2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 15
[ Page 15557 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Hon. G. Wilson: In the members' gallery today we have some very special guests visiting us from Germany. His Excellency Jürgen Pöhlmann is the newly appointed Ambassador of Germany to Canada, and he's making an official visit to British Columbia. The ambassador is accompanied by his wife Ulrike; and Klaus Kröger, who's consul general of Germany in Vancouver, and his wife Christel. Would the House please make our friends welcome not only to this House but to our province.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I have an introduction, and a little bit of an introduction to the introduction that follows, on part of the reason why the German Ambassador and the counsel general are here.
On Sunday, May 28 in Ottawa, the remains of an unidentified Canadian soldier killed at the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 will be reinterred in a tomb at the National War Memorial. This will mark the end of a four-year Canada-wide effort spearheaded by the Royal Canadian Legion to establish a Canadian equivalent of the national tombs of unknown soldiers in London, Paris and Arlington, Virginia.
This morning, in a moving ceremony at the cenotaph in front of the parliament buildings, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor presented a symbolic portion of British Columbia soil to Michael Cook, president, Pacific command, the Royal Canadian Legion. Mr. Cook will carry this soil to Ottawa, where it will be mixed with soil from the other Canadian provinces, the three territories and France, to be placed in Canada's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
With us today in the gallery is Michael Cook, his wife Judy and senior officers of the legion in British Columbia. Would you please join me in giving them a very warm welcome to this House.
[1410]
G. Campbell: I'd like to join with the government in welcoming Mr. Cook and congratulating the legion on their undertaking. This is a major millennial project for the legion, and I think British Columbia is playing a very important role. As I'm sure members may know, not just is our soil going to be mixed with the soil of other provinces and territories and also with the soil of France, but part of the monument that will be made was actually created by a B.C. artist from Mission and is being forged in a B.C. company in Roberts Creek. It is, I think, a worthy tribute to all of those in British Columbia who served our nation so well.
For all of us, the ultimate sacrifice that was made in the search and the quest for freedom and democracy is something that we can never forget; we must always remember. I want to thank the legion for taking the leadership in making sure that we bring this project to a successful conclusion on May 28.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm delighted today to welcome to the gallery 25 grades 11 and 12 students from the Spectrum Senior Secondary Alternate Program in my riding. They're joined today by their teachers, Ms. Laurie Finch and Mr. Gene Derreth. I would ask everyone to make them welcome.
E. Conroy: In the gallery today is Erica Watters. Erica used to work for BKR radio in the community that I come from in the Kootenays. She is presently working for CKNW radio -- I hope, Erica, I got the radio station you're working for correct. Would the House please make her welcome.
M. de Jong: It is my great pleasure to welcome to the gallery today my parents Ann and Jack de Jong. I hope members will not only make them feel welcome but talk to them and let them tell you what a wonderful guy I really am.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the House today are Chris Allnutt, the secretary-business manager of the Hospital Employees Union, and George Heyman, the president of the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
G. Hogg: We have joining us in the gallery today nine grade 10 students from Heritage Christian School in South Surrey, who are here to learn about how we work and what we do. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Wilson: Also in the gallery today we have two guests visiting us all the way from Sydney, Australia. Would the House please make Brian and Julia Woolmer welcome.
Hon. D. Lovick: I suspect that everybody in this chamber has had the experience of speaking to an empty House. We notice, thereby and therefore, those individuals who come here and take a particular, passionate interest in our deliberations. I noticed last week a woman sitting in the gallery who was here for about four days and took a very significant interest in what we do here, and I thought it appropriate then to acknowledge her presence. I ran into her in the hallway; she kindly gave me her name and said: "Please don't embarrass me." So I shan't, but I do want you all to please join me in welcoming Ms. Sabrina Hunter, a real student of parliament -- Sabrina, wherever you are.
[1415]
T. Stevenson: I have two introductions and one announcement. The United Church of Canada is holding its annual conference here in Victoria this weekend. It's the seventy-fourth annual general meeting, and there are several hundred delegates from around British Columbia who will be meeting for the weekend. I want to introduce two in the House. One is Rev. Ed Searcy from University Hill United Church, and the other is my own spouse, Rev. Gary Paterson from Ryerson United Church in Vancouver.
The United Church of Canada, when it meets every year, amongst other things ordains people into ministry, and it also acknowledges those people who have served the church for many years as they retire. One of the ministers retiring this year is the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. After 40 years of service, he is retiring from the United Church ministry. He started 40 years ago up in Fort Simpson and served all over British Columbia before going into politics earlier in this decade. I'd like to make those people welcome and also congratulate the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: In the gallery today with my ministerial assistant, Heather McLeod, is her mother Mrs. Marjorie McLeod of Victoria and a good friend of hers, Ms. Emma Nering of Vancouver. Along with them is Mr. Bill Schmidt of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.
[ Page 15558 ]
PETS IN RENTAL HOUSING ACT, 2000
G. Clark presented a bill intituled Pets in Rental Housing Act, 2000.
G. Clark: This bill allows tenants to have pets in residential premises within reasonable limits. It ends discrimination against pet owners by landlords, 95 percent of whom in British Columbia write no-pet policies into rental agreements. It's an issue of fairness. If a pet or owner is not responsible, they can still be evicted. The bill allows landlords to remove pets for end-tenancy agreements if the animal is noisy, aggressive, destructive or flea-ridden. Landlords also do not have to admit dangerous dogs such as pit bulls, bull terriers or Rottweilers. However, it also means that responsible pet owners are not judged guilty and denied housing before they have an opportunity to prove otherwise.
Studies have shown that people live healthier and happier lives with pets; senior citizens live longer, fuller lives with pets. In fact, one Australian study indicated that over $1 billion could be saved in the health care system if seniors were encouraged to have a pet.
Recently B.C. courts have ruled that blanket no-pet policies are unenforceable. The problem is that even a trivial breach of the no-pets clause, such as keeping a goldfish without permission in British Columbia, could result in immediate termination of the tenancy. The court did not see this as reasonable, and clearly it is not. It is time, my friends, to change the law and bring it in line with court decisions in other jurisdictions like Ontario, Saskatchewan and New York.
Finally, I'd like to thank the SPCA and the group Pets of B.C. Residents for their support. I'd also like to thank Sean Edwards, an intern in the Legislature, for his research and help in drafting this bill. I commend this bill to all members of the House for their consideration.
Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY
AND CHILD PROTECTION
G. Campbell: One of the most serious decisions a government can make is to take a child from its home. Before that critical action is taken, it seems to me that the only question -- and the most important question -- to be asked is: what's in the best interests of the child?
We have a Minister for Children and Families document that suggests that something quite different takes place. It states: "If there is more bad press on performance of child protection workers -- more children may be taken into care." My question to the Minister for Children and Families is simply this: can she explain how bad press has anything at all to do with what's in the best interests of children in British Columbia?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The best interests of the child are always what are considered by the ministry in any of those unfortunate situations when that has to happen. It has nothing to do with what's in the media or not.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental question.
G. Campbell: This document is the minister's document; it is the minister's briefing book. It is the minister's staff who have said -- and let me say again -- that bad press may require more children to be taken into care.
[1420]
The question for the minister is simply this
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I reiterate my first response, which was that the ministry always acts in the best interests of the child and the situation that they find when they are called to respond. That's always the case; that always will be the case.
C. Clark: How many years
This is from the minister's own briefing book. It says: "If there is more bad press on performance of child protection workers -- then more children may be taken into care." Can the minister explain how she somehow squares her ministry's mission, when her staff are more interested in looking after her political interests than they are in looking after the interests of the children that she is duty-bound to protect?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to say and reiterate that the ministry's job
The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.
C. Clark: Again, that's what she says, but that's not what her briefing book says. That's what she says, but that's not what the documents prove. That's what she says, but that's not what her staff think. For goodness' sake, her briefing book, her staff and the documents show an entirely different story. It says that when the ministry has bad media, when it's having a bad day, instead of going out and fixing the problems, instead of going out and closing the gaps, instead of going out and adding more resources, the response is to go out and
[ Page 15559 ]
apprehend more children. That is absolutely astonishing. Since when was media coverage relevant to the protection of children in British Columbia? And when did bad press become the basis for apprehending kids in this province?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Let me put it another way. It is not government policy. It is not the mandate of the ministry, and it is not the direction of the minister to do other than look after the interests of the child.
MANAGEMENT OF
B.C. FERRY CORPORATION
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the ministers and particularly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development will be mindful of why members of the public and members of the opposition are a little skeptical about what we hear from ministers. At the time
Hon. D. Miller: Stop being so sanctimonious.
The Speaker: Order, member.
G. Farrell-Collins:
[1425]
Yet at the same time, on December 17, 1998, the treasurer of B.C. Ferries wrote a memo to Treasury Board and other senior people in the government and said: "As you know, B.C. Ferries insolvent financial position has required, for the last two years, that the Minister of Finance provide a letter of commitment to our auditors to avoid a 'going concern' qualification in our financial statements
Hon. Speaker, my question is for the minister of B.C. Ferries or the former minister of B.C. Ferries. Will one of them tell us exactly how long it's been government policy to stand up in this House and tell British Columbians one thing when their staff is telling them something completely different?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We had a chance to canvass this yesterday under the legislation as well. Let me reiterate what the government's response was on this. Yes, it is true that B.C. Ferry Corporation has been in financial difficulty over the last few years, and indeed, action has been taken by the government to put the corporation in a solvent position.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. D. Miller: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The member for Peace River North said
The Speaker: The Deputy Premier has the floor.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There was a close examination that began in the time period that the hon. member reiterates. It resulted in an investigation by a chartered accountant and then a subsequent auditor general's report as well. However, the action has been taken, and we expect the Ferry Corporation to remain in a solvent position.
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: The question was to the minister -- the former, the current, the past, any one of the five who have had the portfolio over the last number of years. The question was: how long has it been government policy to stand up in this House and tell members of this House and the public one thing when the internal documents of government say something completely different?
What I'd like to know and what I'd like to hear from the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries now
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, there have been no secrets kept on this matter at all. In fact, the books are tabled every year. Yes, the books show that the corporation was in a deficit position for years. What the government did over the course of the years was assume responsibility for that deficit position. In fact, that was reported in the summary accounts through all of these years. Subsequent to that, the government has taken further positions that the summary accounts are the bottom line, and all of those matters are reported.
The difference, though, is that under the new government we have dedicated revenue for the very first time. Now, with that dedicated revenue source and with the debt recision, B.C. Ferry Corporation is expected and will be held accountable to remain solvent.
M. de Jong: Let's make sure we're getting this straight. Government makes a big production a few weeks ago about assuming B.C. Ferries massive debt, under the guise of some notion of openness. Now it turns out that the government was actually forced to do that very thing three years ago -- three years ago, Mr. Speaker.
The question is: will the minister
[1430]
Hon. P. Ramsey: We concluded debate this morning on a budget measures bill that does several things for the future of B.C. Ferries. First, it acknowledges clearly that the debt on B.C. Ferries books was not sustainable if it was to become a viable public corporation and takes that debt off their books. Second, we have dedicated a stream of revenue to B.C. Ferries to ensure that as they look at re-establishing and ensuring a high-quality passenger and car service to coastal B.C. and are seen as part of the highways system, they -- like the highways system -- have a dedicated stream of revenue.
