people and with the local community to make sure that we find the best and most cost-effective location and that the facility is one that can be delivered within the cost parameters and in the most efficient way. That's just a normal set of conditions -- no catches.

B. Penner: In the recommendations contained in the Regional Justice Committee report that was looking into justice issues in the Fraser Valley, there was a recommendation that any new court facility in Chilliwack retain the ability to conduct chambers matters and perhaps retain a Supreme Court registry. Is the minister in a position to advise us whether the plan approved by cabinet and Treasury Board meets those recommendations? As the minister knows, a lot of work takes place in chambers, and Chilliwack has long been a seat of the B.C. Supreme Court in the Fraser Valley. People in my community are wondering whether some form of Supreme Court service will be retained, even if it's just through maintaining a masters court.

Hon. A. Petter: I am advised that the intention is that the facility will maintain Supreme Court facilities, courtrooms and a registry. Just to give a complete answer, I suppose that when the new facility proceeds in Abbotsford, there may be a question about moving the courtroom components or consolidating them in Abbotsford. But the registry component will remain in Chilliwack -- at least, that is the intention, and the building will be designed with that in mind.

G. Plant: One of the objectives in deliverables identified for the court services branch for the fiscal year we're now embarked upon is to reduce the backlog through expansion of justice of the peace functions and availability. It talks about completing an implementation plan and an outcome of reduced expenditures for evening and weekend JP services.

My understanding is that there are, broadly speaking, two kinds of justices of the peace in British Columbia. I hope I've got this right. There are the full-time staff justices of the peace, and then there are stipendiary justices of the peace. There is sort of a tradition associated with both those streams in terms of the jobs they have, the things they do and the responsibilities they undertake. My question for the Attorney is: does he foresee maintaining this basic model over the course of the next year as he embarks upon the objective of using justices of the peace to assist in reducing backlogs?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. This is another area in which the use of technology can assist in providing a more efficient service at a lower cost. Through the introduction of telewarrant services, for example, communities that have had to rely upon the presence of a stipendiary JP can get 24-hour service through a telewarrant centre. The intention is to move gradually to that. In fact, one of the members who was. . . . She isn't sitting there. I'm sorry; I apologize. One of the members opposite has spoken to me about the need to introduce such a centre in her community, and they're working to do that.

The intention is that we will see a graduating out of stipendiary JPs as the telewarrant service becomes more prevalent. I anticipate that will take place through an attrition-type process. Over time we will move to a situation in which full-time JPs are the norm and we have services provided throughout the province through another use of technology that can enhance services.

G. Plant: Would the model that the government anticipates moving to be a model where if a warrant were needed in the middle of the night for something, there would be an electronic means of maintaining contact with a central staff of JPs? It doesn't sound to me like a call centre is going to work here, so it must be something different from that. Perhaps the minister could just explain a little bit more what's coming down the road.

Hon. A. Petter: This is a project that was in fact piloted in March 1999, initially with a central service providing service to seven communities. It has since been expanded. As of April 1 of this year, there are now 37 communities included in the pilot.

It does indeed provide 24-hour service; the centre is staffed by JPs on a 24-hour basis. I guess the staff complement corresponds to the demand and will expand as the number of communities expands. But what it essentially means is that JP services with respect to warrants or other matters can be provided to communities on a 24-hour basis without having to seek out a stipendiary JP, thereby providing a continuity of service that would not have been possible under the old model.

G. Plant: But the minister's expectation is that in terms of the impact of this change on the existing complement of stipendiary magistrates, that will happen over time by means of attrition rather than by some move to dismiss some large number of existing, hard-working members of the communities of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, I had that very discussion with my staff not long after becoming Attorney General. I think my words are very similar to those of the member opposite: we want to value those who have been providing this service. I would prefer a model where we work through attrition, as opposed to one in which we suddenly terminate services from people who are still performing valuable services.

What that means is that we will phase in, in a way that takes account of where there are gaps that are opened up and in a way that tries to maintain the existing stipendiary JPs and the useful work they perform.

G. Plant: It occurs to me that one of the potential virtues of technology is that it actually doesn't matter where the justices of the peace are. It might be possible to implement the basic thrust of the idea the minister is talking about without really having any impact on the distribution of stipendiary magistrates. You just end up creating a rota, where the stipendiary magistrate -- in Salmon Arm, for example -- is on call two nights a month for the whole province, as opposed to creating some cluster, presumably, in one location within a province, where you have a group of magistrates sitting around waiting for the phone to ring in some office in downtown Vancouver. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether there is any consideration given to that possibility.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member is suggesting that the stipendiary JPs would somehow be drawn in and be part of the service provided through the telewarrant service, that is unlikely to occur. I think the intention is to have full-time JPs who have a full-time commitment. What I'm suggesting is that stipendiary JPs tend to do work on an as-called basis. They're paid based on a per diem, but I guess there's a per-monthly kind of expectation of workload that's reviewed every few years. I suppose, as the telewarrant service comes out, over time their remuneration might start to decline.

But rather than suddenly saying, "All those services are terminated; thank you very much," I think there will be a more gradual implementation or phasing out of the stipendiary services, in recognition of the fact that some people may still prefer to go to a stipendiary JP. In recognition of the service, that is better than simply terminating those services and moving on. So I anticipate that it'll be a more graduated phase-in, in which their services will become less in demand. Through attrition and that cessation of demand, eventually we will see a phasing out of those stipendiary JPs.

G. Plant: I want to ask one last question in relation to court services branch, following on some of the things we were talking about earlier, including the initiatives underway to enhance the range of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms available to litigants. The minister himself raised as examples the projects that are underway with respect to construction claims and ICBC claims.