[ Page 15560 ]
Finally, we have said clearly -- and the documents that we tabled with the opposition during that debate show the facts of it and the details of it -- that we need to move forward. We need to put the debt incurred by the fast ferries project and many others -- many others -- behind us and move forward.
Hon. Speaker, those are the facts of the case. These books are sound. B.C. Ferry Corporation has tabled a performance plan in this House for public debate. Their books are open; anybody can look at them and have a good debate.
The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: On December 17, 1998, as you know, the treasurer of B.C. Ferries wrote to cabinet planning and communications, Crown corporations secretariat, Treasury Board -- every one of those ministers: "As you know, B.C. Ferries' insolvent financial position has required, for the last two years, that the Minister of Finance provide a letter of commitment to our auditors to avoid a going concern
For three years they covered up the fact that this was spiralling out of control. The simple question is: why should they expect British Columbians to give them the authority to spend one plug nickel on B.C. Ferries after their record of inept, negligent mismanagement?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm tempted, actually, hon. Speaker, to offer a technical briefing to the opposition, as we did yesterday. They refused to take it yesterday. Frankly, they probably could have asked some real questions today about important issues, if they had taken the technical briefing. Every single issue that this opposition is raising today is in the public domain and has been canvassed by the ministers responsible under the summary accounts -- every single issue.
What is different, though, is that this government has said that the summary accounts will be the bottom line. It hasn't been that it's been hidden or kept from anybody. But now the summary accounts, in which all of this is included
I would just make note for the opposition that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is a Crown-supported corporation; it is not a commercial Crown.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
NISGA'A TREATY
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief ministerial statement. It gives me very, very great pleasure today to report that this is the day the Nisga'a treaty comes into effect.
As everybody here will recognize, the treaty is the result of years of tough negotiation, of the Nisga'a nation's endurance and perseverance and, perhaps most importantly, of the nation's struggle for justice and equality. B.C.'s first modern-day treaty will foster self-reliance in the Nisga'a nation and allow the Nisga'a to manage their own affairs and maintain their culture within the framework of the Canadian constitution.
The treaty demonstrates, it seems to me, that we can indeed resolve issues through negotiation. We've proven here that we can reconcile our interests and their interests by sitting down together and working out our differences.
[1435]
The Nisga'a treaty is about the Nisga'a people participating as full members of British Columbia society. I am proud that this government could play some role in achieving this historic agreement. I look forward to continuing to work with Canada and the Nisga'a nation on implementing the provisions of the treaty. I therefore offer today, on behalf of our government, my congratulations to the Nisga'a nation on this historic event and in particular to Chief Joseph Gosnell, for his outstanding leadership and his pivotal role in making this agreement happen.
M. de Jong: This is the effective date for the historic Nisga'a treaty. It's no secret that the opposition had, and has, serious concerns about the provisions of that document -- of the treaty. That having been said, on behalf of the opposition, I want to emphasize our respect and regard for the Nisga'a people, their perseverance and their patience.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Continue please, hon. member.
M. de Jong: I also want to acknowledge, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs did, the leadership of Chief Gosnell for the work he has done along with his council. I also want to emphasize the respect I think we all have in this chamber for the democratic process by which legislators in Victoria and Ottawa have signalled their approval of this treaty.
If I have a regret today, it is the government's apparent lack of regard for the ongoing judicial process which, in my view, has an important task remaining. I understand that the government takes a different view on the constitutionality of this document than we do in the opposition. What I don't understand is why they wouldn't want to wait a few more days, when the Supreme Court of British Columbia will be considering those very questions and providing answers to those very questions.
So with the greatest of respect that we have for the Nisga'a people, we wish them well as they continue this journey. It's a historic day; it could have been more historic.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to respond briefly, first of all, by extending my congratulations to the Nisga'a. I too will say up front that there are elements of the treaty that I passionately disagree with. But having said that, one can't ignore the importance of the achievement of the Nisga'a. Going back 25 years, when they first signed a framework agreement with the federal government, when the province wouldn't negotiate --
[ Page 15561 ]
back to the days when they appeared on the steps of this Legislature and were turned away nearly 100 years ago
Interestingly, yesterday we passed the McLeod Lake Adhesion Agreement, which was another treaty, and we have indeed dealt also with the Sechelt. But the Nisga'a clearly have led the way for British Columbia into the negotiation process, and I think it is the style of the Nisga'a and their leadership that has made this possible. I think that the confrontational mode that has been characteristic of British Columbia over the last couple of decades on this issue would have probably destroyed the process had it not been for the Nisga'a, who never -- despite the temptations, I'm sure -- allowed themselves to be drawn into that kind of confrontation.
[1440]
While I will continue to disagree, particularly with the self-government model that is part of this treaty, I extend to the Nisga'a my most heartfelt congratulations on the achievement of a treaty on their behalf.
Hon. J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to table the annual report of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the year 1999.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we shall be continuing the debate on the estimates of the Attorney General. In this chamber, we are going to be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 36: ministry operations, $8,125,203,000 (continued).
K. Krueger: In 1991 the NDP won the provincial election and elected two members in Kamloops and Kamloops-North Thompson, partly on the basis of a promise that a cancer treatment facility would be built in Kamloops. Of course, the rest is history; it never happened. It was a bitter disappointment and betrayal to the people of Kamloops. In subsequent years a decision was made to establish a tertiary-care psychiatric facility in Kamloops, but we have yet to see a spade in the ground.
I would appreciate it if the minister would give us, on the record, a status report and confirmation of the government's commitment to proceed with the construction of that facility.
[1445]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are fully committed to that project, hon. member, and it will be built.
K. Krueger: I appreciate the clarity of that statement from the minister. I wonder if he could tell us when we can expect construction to begin.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The funds for the design of the project have been released, and it is expected that the facility will open in 2002. What has to happen is that they do the design, and then they can go to construction stage. But 2002 is the scheduled opening date.
K. Krueger: We actually had a commitment from last year's Health minister that construction would begin last year. I wonder if the minister could be more clear as to the target date for the completion of design and commencement of construction.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. member, funds have been released for the design. The design work is being done. As soon as that's done, then we go on to the next stage. Accordingly, it is moving to plan; in fact, I'm hearing that it's moving a little bit ahead of plan. It will open in 2002. I would like to see it open as quickly as possible. It will be built, and it is being built in Kamloops.
A. Sanders: Before the break for the afternoon, we had been talking about the mental health plan and the historic announcement of $125 million over seven years for funding. That funding never did materialize. It materialized, over three years of a seven-year project, to the total of what we can track as $10 million. That's a $38 million shortfall in projected moneys that may have been there, based on annualization of those funds. How many cheques have actually been cut? Of the announcements that have been made to date, what is the total number of cheques that have already been cut and in the mail for the projects that were promised?
Hon. M. Farnworth: A total of $10,331,706 in cheques has been checked -- expensed.
A. Sanders: In January when the $5.7 million package of programs was announced, my understanding is that a number of the health authorities were told that they had to spend that money before March 31. Is that true?
[1450]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The only portion that had to be expensed before March 31 was $293,706.
A. Sanders: Is this money -- as the minister suggested before lunch -- annualized, and if so, where is it in the budget?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is annualized and is reallocated from within the ministry.
A. Sanders: Reallocated from where?
Hon. M. Farnworth: All over the ministry, hon. member.
A. Sanders: I think it's not inappropriate to recognize that this is not new money. What we have from the minister's statement is $10.331 million disbursed; that was the $10 million promised in the first year. That means that there was $293,703 spent in '99-2000 on mental health. So I think it's appropriate to look at those numbers in the harsh light of reality, as opposed to talking about buckets of new money that are going towards a program or an area of health that is already stretched and underfunded.
[ Page 15562 ]
Many of the opinions that I would like to voice are not only my own. I read: "There are two tragedies in mental health in B.C. One is that lives are lost, families torn apart and people left seriously ill without support or treatment. The other tragedy is that government has long known what to do about the shortfalls in the mental health system but has never sustained any action to rectify them." This is from the report "Promises Made, Promises Broken," a report on the implementation of the '98 mental health plan -- or should I say the lack of implementation? Quite frankly, the plan has not been implemented either in dollars or in spirit.
A number of groups have coalesced under a common umbrella, because they are so unhappy with the mental health plan not being implemented. In fact, I think it's even worse having been promised, because once it was promised, then there was an expectation by many of the lobbying groups that there would be some action. To read in the newspapers statements from the former minister statements that the money had never been budgeted was, I think, something that has really sparked a lot of aggressive behaviour towards the minister from the public over the issue of mental health.
This is the third mental health plan that we've had since 1987. In 1992-93 the first mental health plan wasn't working so well, and a $50 million allocation was put into mental health to try to get the community to absorb some of the tertiary beds. Beds were closed at Riverview, but ancillary services in the communities were never created. By 1995 the resolution to even do something that along that line was completely gone.
In 1997 a system in crisis was identified. At that time the former Minister of Health responded to that crisis in the public with the mental health plan. Many of the interest groups who looked at that mental health plan looked at it with great anticipation and expectation, because it was a good plan. Both sides of the House at that time did agree that this was a plan that, although it was lacking in time lines and accountability structure, did have ideas that would have brought mental health much more sharply into focus as something of importance in our province with respect to health care.
In 1998 we were basically looking at a deterioration in our acute services and not a commensurate increase in our community services. In '87-88 we had 725 in-patient psychiatric beds in the province. By 1997 we had 717, and today we have 680 beds. This is not a system that is expanding; this is a system that is contracting.
[1455]
We see those effects in the communities where the mentally ill live. Anyone who has had the opportunity to go to Stanley Park these days and run on the trails can find a regular population of people living in Stanley Park. There's a regular population of people living on the streets in east Vancouver. And even in communities such as mine, in the summer there's a regular population of mentally ill who live in Polson Park in downtown Vernon.
We were promised a lot of things in the mental health plan, and I'd just like to list, for the record, the specific things that we were promised: 2,600 supported housing units, and to date 132 have been provided. Three clinicians for each of 30 communities for crisis after-hours service were promised, and three clinicians and nine communities were targeted for January 2000; 1,000 subsidized public housing units were promised, and 200 have been allocated; 410 assertive case managers, some of whom may have been allocated in the total 65 full-time employees created since 1998. The ministry is unable to identify which of these positions are for case managers. It is also interesting to note that in addition to the 410 case manager FTEs, 30 new case manager FTEs were promised in forensic services and have never been allocated.
Spaces for 2,900 people in rehab programs; 50 spaces have been created. Establishment of interministry committee to coordinate mental health policy; no committee has been struck. Development of outcome indicators and measurements at individual, program and regional levels were promised; there's no budget for implementation.
Provincial health advocate appointed by government; an advocate is appointed on contract by the Ministry of Health with no security of tenure. And one can ask whether it is appropriate for a mental health advocate to actually report to the minister. In other words, to criticize your own boss may have dire consequences in the world of politics and the world of government. For someone to truly do their job, one has to question whether there should be something along the line of an ombudsman structure for that position.
So we have a mental health plan that is itself in crisis, and this is year 3. When the minister says that he is committed to implementing the mental health plan, will he submit to us a time line and some dollar figures for how he plans to implement that plan? We have not seen money forthcoming, in any way, necessary to implement the plan as described.