This always leads me to the subject of specialized tribunals. We have traditionally had in this province an expectation that judges are generalists. That's certainly a high expectation for the superior court judiciary, but it's even an

expectation that exists in respect of the jurisdiction that the Provincial Court has. The Provincial Court does have divisions, but I think the expectation is that over time, anyone who's a Provincial Court judge will be expected to sit in each of the divisions.

Other jurisdictions have been more inventive, perhaps, than we have been in terms of creating alternate systems of tribunals for subjects that are now dealt with by the judiciary. I don't mean so much here the question of creating administrative tribunals. There's certainly been lots of those created in British Columbia. But I have in mind, for example, the work done in the Ontario High Court in terms of creating a commercial civil list, particularly in Toronto. I understand that that was a very successful experiment or project. It created among the community of lawyers some sort of level of confidence that when they brought their commercial litigation to the High Court, they would be appearing in front of someone who had a professed and recognized interest and specialty in commercial litigation.

I'm also thinking about the way that construction litigation is dealt with, as I understand it, in the United Kingdom, where I think it's dealt with by a system of referees. I'm wondering if the Attorney has turned his mind to these issues.

I recognize that we are entrenching on some delicate ground here. The judiciary is very jealous of their roles and their responsibilities under the Constitution of Canada. It has to be a pretty careful and thoughtful dialogue before this kind of reform is embarked upon. Nonetheless, these questions are important to ask. I think that they are issues that ought to be pursued and ought to be of interest to the Attorney. I'm curious to know if he has any thoughts on them.

Hon. A. Petter: Quite frankly, these are issues that I have not yet had an opportunity to turn my mind to, but I appreciate the member raising them. There is always a tension between the values of generalism and the values of specialty. These are issues where I know there are views on different sides, within the court system and without, as to whether or not having generalists sit on cases is preferable to having specialists, in any number of different contexts.

However, the member clearly makes a good point that with certain kinds of litigation, due to its complexity or the highly technical nature of it, one may well be able to get a more efficient and effective resolution of disputes if you have a bench that is well equipped to deal with that area. I appreciate the suggestion; I can see the merit of it.

The member is also correct, of course, in saying that the courts are -- and understandably so -- pretty jealous of their jurisdiction in respect of determining the way in which they organize themselves for the purposes of resolving disputes. So I think I'll just say for now that I appreciate the member's suggestions. These are issues that I need to acquaint myself with more, and if the member can assist me in doing so, I'd be ever so grateful.

G. Plant: I'd be happy to sit down with the Attorney at any time to talk about those sorts of issues.

There is a project that's in front of the court services branch. I don't really have a question about it. It comes back to the theme of technology. It includes the JUSTIN project and a range of other projects that I know are of particular interest to the senior officials throughout the ministry. I have been getting briefings and been given tours, over time, about these things. I've recently been given an update, if you will, on the ministry's work in this area. It will probably actually come to a somewhat related aspect of the overall thing when we talk about case flow management in the criminal court system.

I don't have a question for the minister about the issue of technology. I just want to leave the minister with this observation -- on the record, as it were. I appreciate the willingness of the ministry to communicate with the opposition about the progress being made here. I look forward to more updates on this area. I didn't want to pass over all of this in silence, because I think it's pretty important stuff.

I want to move to the criminal justice branch. Before I do that, though -- on a slightly unrelated matter -- yesterday there were media reports indicating that in relation to the question of the delays and otherwise in obtaining psychiatric assessments in the Provincial Court system. . . . There were media reports indicating that later in the day -- that is, after question period -- the Attorney General had apparently communicated with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. I think what was said was that there was another letter written. By that I mean a letter in addition to the 1997 letter that the then Deputy Attorney General wrote to Chief Judge Metzger.

We in the opposition don't have copies of the second letter, which I understand may indicate or include information about work that the ministry has done since 1997 on the area of psychiatric assessments. Is the minister able to provide me with a copy of that letter?

Hon. A. Petter: The letter that I think the member is referring to is a letter sent by the Deputy Minister of Health to further update the Chief Judge of the province with respect to the investments that have been made with respect to forensic services. I believe it included a reference to the additional $2.1 million, I think it was, that had been announced subsequent to the previous letter that was sent by the Deputy Attorney General, which I did table yesterday. I can try to get the letter for the member's benefit, but it was a letter that was sent by the Deputy Minister of Health.

G. Plant: I gather the minister is not in a position to provide me with a copy of that letter here.

Let's talk, then, in the context of the criminal justice branch -- first about the case flow management program, if we may.

The Chair: Member, if this is a new area of examination, it would be an appropriate time now to rise, report progress and pick this up when we reconvene, if that pleases the committee.

Hon. A. Petter: Do you want to just frame what you want to go to, Geoff, and then do that?

G. Plant: Yes, let me outline, if I may, briefly. I don't want to spend time undertaking a comprehensive overview of the case flow management system, but I do want to touch on three things.

The first is to bring to the Attorney's attention the fact, as he is aware, that the rollout of that program today has excited the interest of defence counsel in a number of locations. I would like to get some expression from the Attorney General of what his sense is about the concerns that have been raised and how they affect, if at all, the rollout of the program.

Second, I want to pursue the question of whether it is the minister's firm intention to implement the program on a provincewide basis by, I think, November of this year.

Third, looking at a recent backgrounder that was released by the ministry with respect to this, there is reference to the implementation of the case flow management program as of June 12 in respect of something that is described as Vancouver Richmond civil family. I don't know what that means, given that I thought we were talking about a criminal case flow management system. I'm hoping the minister will have an opportunity in the afternoon to relieve my confusion on that last issue.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.