[F. Randall in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises a number of issues, and I think it's important to stress a couple of points. First off, the mental health plan is to be phased in over a seven-year period. So when one is discussing specific numbers, you have to realize that it is over a seven-year period. We have to meet those targets. I have said that we're committed to implementing the mental health plan, and we're going to.
I think it's also important to point out that for some of the figures the member talks about, there's more to it than just those specific numbers. When she talks about the beds and the units and the number of beds that have been built to date, those are beds that have been specifically targeted to people with mental illness -- that are available to them. But at the same time that has been taking place, we have been constructing a significant number of social housing units around the province that are accessible by people with mental illness. Granted, they're not specifically built for people with mental illness, but people with mental illness can access them.
We do need to maintain the construction of units that are targeted towards people with mental illness. But it's important to note that, because I think we miss out the fact that there is a lot of social housing being built around the province. Further on that, we are one of two provinces in this country that are actually building social housing and, with that, housing for people with mental illness.
[1500]
The point the member raises around the mental health advocate, for example, is a good one. I myself am currently looking at options in terms of how we deal with the mental health advocate's position. I think there is merit to the idea of looking at making the mental health advocate's position similar to the ombudsman or to the child advocate, as an arm's-length position that reports to the Legislature. I'm looking at
[ Page 15563 ]
how that structure might possibly work. That will allow a mental health advocate to do their job but also raise the profile around mental health in British Columbia.
I take the implementation of the mental health plan seriously enough that shortly after taking over this portfolio a couple of months ago and looking at where expenditures were being made in the budget, I asked the ministry staff to go back and make sure that the money that was allocated back in January is annualized for a full year -- that it's not a one-time expenditure.
I want to repeat for the House and for the member's benefit that I'm committed to making this plan work and implementing it. I've told the mental health advocates that's what I wanted to do. I'm going to sit down with them and look at how we do it and the objectives that we have to meet. It will require more money. I'm committed to ensuring that we get the money to implement the plan over its full seven-year period.
A. Sanders: In this budget, how many units of supported housing are funded?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This year 18 projects will be built, which will house 140 people across the province. I'd also like to point out that over the last decade, the number of supported housing, family care homes, licensed residential and emergency shelters for people with mental illnesses increased by 2,600 spaces, or over 109 percent.
A. Sanders: Where is the line item for the moneys that will be used for the housing identified by the minister?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There isn't a line item, because this is the money that was reallocated from within the ministry to fund these particular projects.
A. Sanders: What will the net increase in funded forensic spaces be?
[1505]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We may need to clarify your question, hon. member, because there isn't a forensic housing budget, and there traditionally hasn't been one.
A. Sanders: I'll rephrase that in a minute. What we have to look at is the decrease in housing that's available for the mentally ill since the beginning of the nineties. You have to look at what the studies show. It requires about 70 days' more hospitalization for support for someone with schizophrenia who has nowhere to go. What we're doing with these individuals is that they are being hospitalized for very long extended periods of time, if they do not have a place to go, when they may have actually gone to supportive housing.
In 1999 we had 60,000 people with serious illness related to either psychosis from schizophrenia or bipolar illness. We had 4,805 housing spaces -- 60,000 people and 4,000 spaces. Since 1970 single affordable housing stock has gone from 13,400 single-room occupancy units in the Vancouver area to 7,500. The waiting list for housing for the mentally ill in the Vancouver-Richmond area is 2,800 souls. We have 718 supported housing units for the mentally ill, plus 92 for severe mentally ill. Those are the spaces we have; that is our wait-list.
The 1998 mental health plan targeted 2,800 housing units, 1,000 subsidized housing spaces and 244 residential care spaces. Since 1998 we have had 318 units of supported housing and 170 added to forensic services.
Based on the minister's commitment to implement the mental health plan, when will we get the rest of the spaces? If we have 318 and 170 for forensic, when are we going to get the rest of the spaces that were promised in the mental health plan? It totals 4,000 new spaces in different kinds of environments.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I've just had the pleasure of meeting with a class of Grade 9 students from Burnaby Central Secondary School, in my riding, to talk to them about the job that I do here as their MLA. They are accompanied by two teachers, Mr. Hayward and Ms. Brkich. Would the House please make them very welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The rate at which housing spaces are, can and will be built is dependent on a number of factors. One is the resources available to government to build them. The fact of the matter is that government has been building housing for the mentally ill. The fact of the matter is that the government is also building social housing which is accessible to people with mental illness. As well, there is a considerable amount in terms of our ability to upgrade older facilities, which can improve the level of accommodation. All those things are taking place and continue to need to take place.
As the mental health plan is implemented, clearly we need to ensure that we're building housing as a key component of implementing the plan. Part of that also goes to the fact that we are constructing a facility in Kamloops which will come on in 2002, for example. It also includes the work that's done in other ministries outside of Health, specifically around social housing in general.
[1510]
I think one of the key ways in which we will ensure that housing is there for people, as the plan is implemented, is that there is a commitment by the province to continue building social housing. As I said earlier, we are one of two provinces in this country
Our commitment is clear in that we will continue to provide social housing. As I've said, the mental health plan is going to be implemented, and part and parcel of that means having to ensure that we're building housing units.
A. Sanders: Along with that, it might be important to recognize that we're also the only province that doesn't provide unfettered access to the new anti-psychotics that make the lives of people with schizophrenia so much more tolerable. To me, that is probably the worst of the worst with respect to what this government has done with the mentally ill.
[ Page 15564 ]
Let's look at the report card so far. Funding: $125 million promised; $10 million delivered. Supportive housing: 2,600 promised; 132 beds delivered. Subsidized housing: 1,000 units promised; 200 delivered. Tertiary facilities: we don't have any more; when they're there, then we'll look back. Specialized residential care for 244 people with severe and complex mental illnesses was promised; none was developed. Emergency response beds: 35 more beds needed; none developed since 1998.
Outreach: targeted to needs of each health authority; no service commitment. Hospital diversion and after-hour crisis service: plan to expand that in 30 communities in acute-care hospitals, provide three clinicians to each of the 30 communities; January 2000 announcement included development for three communities. Day hospital programs: increase in 30 acute care hospitals for up to 1,800 clients; none developed. Assertive case management services: new staff for up to 8,200 people; 65.5 FTE employees in the first phase and perhaps 30 allocated to forensic care.
Community psychiatry sessions: more planned; two FTEs allocated in the lower mainland; 0.46 in East Kootenay; 0.77 in Simon Fraser. Psychiatric services to remote areas: training for family doctors in psychiatry skills; $164,000 invested in training funding. Rehab training: spaces for 2,900; 50 spaces funded. Second deliverable on rehab training: supported competitive employment; an announcement made -- nothing more. Family respite: no information available; promised to up to 12,000 families.
Riverview Hospital: we'll get to Riverview later. Interministry coordination: no committee formed to do that coordination. Provincial mental health advocate: future uncertain. Treatment advisory committee structure: Mental Health Advisory Council to liaise with Health Association of B.C.; people appointed -- nothing back. Governance of Riverview: we do have a new board. We can talk more about Riverview after.
Governance of forensic psychiatric services: plan to amalgamate Riverview and Forensic Psychiatric Institute shelved. Early identification and intervention -- a program of absolute extreme importance to people who work in the area of mental illness: support development of policies and protocols in the regions for early intervention; $1 million in one-time funding allocated.
[1515]
Management information: we don't have enough information. Accountability framework: I would like to see an accountability framework on the mental health plan. If the minister truly feels that he has the will to implement the plan in the four years remaining, then I'd like to see an accountability framework that would be able to track the resources, which would show that there was an accountability structure in place, that there were going to be deliverables on this plan. I have yet to see that, and I think, quite frankly, it is because it doesn't exist.
That's the sad reality of the mental health plan. Very few of the actualities of it have been delivered, and as a result of that, we have mentally ill people in British Columbia who are poorly served by the Ministry of Health. Is there a plan to develop a time line for implementation, and if so, when will that be available?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is, and it will be released within a month.
A. Sanders: And could the minister give us some highlights of what that will look like?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It includes a number of activities and targets, and I'll read them briefly into the record.
Firstly, "Direction" -- the next steps for the mental health plan are clear. They include: (a) complete consultation and release of the mental health reform framework to health authorities; (b) articulation of the Ministry of Health processes for supporting the provincial strategic initiatives; and (c) seek additional funding to implement priority objectives.
Second, "Accountability" -- significant reporting, communication and consulting have occurred, but the next steps are to build upon the current level of reporting, consultation and communication activity and support interregional communication, information and sharing.
Third, "Consistency" -- implement revised mental health financial policies and clarify 2000-2001 funding approach, including targeted versus unspecified funding allocation formula and budget and policy approval processes. Information system development should be a priority.
Health authorities are to complete mental health reform plans with support from Ministry of Health as required. Complete the workforce analysis; plan a high-profile stakeholder conference for the winter of 2000-2001; increase provider support, emphasizing best practices; and work with other ministries to provide effective and comprehensive service.
That's part of it, and you will have much greater detail when it's released within a month.
A. Sanders: Did the minister say in his statement that he will be seeking funding or that he had funding?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a mental health plan that's going to require funding. As I've said, one of the things I want to do is ensure that it is funded. So we're starting now to identify how and when we're going to fund it. We're starting to look at year 2, year 3, year 4.
A. Sanders: Is this a new plan, or is this for the remaining four years of the seven-year plan? Or are we starting from square one?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the original plan and a continuation of the work that's been done. It's not a revision of the old plan; it's not a new plan. It is the mental health plan that all of us in this House voted on.
A. Sanders: I'd like to turn from the mental health plan to the report of the mental health advocate of British Columbia. This was the office that was launched in 1998, following the recommendation from the ombudsman in her 1994 report entitled "Listening," as part of the announcement of the 1998 mental health plan. One of the responsiblities outlined for the advocate was the annual report. This is the first report from the advocate. Would the minister please give me some feedback on this report? What differences has it made in his understanding of what will be going forward for the mentally ill?
[1520]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The report is thorough and comprehensive. It points out a number of areas where we need to be concerned in terms of how we implement the mental health plan. I see it very much being used in terms of how we move forward with implementing the mental health plan.
[ Page 15565 ]
A. Sanders: Is this the report in its entirety, or is there any part of the report that was not published along with this report?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is her complete report in its entirety, reviewed by her and dealt with by her. It is her work.
A. Sanders: I'm pleased to hear that.
The mental health advocate has a number of responsibilities. She -- at this time it's a she -- is to advocate for the mentally ill in the province. They are to comment on the standard of care and the acceptability and uniformity of care through the province. They are to advise government on how to improve care for the mentally ill.
The mental health advocate is asked to have some research priorities, to provide a referral and triage service within the office for those who seek her services, to educate the public, to produce an annual report, and to liaise with the public health officer and the advocacy officers of other jurisdictions. It's a very large amount of responsibility for the shoulders of one person. I think that any one of those in British Columbia these days would probably be a full-time job.
I looked with interest at the report and at the utilization of the office. This is a brand-new office. People are not particularly used to going to this office. It doesn't have a regular path to it, as many of our jurisdictions do. But in the report the advocate states that 857 contacts were made during the year of 1999, and 630 of those were individuals; the rest were repeats. Of the contacts, 33 percent related to difficulties getting services.
To the minister: is the minister surprised that 33 percent of our mentally ill in this province have to go to an advocate in order to get services?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say that I'm concerned, in a sense, that people should be able to access the system directly, in the same way that you or I would go to see our physician. I would know what the services are that I would need. But I would also say that the statistic you quote is also evidence of the awareness of the mental health advocate's position. In that sense, she is being successful in her role, which is to advocate for people. Part of that is pointing them into the right direction in terms of receiving services.
[1525]
Clearly, though, what is most desirable is a province where people can readily know what services available and, once they know what services they require, can access them directly without having to go through somebody. But until we reach that stage, I take some comfort in the fact that when people contact the mental health advocate, they are able then to access service.
A. Sanders: The sad reality of our system is that 33 percent of people do have difficulty getting services. One of the most sad and difficult cases is Mr. Trott, a murder suspect in our province this week. People with mental illness who do not get services often have very undesirable outcomes.
Has the minister thought in any way of looking at those 33 percent and what resulted from them not getting services? Is there any part of the report that could procure that information for me?
Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the things that comes, when we receive a report like this, in terms of examining and looking at the recommendations, is looking at the problems outlined in the report.
Okay, we've got the data now; we see that. Is that -- and this is what I'm interested in now -- geographically evenly spread around the province? Is there an urban-rural split within the province? Is there an intraurban split, for example? Is it in the downtown east side or in areas outside that? Is it areas in remote parts of the province such as the Peace River, for example? Or is it in the Kootenays, where there is a lack, where the bulk of the services aren't located? Is that why they're accessing the mental health advocate?
These are the questions that now come into my mind when we discuss this figure. This is the work that I would like to see take place -- and see how we address that issue now.
A. Sanders: Does the minister have a plan for addressing these issues, so that the mental health advocate has a direction from the ministry -- a leadership, a vision -- for the work that would go on in the next year?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are, right now, preparing a detailed response to the mental health plan and all the recommendations outlined within that report. That will then be given to the mental health advocate. I will be sitting down with the mental health advocate and discussing the ministry's response to the recommendations. At that time, these are the types of issues that I would be raising and saying: "Look, we need to do some work in this particular area." So there will be an opportunity to do that, and we can start to deal with some of these questions.
A. Sanders: The report of the advocate is not particularly favourable on how we are serving the mentally ill in British Columbia. In terms of utilization, the figures were interesting: 33 percent of individuals were not able to get services; 20 percent of the calls and visits were related to the B.C. Benefits program or previous private insurance benefit programs; 14 percent of those who accessed the advocate had problems with safe, accessible, affordable housing; and 18 percent of individuals had legal matters -- either criminal code, custody or property issues -- that needed to be ameliorated for them.
[1530]
I think it's important for people to recognize that mental illness is often a permanent state. Some people may be mentally ill for a very short period of time, and other people may be mentally ill with a chronicity that extends their entire life. The problems don't go away. We have to look at how we are going to deal with these a little bit more effectively.
One of the places where we have, in the past, been able to do that has been at Riverview. We have an 800-bed facility at Riverview. Historically it has been much more. But at this point, with the halting of the downsizing of the facility since '96, 800 beds have been maintained. The reality of that is that it really is about 100 acute beds, I believe, because the other 700 beds are individuals who will never be leaving Riverview and will spend most of their time in that facility. What was intended with the downsizing of Riverview was a repatriation of those tertiary services.
My colleague from Kamloops had discussed the facility in Kamloops and when, perhaps, that 88-bed facility would be
[ Page 15566 ]
built. I have one question on the Kamloops issue, and then I'd like to go back to Riverview. With the Kamloops facility, could the minister give me an idea of why on earth it was decided to be built in Kamloops when it is to serve the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the Okanagan and the North Thompson? The centre of that universe would certainly not be Kamloops, if I am thinking from the point of view of a family that has to go and service a member of the family at that facility -- should we ever have it and have it operating. Can the minister tell me why Kamloops was the designated area? Was that a political decision? Was that a decision of convenience? Or was that just the best place to have it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That decision was taken before I became minister -- in fact before I went into cabinet. I would also add
A. Sanders: It's something I'm asked quite often. I think people in the Kootenays always feel shortchanged. It's one of the more difficult areas of the province to get in and out of. The Cariboo has its difficulties as well, and Kamloops is certainly not the centre of the universe with respect to the population it would serve.
I'd like to turn to Riverview and have an update on its present status as an institution.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I do that, I would be remiss if I didn't introduce the individual to my left here. That is Alex Berland, who is the interim director of mental health and CEO out at Riverview. I'll be able to deal with the questions
[1535]
As the member pointed out a few minutes ago, the downsizing at Riverview ceased back in '96. It's currently funded for 808 beds. It's the major tertiary psychiatric hospital for British Columbia. Currently the occupancy rate is around 97 percent, and we have about 50 adults waiting for admission to Riverview.
A. Sanders: Has there been stabilization of the Riverview situation, and if so, could the minister describe that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The stabilization process that has taken place has allowed a number of things to happen. One has been a modernization of services there. It has managed to see a reduction in the wait-list from around 150 down to 50, and in fact, last year 12 new beds were able to be opened.
A. Sanders: What is the present governance of Riverview?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a new board in place. They have had two meetings, and one of their prime activities right now is a search for a permanent CEO.
A. Sanders: Are there any plans this year to change Riverview's governance from a stand-alone institution to coming under any of the other health boards?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Not at this time.
A. Sanders: What is the relationship at this point between Riverview and the Forensic Psychiatric Institute?
Hon. M. Farnworth: They are two separate institutions, but there is a considerable sharing of services between the two facilities for efficiency purposes.
A. Sanders: It was mentioned earlier that in the mental health plan there was a move to have further integration and communication between these two services. What steps have been taken to streamline that process, seeing that the integration has not occurred?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of initiatives that have taken place. I'll give you some of the key ones. They involve shared information technology, shared information systems, the shared transfer of patients and the shared education of staff.
A. Sanders: Is there a default system, where a patient can go from one facility to another should there be a space available and that patient is suitable?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Not at the front end of the system. The reason for that is that there are legal constraints that don't allow that.
A. Sanders: In the mental health plan, $2.1 million was allocated for 30 forensic liaison workers. At this point, are there any further FTEs in the forensic system than there were in 1998?
Hon. M. Farnworth: All 30 of those positions have been filled, and they are distributed throughout the province.
[1540]
A. Sanders: I was just reading from my colleague's letter here where it says additional psychiatric services -- three FTEs annualized to facilitate enhanced response for assessments.
When the minister says 30 forensic
Hon. M. Farnworth: The 30 people that I mentioned, the liaison workers, can be basically broken down into three categories.
Court liaisons -- their role is to determine if options for community treatment exist and to advise the court on these options when it is appropriate. They can assist in diverting people out of the criminal justice system and into the health system.
The second group are correctional facility liaisons. They ensure that mentally disordered offenders will receive the treatment they need while they are in jail. In addition, these workers assist in planning the discharge of these individuals to ensure that their care continues once they are no longer in a correctional facility.
Community case managers -- they work closely with mentally disordered offenders who have been discharged into
[ Page 15567 ]
the community. They work to ensure that these individuals have access to the community resources they need to help improve their chances of avoiding return to prison.
A. Sanders: Of those numbers, how many are on contract and how many are in-house?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is my understanding that all of them are employees of the forensic commission and are therefore in-house. I will confirm that, but I am 98 percent sure.
A. Sanders: I was referring to a letter from Chief Judge Metzger that was tabled in the House yesterday. In that letter he states: "As you are aware, the lack of facilities at the Forensic Institute has resulted in very significant delays in the assessment of mentally disordered offenders." This is a very serious problem.
What is the mean length of time that we are talking about when we discuss a "significant delay"?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the priority that is attached to the particular assessment, the delay can range from a few days to a few weeks.
A. Sanders: This is a very important area within mental health. Often jail is this default mental health facility that many of our psychiatrically disabled offenders end up in, as opposed to treatment. The amount of time between charging and assessment is not always timely. The mental health advocate has written in her report that many people are waiting considerable amounts of time without diagnosis but in circumstances of incarceration, which perhaps is not the most suitable place to be.
Can the minister tell me about the pre-trial centre at the Vancouver jail, and how that is functioning?
[1545]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's functioning well. We have a good relationship with it, and the reports we have had from it are, in fact, satisfactory.
A. Sanders: When offenders are undiagnosed or the forensic system is full, we often end up with them waiting for assessment and having them spend time in jail as a result of that. It's not unusual for people who are mentally ill and incarcerated with nuisance-type charges to lose their homes and all of their possessions during that period of time. It is a very serious problem for those individuals.
To the minister: what actions are being taken by the ministry to monitor the participation rate of the seriously ill in the regional mental health systems, in the forensic system and in the correctional system?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is right. That is a key part of the mental health plan. That's one of the reasons why one of the earliest things that was done was the hiring of the 30 liaison workers; that is a significant part of their role.
A. Sanders: Is the ministry gathering statistics on this issue at this time?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's part of the framework plan, which I mentioned a number of minutes ago, that will be released at the end of the month.
A. Sanders: Does the Forensic Psychiatric Commission have a strategy to treat mentally ill people in jail?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely, they do. That's again around the 30 that I talked about and the functions that they are performing around court liaison, jail liaison and community case management.
A. Sanders: I want to read a few statistics into the record. I find it alarming sometimes that people assume that the mentally ill are violent. We are talking about the forensic issue here, so I thought it might be appropriate to dispel that myth.
One percent of our population has schizophrenia. About 3 percent of the population are seriously and persistently ill. Of the people at Riverview, 53 percent have pre-existing criminal charges. The mentally ill are no more likely to demonstrate violence than the average population -- unless addiction is a factor. That's important to recognize.
Because of a lack of care and access to drugs, self-medication is very common; 50 percent of schizophrenics will have substance misuse problems. That's a very important key in the forensic system and a very important reason why we not only need a good forensic system, but we need to have good substance abuse programs, and we need to have easy, facilitated access to appropriate medications for people with schizophrenia.
[1550]
When we are looking at the mentally ill, one in five individuals will have a problem with mental illness at some time next year. We are talking about around 800,000 British Columbians. This is a huge number of people who will experience some diagnosis along the spectrum of impulse control, schizophrenia, dementia, substance abuse, anxiety or mood disorder. This is just to put into the record that we are talking about a considerable number of people in this province who we are not treating as well as we should.
In the advocate's report, patients' rights were delineated as an area of importance. To the minister: is there any move within the ministry and the regional health boards to develop standards of care in mental health -- a type of patients' rights proclamation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes. In fact, that will be part of the framework structure that we will be releasing within a month. I want to say that I think that is one of the key elements in terms of implementing the mental health plan and in fact dealing with a number of the issues that the member has raised.
I want to say that you have raised some important points. They relate back to the issue around stigma and public perception. Having grown up near Riverview and the forensic institution, I know from firsthand experience that what you say is accurate. I also know how important it is that the immediate family and support network of people with mental illnesses be involved in the decision-making process and in implementation.
The short answer to your question is: yes, they will be.
A. Sanders: Will the patients' standards for mental health care be done in collaboration with family groups, individuals with mental illness and those who care for the mentally ill, or is this a document coming from the ministry without that input?
[ Page 15568 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be a collaborative process.
A. Sanders: What is the framework for that process to take place? I am somewhat surprised that it would be here in a month when there haven't even been any rumblings about it. I'm interested in how that has evolved and what it looks like at this point.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have in place already the one that's been developed for Riverview, the Riverview patients' rights charter. What we are doing in terms of the framework is now saying to the local health authorities that they in turn must develop their own standard, but it must meet local needs. It's not going to be imposed from Victoria, saying that this is how it should be done, how you should treat the mentally ill in Quesnel or in Vernon. Rather, the health authorities in those areas are going to have to develop the plans and involve the patients, the families and the advocates in that process.
[1555]
A. Sanders: I am going to ask one additional question and leave the report of the advocate. Next week I would like to discuss the problem with youth that is identified in her report, as well as a little bit more on the housing circumstance.
I want to ask one question of the minister before I go. The nurses that work with the mentally ill are paid around $3 less per hour, in the area of the severely mentally ill. Specifically, I'm talking about Riverview. That in itself puts a stigma on who might go to work there. I wonder if the minister has any comments on that. Is there any action plan to make sure that at a time when we have few nurses, the mentally ill do not suffer more than their share by finding that people are not being remunerated to look after them in the same way that they are in other institutions and other areas of care?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm aware of the issue that the hon. member raises, and we're trying to resolve it. I would also add one point as well, though, and this relates to your first comment about how you wanted to talk about children's mental health. A lot of that will be in the Ministry for Children and Families -- just so we know that.
C. Hansen: Rather than interrupting the flow of questions from my colleague, I made notes of some supplemental questions to follow up on some of the various areas that we've canvassed over this last hour and a half. I want to come back to some of these issues, so if it sounds like I'm revisiting stuff that we've covered earlier this afternoon, I am -- not to duplicate, but rather to get some additional clarification to some of the points that the minister made earlier.
One of the things that is not clear, I think -- to anyone that has followed this discussion this morning and this afternoon, and certainly if they were to try to read through it -- is how much money is in this year's budget for the funding of the mental health plan.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We spend $364 million a year on mental health services in the province of British Columbia. That is, in large measure, what the mental health plan is about -- how we spend those resources and where they're going. The mental health plan is building on that. It is a plan to increase and improve services and to make sure the services are being directed to the people who need them most.
C. Hansen: The commitment that was made by this government when the mental health plan was introduced was that there was going to be $125 million of new money. I would like to ask the minister: in the line item that is titled "Adult Mental Health" in the budget that we have before us, how much of that budget is for the implementation of the mental health plan, how much of those are new dollars and how much of those are simply reallocation of old dollars?
[1600]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Last year's budget was $348.7 million; this year's budget is $364 million. I'd also make the proviso that the mental health plan isn't just about adding money and saying that you will add $15 million, $15 million, $15 million, etc. It is just as much about making changes in how money that's already spent is allocated and about putting in place structural changes that allow us to implement the mental health plan. In some years you may in fact have to spend considerably more money to achieve objectives. That's why it's a seven-year plan.
C. Hansen: If the minister's telling us that there is no new money in this year's budget for the mental health plan, why doesn't he just stand up and say that? He seems to be trying to find every other way to make that statement without actually saying it.
On April 3, when we asked specifically about the mental health plan in question period, the minister said: "Does it require more money? Absolutely. Are we committed to the plan? Absolutely." On May 1 he said: "The plan is being implemented. The money is in place to put those services into the region." Another quote: "This government is committed to implementing the mental health plan and the recommendations in it."
I think what I hear the minister saying is that they've got this document called a mental health plan -- a framework that has been largely endorsed by the mental health community in British Columbia
In the budget that is before us for adult mental health today, there is an increase over last year. The minister actually used some numbers that are slightly different from what I have before me, but the restated estimates for the last fiscal year were that adult mental health was going to be $348.449 million. This year's budget is $363.974 million. That is an increase of $15.525 million.
Will the minister tell us if any of that $15.5 million is for program spending? Or is it, in fact, that that $15.5 million is purely to fund collective agreements, wage-parity issues and the other wage issues that were documented recently by the Minister of Finance?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Of the $15.3 million that the member has raised, $5.5 million is new money to mental health. It's
[ Page 15569 ]
not reallocated from within mental health; that is new money to mental health that has been reallocated from within the Ministry of Health. That is new to mental health, and it is for program expenditures.
[1605]
C. Hansen: Earlier in the discussion we were talking about the announcement that was made on January 19, titled "Mental Health Funding Announced." It talked about a $5.7 million package of programs. Then the minister, earlier, explained to us that only $293,000 of that $5.7 million in last year's budget was actually disbursed. That basically still leaves roughly $5.5 million, out of the January announcement. My question to the minister is: is the $5.5 million that he just referred to what is required to simply implement the announcement that was made on January 19 of this year by the previous minister?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.
C. Hansen: So in terms of the dollars that are in this budget, in terms of new money that could be tallied towards the $125 million commitment that was made by this government of new money for the mental health plan, all that is in this year's budget, if I hear the minister right, is $5.5 million. Could the minister confirm that? And that $5.5 million was already announced by the previous minister back in January.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The $5.5 million is money that is new to mental health this year. It was reallocated from within the Ministry of Health budget and is new to mental health.
C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us where it is reallocated from within the budget?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's allocated from the entire ministry outside of mental health. So it's some here, some there, some there.
C. Hansen: I want to come back to the press release that was put out on January 19 by the previous minister. Of this $5.7 million announcement that was made, it was indicated that there was a total of $2.98 million that was going to be used to expand community mental health services like supportive employment, substance abuse prevention and early intervention. It says: "The remaining $2.73 million will provide intensive community support for up to 50 hard-to-house people with mental illness." I'm sure anybody who is involved in the mental health community will applaud those as noble objectives and clearly part of the objectives that were trying to be achieved by the mental health plan.
[1610]
Could the minister explain to us, first of all, what portion of that was in fact the $293,000 that was allocated from last year and how much of those two categories gets carried over to this year? Secondly, could the minister explain how these projects are annualized?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The $293,000 was from last year, and it went to the following: supportive employment, early identification and intervention, northern clinical, provincial neuropsychiatry and expansion of GP training. The others are all annualized.
C. Hansen: One of the things contained in the report from the B.C. Mental Health Monitoring Coalition is a reference to this money that was announced in January. I'll read the section from the report on page 5: "Much of this was one-time funding allocated for 'demonstration' projects. The announcements came in the ninth month of the fiscal year, and regions were asked to write proposals for it" -- making it difficult for regions to access the money, which we've explained earlier. I would like to ask the minister: are these in fact demonstration projects, or are they in fact annualized projects?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's all ongoing funding. It's all continuing funding; it's not one-time funding. But the projects that are being funded are not necessarily all ongoing projects. Most of them are, but some of them are pilot projects. Let's say, for example, one of the projects only lasted a year. It means that at the end of the year, if that project wound down and it was decided not to pursue it further, that money would still be available to fund something else. All the funding is ongoing funding, but not all the projects receiving the funding are ongoing projects.
[1615]
C. Hansen: On page 15 of the same report they talk about a survey that the coalition undertook with representative staff in regions around the province. I don't think they pretend that this was some kind of a scientific survey; rather it's a sampling of opinion and feedback on their experience with the implementation of the mental health plan -- or the lack of it, as we've come to realize.
One of the things they talk about is the sense in the regions that the timing of these announcements make it very difficult for the regions to respond to it and a sense by those representative staff that these projects are deliberately set up for failure because of the way they are funded.
Another area that I think is quite important is that regions have no way of knowing what to expect for future funding, and they have little confidence to plan. In other words, they're not given the sense that this is in fact ongoing funding. This is very much project funding; it has a termination to it. They can't make the long-term commitments for these projects, because nobody knows from month to month -- or from year to year, at least -- when their project is going to run out. They have no sense of certainty in terms of delivering a service that consumers will be able to count on for more than just a few months at a time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises some good points. One of the key things we want to do is ensure
Around ongoing projects, when a project is approved and is viewed as ongoing, then it has to be communicated that this project is expected to be ongoing. You should have reasonable
[ Page 15570 ]
assurance that in fact, yes, the funding is there. Again, it needs to be properly evaluated along the way. Certainly nothing is set up for failure.
If that is a perception in some areas -- and I take the member's comments about it being a small sample and some opinions -- clearly that is something we can address in terms of when funding is approved and what the expectations are and how we see projects, with ongoing or pilot projects being implemented.
C. Hansen: I think one of the critical issues here is the issue of certainty. In terms of those individuals in the province who are responsible for trying to coordinate and deliver these kinds of services, will they be able to get a sense of some stability and certainty to these programs when they see the implementation report sometime within the next month?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is very much the intention.
C. Hansen: I'd like to move on to the issue of governance and how it affects mental health programs. Certainly in these documents that we have received, there are several references to some real problems, I think, in terms of direction. Specifically, I want to refer to the ministry's performance plan under the area of mental health. The very first key program objective under mental health on page 9 in that performance plan is: "Support health authorities' capacity to strengthen mental health services, including those serving rural and remote communities." That is obviously a noble objective.
[1620]
Performance measures. They talk about a clear policy direction, and they talk about the development of best practice resources and tools. In that context, I just wanted to highlight a couple of comments in these two reports. The first was a reference out of the report of the mental health advocate, where she says: "Currently competent emergency mental health services are not uniformly available around the province." I'm going to skip to various sections, because I think it's a theme that comes up in several different contexts throughout these reports.
On page 13 she talks about difficulty in moving from one region to another: "Portability is a basic condition of medicare, but in the regionalized system, individuals with mental illness often found it difficult to take their benefits from one region to another
I had a phone call about three months ago from a constituent in Vancouver who had just very recently moved from Kelowna. She is a mental health consumer, and she described to me the very different services that were available to her between Kelowna and Vancouver. It was almost as if she had moved from one country to another in terms of a very different approach to how mental health services were delivered, particularly the continuum of care and the ability to access services in one office -- being shuffled from one office to another in Vancouver as opposed to the very centralized service that she had experienced when she was in Kelowna.
Further in the report she says: "One rural regional director noted to the advocate that currently there are 22 different employers in his health region responsible for mental health service delivery." Another quote: "When learning about the elements of the mental health system, it quickly became clear that in fact there were at least 18 different mental health systems being played out in the regions" -- the 11 regional health boards that we have around the province and the seven community CHHSs. What I see happening -- which, actually, I think we see happening in areas other than just mental health across the spectrum of delivery of health services, but is particularly true in the area of mental health -- is this patchwork that we have developing in the province when it comes to the standards of care and what a consumer or patient can expect in terms of care.
In terms of the coalition's report itself, they make a couple of references to this same theme. They talk about the scope of each mental health director in the region. That responsibility varies widely from region to region. They also note that the alignment with the 1998 mental health plan varies widely from region to region. They also note: "In most jurisdictions where mental health funding has not been protected, mental health funds have been diverted to other priorities." This is an area that I want to touch on not just in the context of provincial standards but in terms of accountability as well.
The last reference I want to make in terms of this regional patchwork that we're seeing is again in the area of accountability, where the coalition's report under the title "Regional Governance and Public Accountability" says: "The regions have been given letters of understanding about their obligations to preserve funds for specific mental health programs. This is only as effective as the goodwill and compliance of the regional authorities; no accountability is enforced."
I'm wondering if the minister could comment on this patchwork that we have, the need for provincial standards when it comes to how mental health services should be delivered in the province and what kind of accountability mechanisms he sees coming into place so that we can ensure that these dollars are in fact being spent on patient care, to the benefit of mental health consumers around the province.
[1625]
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what the framework of implementation that is to be released in about a month is intended to address -- the issues around standards -- so that there is a standard out there, across the province, that all health authorities can look to and see what they are supposed to be doing. Also, in terms of resources, it's so we can see who's spending what and where they're spending it.
This is very much in line with the comments the member raised around the patchwork of services that are available out there. There are a number of reasons why that patchwork has developed the way it has. Part of them are historical; part of them are geographical. It is no secret that for the longest time in this province, mental health services were primarily focused -- institutionalized, certainly -- within the lower mainland. There has been a much greater specialization in terms of services here in the lower mainland, whereas geography has in some cases dictated a much closer-knit ability to deliver services outside the lower mainland. But these issues are certainly one of the key things that are intended to be addressed by the framework for the mental health plan implementation.
C. Hansen: This leads us into the second key program objective that was set out in the performance plan. That is the development of mechanisms for accountability in mental health services. In terms of performance measures, it talks about a performance-monitoring framework and baseline
[ Page 15571 ]
report. It also talks about a resource utilization management report. I'm assuming from the minister's comments that in fact we will see these in the implementation report.
For my benefit, could the minister explain to us what we can expect in terms of a resource utilization management report? What is it we're talking about? What is it we should expect to see in that particular aspect of the report?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Both performance monitoring and resource utilization are part of the framework plan and objectives, which will be in this month. So the issues that you're raising
C. Hansen: I gather from the minister's comments that when we talk about a baseline report, we're talking about the allocation of dollars as opposed to program delivery or objectives on the outcomes of programs. Is it a baseline in terms of dollars?
The other thing is the reference to resource utilization management. If the minister could explain what is meant by that term
Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your first question, it is in fact both. It's not only dollars but also program delivery.
In terms of resource utilization, it will show by region, for example, doctors' services, hospital use, community services -- those types of things. It will be fairly comprehensive.
C. Hansen: The third program objective that was set out is to support initiatives that strengthen the inclusion and contributions of mental health consumers and their families in service planning and evaluation.
This is certainly an area that I have heard a lot about, as I'm sure the minister has, from consumers and family members who really feel that in the last couple of years there has been a significant decrease in their opportunity to be involved in the planning process. Some of the various organizations that were self-help and were being organized and managed by mental health consumers have seen their funding dry up. The inclusion of mental health consumers on certain boards has been reduced.
[1630]
There is a specific reference in the coalition's report to the B.C. Mental Health Society board -- that a decision was made by the ministry
Hon. M. Farnworth: First, there will be no reduction in dollars in this area. Second, if there is a position vacant, I'm more than happy to fill it. Never let it be said that I would pass up an opportunity to fill a position. If there are individuals in the consumers' families, I'm quite happy to see that filled and do that at the earliest possible opportunity.
C. Hansen: But as a matter of policy, is the minister prepared to ensure that mental health consumers have a place at the table in all of the boards and planning bodies that are involved in the development of mental health policy and programs in the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, I am.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to a couple of areas involving Riverview. My colleague from Okanagan-Vernon, I know, touched on this area very ably, and I just want to pick up a couple of issues. Two were contained in the report of the mental health advocate, where there is a reference to individuals who could be discharged after long hospitalization with no benefits and no bus pass. Actually, if I give the full quote, maybe it'll put it in better context: "The Riverview advocate was also concerned that someone could be discharged after long hospitalization with no benefits and no bus pass."
I'm just wondering what the policy of the facility would be in terms of how they discharge individuals and how this particular concern of the advocate is going to be addressed.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Those were in fact isolated incidences. In fact, the one concerning the bus pass was a single individual, and that was an internal problem. Steps have been taken to address that particular concern.
C. Hansen: I think the second reference, again, is in terms of how some of these policies affect individuals' lives. I don't believe this is pertaining directly to Riverview, but I'll read the reference and ask for the minister's comments: "The advocate's office was contacted by two people who lost their housing because their shelter allowance was not continued when they were in hospital for four months." Given a length of stay of that duration, it was an admission to Riverview, I would assume. "These people lost their homes, their furniture and also all of their personal possessions, because the ministry considers it cheaper to pay for new household items than to pay for storage."
I'm just wondering if that is in fact a ministry policy, whether or not it's being reviewed and what individual mental health consumers might be able to expect in the future.
Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is that it's not ministry policy, but I will look into it for the member and for my own edification.
C. Hansen: There is reference made to the B.C. health information management project. I'm wondering if the minister could give us an update on where we're at with that project, whether or not the funding is in fact stable and what kind of a time line, specifically, we might expect for that project.
[1635]
Hon. M. Farnworth: This report is an industry group -- a report made up
C. Hansen: I know that my colleague touched on some of the forensic issues earlier as well. I want to ask the minister to
[ Page 15572 ]
define for us where the role of the Ministry of Health divides from the role of the Attorney General responsibilities when it comes to forensic programs.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess that in a strict definition sense, the line is in terms of budgetary items, such as: "We're responsible for program A, and the Attorney General is responsible for program B." But in a practical sense, I think what's important is that my ministry and the Attorney General's ministry recognize that in a number of areas, there is an overlap of interests. We have to work to ensure that our two interests are working together and that there's communication between my ministry and the Attorney General ministry -- particularly when it comes to, for example, Corrections and jails.
That's one of the reasons why these 30 liaison officers were hired. Part of their role is to keep that liaison in place so that there is communication and that the clients we're serving have someone there who can work with institutions and services which are in the Attorney General ministry as well as those which are in my ministry.
C. Hansen: My interest is in where the dividing line is for programs. If there is a program initiative that is seen as desirable, is it sort of a case of who can scrounge the budget or who's got the most impact with Treasury Board? Or is there in fact a dividing line as to which program would fall into the Ministry of Health, as opposed to being the Attorney General's responsibility?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Part of the answer to your question is in terms of how the court system determines
Now, having said that
But what is crucial, and what we've got to realize, is that we have to look at the program and what its objective is. Sometimes there's a blending of the two. That's where you will find that Health and Attorney General will fund something jointly.
So it's not a question of saying: "Okay, I can get it out of Health budget, so we'll do it," or "
[1640]
C. Hansen: The reason for my concern is that we often see individuals who go into the corrections system and who are suffering from mental illness do not have programs available. I'm not reassured by the minister's comments, because in that response, there's still too much opportunity for people to fall between the cracks in terms of being able to access programs.
In the report of the mental health advocate, she uses the number of 32 percent of inmates in our correctional facilities with signs of mental disorders. She also goes on to say: "When people are undiagnosed or the forensic system is full, people waiting for assessments end up in local correctional facilities. People who are charged, in jail and mentally ill tend to receive minimal or no treatment."
I wonder if the minister could outline for the House: if this problem is going to be addressed, who do we hold accountable for addressing it? Do we hold the Minister of Health or do we hold the Attorney General accountable for ensuring that there are programs in place for individuals who are in B.C.'s correctional facilities?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it's a question of holding both of us accountable. I don't think it's possible for one or the other to pass the buck and say, "No, it's Health's responsibility" or "It's Attorney General's responsibility," because a lot of these are joint-funded -- or there's a joint interest there. That's one of the reasons why the 30 liaison officers were hired. I illustrated before the three areas in which they're broken down. That's a key part of their role -- to ensure that there is that liaising taking place between the individual and trying to identify the services they need and ensuring that they get them, particularly at that court level.
C. Hansen: I was surprised at the minister's earlier answer on this, when he said that he was 98 percent sure that all of these various workers were in fact in-house, with government. My understanding is that some of these court liaison workers are in fact on contracts through some of the advocacy groups. I'm thinking particularly of the Mental Patients Association in Vancouver, which I believe has some court workers. My understanding is that it was in fact a model in the province -- that a lot of these services were handled by various support groups on contract to the ministry.
[1645]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have now had that 2 percent clarified. Those 30 liaison officers are employees of the province; they are not contract employees. The contract employees are in fact
C. Hansen: My understanding is that these court liaison positions have been in place for some time now. They certainly are not very recent, in terms of months. I'm not sure whether they've been there a year or two years, or whatever it may be. And yet what we see is that the problems that have been identified are in fact current and real. I wonder if the minister has any thought of expanding that program, in terms of what additional resources are being contemplated to put into that forensics system -- or the corrections system generally -- in order to ensure that those suffering from mental illness have the opportunity to get into programs and get assistance in that context before they are put back on the street without those kinds of services and programs available.
Hon. M. Farnworth: A number have been in place for some time -- certainly within the last year. But a number have
[ Page 15573 ]
also been much more recent; they weren't all hired at once. Particularly in the more remote areas of the province, getting people is not always the easiest thing. But all the spaces are now filled, and they're in place.
One of the key elements taking place is an evaluation of the program and of the performance and progress of the new officers. I'm expecting that evaluation will be completed shortly, and we'll be able to review what's happened to date. I'm particularly interested in this, because I think that if it does prove successful and we do start to see the desired outcomes, then clearly if there is a way that we can have an impact, my sense of it would be to look at expanding a program such as this if it's ensuring that people are getting the treatment or it is working to reduce some of the problems.
C. Hansen: I know my colleague wants to come back to some of the issues surrounding children's mental health, and I appreciate the fact that this is under Children and Families. One of the questions I want to put to the minister today, before we go down that road on another day, is to get a clear understanding as to where -- just as the line is drawn between the Ministry of Health and the Attorney General -- the line is drawn between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Children and Families when it comes to the delivery of programs. My understanding is that it's not simply a question of how old someone is, because there are some programs that in fact cross over that age definition. Could the minister outline that for us?
[1650]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, in a strict definition, in general 19 is the line, but there are some key exceptions to that. One of them is around
The second point I'd like to make is that, similar to the relationship with the Attorney General, there is a close relationship with the Ministry for Children and Families. It involves interministerial committees that look at those areas where there is overlap, where there's a commonality of interest. There's a recognition that while 19 is there, at the same time there are lots of areas where there is that overlap taking place.
I recognize that that is a challenge, but it's one that we are working on and actively recognize and are dealing with.
C. Hansen: For those mental health consumers under the age of 19, does the Ministry of Health deliver any programs on behalf of the Ministry for Children and Families? I'm aware, in the area of drug and alcohol programs, that the Vancouver-Richmond health board has been contracted by the Ministry for Children and Families to deliver those programs. Are there similar kinds of contractual arrangements between the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health in the area of adolescent mental health programs?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of ongoing projects, hon. member, there are very few. There may be one or two. But primarily, anything with children is with Children and Families and anything with adults is with Health.
In terms of the question around alcohol and drugs and MCF, the contract is with the Vancouver-Richmond health board.
C. Hansen: I was quite aware of that. I was just using that as an example of a similar contractual arrangement in another area. One of the issues that I hear come up too often is the concern that individuals fall between the cracks when they turn 19 and the lack of consistency in programs from Children and Families for an 18-year-old to the Ministry of Health for a 19-year-old. I'm wondering what kind of casework is done. Not the interministerial policy kind of committees that the minister referenced earlier, but what kind of programs are in place to ensure a continuum of care for an 18-year-old to a 19-year-old as they transfer between these two ministries?
[1655]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the issue that the member raises, and the question of falling between the cracks when you turn from 18 to 19 is one that has been around for a long time, even before the splitting of the resources into the Ministry for Children and Families and Health. I think one of the things is that there is a real effort to minimize that between the ministries and to ensure that there is ongoing work between the two ministries.
In respect to the specific part of your question, one of the things that happens in the province is that within the local health authorities, there are specific committees that deal with trying to ensure that there is a proper liasing between the different agencies and ministries -- whether it's MCF or social services. In some areas it even includes Attorney General. So there is an effort, there is a recognition and there is work being done to make sure that the problems that can occur in fact don't.
C. Hansen: Certainly it's an area that I think needs to be flagged as an area that is of great concern. It only takes three or four examples to be brought forward, certainly, to make me realize that it's a very real problem. There are young men, I guess in particular, who have committed suicide at about that stage. I certainly don't want to draw an inference that this was what led to the suicide, but I know that there are certainly concerns about the lack of -- I am trying to choose my words carefully here -- consistency of care as they make that transition.
The change of caseworkers and the change of programs add undue stress to an individual who already has a great deal of difficulty dealing with other stresses, and that rather than the programs helping, the programs in fact
I do want to shift gears now -- unless the minister wants to make any other comments on the area of mental health. I think we will probably come back to mental health before the estimates are over, but I'll certainly try to give the minister's office an indication of the specific areas that we have not canvassed at this point.
[ Page 15574 ]
I'd like to move on to some of the capital management issues, particularly the report by Deloitte Consulting that came out recently regarding the capital management review process. When we raised this issue during the supply debate that took place on March 29, the Minister of Health was unavoidably absent from the Legislature at the time. I believe he was at a Health ministers meeting in Ontario. The Minister of Finance stood in for him on those discussions, and we didn't pursue them at great length, partly because of the hour of the day and partly because of the minister's absence.
[1700]
I raised some concerns about the problem we have seen for the last couple of years in terms of a capital budget being set out for health-related capital projects and the inability of government to deliver those projects. If we go back to the fiscal year that ended a year ago, the '98-99 fiscal year, the capital budget at that time was underspent by $72 million. In the fiscal year that just ended, the capital budget was underspent by $129 million. I would have loved to go back prior to two years ago, but the reporting system wasn't such that you could really track those numbers in a consistent way. Certainly in the last two years, we have seen budget allocations that have said that the budget is there for capital projects. We certainly know that the need is there around the province, yet we have not seen those projects being moved forward or ground broken or the ability to live up to the announcements that have been made by this government.
I've been through the report of the capital management review process that was tabled. I guess that was about a month ago now. I have read through the sections that particularly pertain to the Ministry of Health. I must say that what was contained in this report raised a lot of concerns, but it really didn't answer a lot of questions in terms of what the crux of the problem was.
What I see is that we've got many players involved in this process. We've got the Ministry of Health involved in the process; we have the regional districts, other than the GVRD; we have the regional health authorities involved in the process. To be honest, I'm actually not sure where the regional hospital districts fit into this process, but perhaps the minister can enlighten me. We also have the Ministry of Finance that has been in charge of this process -- that's my understanding -- for about the last two years.
I'm wondering if the Minister of Health can explain to me why it is that the Ministry of Health has not been able to get health capital projects underway when it seems to me that while there have been problems in other ministries, as outlined in this document, there are none that have been quite as difficult as the problems we have seen in getting Ministry of Health projects underway. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us in that regard.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises some valid points. When I read the report, I had many of the same questions. I think we're both on the same wavelength on this, but a number of issues need to be recognized.
First is the issue of cash flow and capital planning, in the sense that there needs to be recognition of the time horizon -- for example, over three years, as opposed to what is happening or what has been happening. Also, recognition that there are different competing interests
Then there is the interaction between the province and the health authority. I would suggest that that is a significant part or one of the problems that needs to be addressed. As well, in terms of implementing inventory and assessment, there was a lack around the requirements for there. I think there was also a lack of targeting, in terms of what's ready to go and what isn't.
[1705]
C. Hansen: I was interested in the minister's use of the words "competing interests" among these various bodies. My understanding is that when the management of these projects was transferred to the Ministry of Finance, that was done to reduce, to eliminate, this whole competing interest issue. In fact, what I see time and time again
We see projects that get delayed for years and years. We've got the example of the Royal Jubilee Hospital -- which I don't want to get into right now, because I know the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head will certainly be pursuing that at the start of next week. But we see examples of projects where even the basic planning work that is done up front becomes obsolete, because costs change or other circumstances change before they can even get a shovel in the ground to get the project underway. Yet what I see is that those other bodies are ready to go. The only thing that's holding up those projects is the green light from either the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Finance.
I'm just wondering if the minister could explain to us why we have seen so many of these projects in the past couple of years stymied because of -- what at least appears to be -- a lack of priority, a lack of ability to get things moving, at the level of the provincial government.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member has outlined a number of the key concerns. Certainly one of them is around the complexity of health buildings themselves and the number of people who are involved in signing off on the design and the detail. The movement of capital out of the different ministries to Finance was an effort and a recognition of the problems. In terms of getting things out the door, I think that was the first sort of sign that the government itself recognized there had to be changes made. Then we've had the report which outlines what the state of construction capital is within the different ministries.
The fact of the matter is that the problems are there in Health, and I think they are there for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the number of players who are involved. Even when you deal with the health districts -- they're in a row; they're ready to go
[ Page 15575 ]
health authorities and they're ready to go, you're still dealing with a considerable number of players, for example, in dealing with the particular physical plant itself.
I think that's why we have taken seriously the recommendations in Deloitte and have started
[1710]
C. Hansen: One of the contradictions that I find in the report -- and it's probably just because I'm not reading it as carefully as I should or maybe not understanding the report
They talk about current actions, which I think the minister may be alluding to in his previous comments: "The Ministry of Health has established a capital planning advisory committee composed of officials from local agencies, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations to address process issues." It talks about planned actions: "
Does the minister see the solution to the problem as being one of bringing back control of these projects into the Ministry of Health, or of allowing the Ministry of Finance to take an even greater role in project management, as seems to be indicated elsewhere in parts of the report?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I actually think it's a question of the ministry getting its act together in terms of the planning and delivery -- dealing with those issues and making sure that everything's being done each step of the way as it should be. The role for Finance is at the beginning and then, in terms of evaluation, at the end. So I don't think it's necessarily an issue of Finance having greater control or greater authority. I think it's more a point of recognizing: okay, this is Finance's responsibility; this is Health's responsibility; and this is what each of us has to be doing along the way -- then making sure that those steps
[J. Cashore in the chair.]
C. Hansen: I had the opportunity to sit down recently with an individual in one of the regions who is involved with a capital project that did actually get underway. He described to me some of the micromanagement that they were going through. He indicated that even issues such as the selection of the architect for the project were not being dictated by the Ministry of Finance but were being directed in a way that they felt they had no other choices. That's not the process that the minister just described in terms of
Is the minister saying that the Ministry of Health is going to take back some of those responsibilities and roles that have been assumed by the Ministry of Finance in recent times?
[1715]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's fair to say that in recognition that there has been a change taking place and a concern about the inability to get projects moving, there was initially a tightening of the role by Finance. But it is clear that what we want to see happen is the health authorities playing a much greater role in planning and implementation of that part which Health is responsible for -- the planning and development -- than has been the case in the recent past. I would say that you would probably see a lessening of control in that area by Finance. That would be something I would want to see happen.
Clearly, in terms of the planning and development of a facility, it's crucial that the health authority is actively involved in that. We have to recognize that health facilities
C. Hansen: I gather that is a fairly deliberate shift we are going to see. My understanding is that two years ago there was a very deliberate shift to give the Ministry of Finance more responsibility for the management of these projects.
Am I hearing the minister say that what we're seeing now is a very deliberate shift of those responsibilities back to the Ministry of Health? That's my question.
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not back to Health, but back to the local agencies which are actually building the particular facility.
C. Hansen: In other words, what we're going to see is less micromanagement of a project from Victoria, whether it be by the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Health, and more responsibility for construction and design decisions being left locally to those who are actually going to have to use the facility and make it work at the local level.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In essence what you have is a good plan in place at the beginning, which is Health. At the end you have the evaluation, which is Finance. The implementation and development of that plan is up to the authorities, so you've got considerable input at that local level.
C. Hansen: Some of those I've talked to in the construction industry tell me that Health capital projects have the most change orders of any projects they work on. In other words, they bid on a project, and it's common knowledge within the construction industry that it really doesn't matter if they bid low to get the project, because that's not where they make the money. Where they make their profit on a construction project is in the change orders that are brought down after the contract is awarded for construction and after construction is underway.
It strikes me that that is a direct result of having far too many cooks in the kitchen when it comes to trying to get these
[ Page 15576 ]
projects underway. I wonder if the minister can give us some reassurance that we're going to see that phenomenon change, so that we can actually put contracts out for bid -- hopefully by open tender rather than fixed-wage policies, but that's another issue -- and can tender projects that are in fact complete and intact and aren't going to see the kind of change orders that we've seen that on Health capital projects in years gone by.
[1720]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say that in terms of changes and too many cooks, clearly that is a valid concern. That's why part of ensuring that doesn't happen is that you have a good plan at the front and the evaluation at the end, so you can see exactly what's happened each step of the way.
The other point I would make is that the vast majority of projects that have come through Health have in fact been within budget. That's crucial. Clearly the problem that results is in terms of delay. That's one of the problems in terms of the constant change and the constant "do this, do that" in changing plans or changing design. That is something that leads to delay. That's something, clearly, that we don't want to have happen -- which comes back to something I said in the beginning: the key is having a good plan in the first place.
C. Hansen: I want to go back to this debate we had on March 29 in the supply bill debate. At that point I was of the understanding that the management -- the micromanagement -- of some of these projects was in fact coming from the Ministry of Finance. The minister having been away in Ontario, I thought he might be interested in the words of his colleague, who was pinch-hitting that night.
I'm not sure if the minister has had a chance to go back and review this section of Hansard. The Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Minister of Health, said: "The Ministry of Health has had a problem, over several years, in actually getting the projects that they are authorized and funded to build, in process and under construction." It says farther down that the ministry "again failing to actually get under construction the projects that they have been authorized to build
I just want to assure the minister that at the time, I did come to the defence of Ministry of Health staff. I was quite cognizant of the fact that the responsibility, at least in terms of these last couple of years, was not something that you could stick the Ministry of Health with, because of the way these capital projects were structured.
We started this discussion a little while ago talking about the multiplicity of organizations, agencies and departments involved in capital construction projects in the Ministry of Health. My understanding is that there is now a new player that has come into that picture, and that is B.C. Buildings Corporation. My immediate concern when I heard that was that this adds one more level of complexity. I wonder if the minister could explain to us the role that B.C. Buildings Corporation will have in future health care capital projects.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There isn't another player with veto or decision-making power.
On this capital issue they report to Ministry of Health. They have three specific objectives: (1) to assist the Ministry of Health with the development and rollout of a new capital budgeting and planning system; (2) to assist the Ministry of Health with the development and rollout of an inventory assessment system; and (3) to assist the Ministry of Health with strategic facilities planning, standards, unit rates, service delivery and service-delivery model development. They report to us on this; we're not like another hoop that one has to jump through.
C. Hansen: The one thing that I want to be clear on in this discussion is
[1725]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I love it when I hear quotes or comments that are put in as "on your behalf," from colleagues that
But the answer to your question is yes.
C. Hansen: I want to pursue some alternate models that have been looked at for how health care capital projects could be delivered. I wonder if the minister could comment on issues such as design-build or design-build-operate in terms of health care facilities.
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is one of those ones where -- I don't mean to duck this -- this is very much in terms of Ministry of Finance purview. I will say that my ministry would be working with Finance in terms of looking at options as to how facilities can and cannot be built, but the decisions around that would be within the Finance ministry.
C. Hansen: Sorry, a few minutes ago I thought I was starting to get the picture in terms of where responsibility lies for projects. Certainly what we're looking at in the future is not just strictly projects that are designed, built and operated by the Ministry of Finance. We're looking at projects where there will be elements of design-build or design-build-operate, and I'm a little bit confused now. On the one hand, the minister is saying that, yes, the Ministry of Health is going to take responsibility for capital projects. On the other hand, what I just heard him saying is that, no, there is still a whole bunch of things that are going to be done by the Ministry of Finance.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Planning and development is with Health, but the financing of a project still rests with Finance.
C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us what the current government's policy is with regard to public-private partnerships?
Hon. M. Farnworth: At the current time there is a small steering committee within the ministry that is looking at models of financing or how we can build new facilities. They are looking at it in terms of two models by which facilities could be developed and how they could be implemented. Clearly
[ Page 15577 ]
one is public financing for capital costs, and the second looks at alternative capital financing similar to the method the province currently uses in developing social housing, for example. I guess the issue around public-private partnerships has tended to be
[1730]
C. Hansen: What is the direction the regional health authority should assume they're under when it comes to putting out requests for proposals regarding public-private partnerships?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The first thing they've got to do, if they want to proceed with a new project, is determine that there are in fact operating funds for that particular project.
C. Hansen: No, that's not my question. My question is: assuming that they have made a decision to proceed on a project and that operating funds have been identified, are regional health authorities today able, under ministry guidelines, to put forward a request for proposal for a project that would involve a public-private partnership in its financing construction operation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they can.
C. Hansen: I gather the current ministry policy is that they're not opposed to public-private partnerships, if that's the case -- that in fact there are some projects that are going ahead today under those auspices. I gather that the ministry and the minister don't have concerns with those projects.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The ministry's not opposed to it. It tends to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
C. Hansen: I'm aware of at least one project in the province where a proposal did go out from a regional health authority, which mentioned that public-private partnerships were welcome and invited. My understanding is they received communication from the ministry that they were not to proceed. I wonder: has the policy the minister just enunciated changed in recent months?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, I'd be interested in the specific project, if the member can give it to me, because we can check out exactly what the status is and what's happening.
C. Hansen: The project in mind is a project where a request for proposal was put out by the South Fraser health region. Timing-wise, it probably would have been about a year ago. I'm going from memory, so I may not be precisely accurate on that. I'm wondering if the ministry's policy has changed since that time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We can look into that, but our understanding is that there were no instructions given to a project to not go ahead.
C. Hansen: In terms of the review that's underway now, does the minister anticipate that that policy may in fact change as a result of that review? When the minister talks about the two models he referred to in terms of public financing, does he see these as new options that may be brought into the mix or a specific change in the policy that's now before us?
[1735]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are currently reviewing what the current situation is and the options that we have. We will make a decision sometime in the not-too-distant future. We made a public statement to that effect a few weeks ago at a construction conference.
C. Hansen: I want to move into some of the specific projects. I'm going to be careful of this. As we move forward from here in the estimates debate next week, we'll move into some of the constituency issues that each of my colleagues has in Health. Many of those are construction-related projects. I don't want to touch on those.
But there are several that will not necessarily fall into that category. In the very little time that we have remaining, we can try to deal with a few of these at this stage if that's an appropriate time.
Specifically, I would like to bring up the subject of the Vancouver General Hospital tower, the Laurel Pavilion. That project has been promised, I believe, a total of five times now. It was the understanding that the work had dollars in last year's capital budget to get on with the completion of that tower. Yet we see it delayed month by month. I assume it's been tied up in this process that we've had to date.
I'm wondering if the minister can give us some certainty as to when that project is going to proceed. I notice that in the budget report it's included in the 2000-2001 capital projects list. I'm wondering if the minister can specifically tell us how much money is allocated in that budget for the completion of the Laurel Pavilion.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm just getting information in terms of cash flow, and so on, to that part of your question.
Yes, we are committed to it, hon. member. The current estimated completion time is 2002-2003. Funding has been approved of $152 million to complete the tower and renovate the Centennial Pavilion. I can tell you that I would like to see it up and finished as quickly as possible.
C. Hansen: I think there are a lot of people in the province who share that sentiment, not least of all those who are currently incurring about $17 million in increased operating costs because of the fact that that Laurel Pavilion is not completed. That's the estimated savings that we will see as a result of the consolidation of services in that facility.
When the minister says that the government is committed to the project, we've heard that many times before. I think what people are looking for is some certainty in terms of when the dollars will actually flow on this project. The minister indicates $152 million between now and the year 2002-2003 completion. But I think what is being asked by a lot of people, who expected the dollars to start flowing last year, is in fact when we're going to see the dollars starting to flow this year and some real commitment to get that project underway. There are a lot of people who are skeptical, because they have seen so many announcements involving the completion of that tower in years gone by, and yet we haven't seen the project move forward in any meaningful way.
[ Page 15578 ]
[1740]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that money is flowing for the project this year, and I will get the exact amount for the hon. member.
C. Hansen: The other thing that people are looking for is an exact time line as well. This is one of those areas where people are skeptical, and they want to know that by X date we will be at a certain stage in that project. Certainly there have been many years of planning gone into that, and yet we don't see the project roll. There's a sense that the planning has been done; let's get on and get the project under construction. The only thing that seems to be holding up the project is the availability of dollars and the ability to free up dollars; everything else is in place and ready to roll. So in addition to the exact dollars that will flow during this current fiscal year, I would also appreciate a time line in terms of when we might see completion of that.
Hon. Chair, there are a variety of other projects. I just want to perhaps pick some of them that we can deal with in a short period of time. One of them is the Kitimat health centre. Again, a commitment was made for $35 million for a new health centre. There seems to be a great reluctance to call it a hospital, which certainly has local residents concerned that this may mean a downgrade. I know that your predecessor tried to reassure us that this in fact meant more than a hospital but wasn't a diminution of services that should be expected. What we have there now is a preload.
Again, I think people are looking for some kind of a time line as to when that project is going to proceed in actual construction and when we're going to see the dollars flow for that project and the dates by which we can come back and say: "Look, you said we would be at this stage by a certain date, and we're not there yet." So we're looking for some specifics in terms of when that project may roll out.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, first I want to take the opportunity to assure the residents of Kitimat that it is in fact a hospital. The government has taken the recommendations that were done on the review of it, and there is a second operating room in place. So if people are concerned whether it is a health centre or a hospital, I'd like to put that to rest right now. It is a hospital -- okay?
The second point is that we're working with BCBC to ensure that we can build the project as quickly as possible. As regards the specific time line, I will get it for the member. I guess it's one of those things. People have a traditional view of what a health centre is or what a hospital is, and then they get
If the member is amenable, I think now is a good time that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
[1745]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would like to wish all members of the chamber safe journeys and a very pleasant and happy weekend.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:49 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)
On vote 19: ministry operations, $828,499,000 (continued).
G. Plant: Before we broke for lunch and other things, I had asked the Attorney some questions concerning the criminal case flow management rules. I'm wondering if the Attorney is in a position to answer those questions.
[1450]
Hon. A. Petter: The short answer may be the best. My current intention and expectation is that we will continue to implement the case flow management regime on the schedule that the member referred to, which was contemplated in the order. However, I am aware that concerns have been raised. Some of them I think are
The current intention is to proceed with the schedule, but we're going to listen carefully. If there were some reason, some compelling argument, that would persuade us to slow it down or to proceed in a staged way, I'm open to that. At this point, I haven't heard such a compelling reason, but we have to listen carefully to those who are raising concerns.
G. Plant: One of the questions that I left for the minister was something to do with a press release. A recent press release discussed the latest stage of the rollout of the case flow management system. It had a calendar of future implementation dates with what I thought was an odd reference to Vancouver-Richmond civil family and the date June 12. I wonder if the minister has any more information on that matter, which related to a press release that I gave to the ministry staff before lunch.
Hon. A. Petter: The explanation is that a mistake was made. It shouldn't have read "civil."
[ Page 15579 ]
G. Plant: I think that further down in that page of the backgrounder -- which I no longer have, because I gave my copy to the ministry staff people -- it talks about the implementation of the case flow management rules in the Vancouver-Richmond criminal court division perhaps as late as November. I'm not sure what the date was, because I don't have the document, but I think the minister has the document. Could he confirm that the intention to roll out the case flow management process into the Vancouver-Richmond area is whatever the later date is on the backgrounder or some other date that he may be able to provide to us?
Hon. A. Petter: The member makes a very good point. As I understand it, in the June 12 reference to Vancouver-Richmond civil-family judicial district, the word should read "youth." So it's "youth" on June 12. The November 6 reference to Vancouver-Richmond is correct in terms of criminal judicial district.
G. Plant: The minister's last answer actually raises a minor question that I had not applied my mind to before. The criminal case flow management rules apply to both young offender and adult criminal prosecutions?
Hon. A. Petter: We've both learned something, because the answer is apparently yes.
G. Plant: I am gratified to learn that the minister will be listening to the concerns expressed by members of the bar and others, I suppose -- including a few newspaper editorial board writers and others -- around the implementation of the criminal case flow management rules.
[1455]
I respect the fact that this, I think, represents an enormously well-intentioned effort on the part of the criminal justice system to deal with criminal process in a way that not only will relieve the crisis of the backlog that existed a couple of years ago but will perhaps, hopefully, over time create a process that allows the criminal justice system to work both more efficiently and perhaps even more fairly. I know that the rules mark a significant change in process and procedure, particularly for criminal defence counsel. I'm glad to hear that the minister will listen to the concerns that come forward.
My own sense is that there may be particular issues around the first arraignment hearing, that part of the process that
I hope the minister is sincere in his commitment to maintaining a watching brief here and in particular with respect to issues around the first arraignment aspect of the process.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I appreciate the member's comments, both his positive comments in respect of the purpose and hope for the success of this initiative and the particular concern he raises with respect to the arraignment process. I will indeed be listening, and if there are changes that are required, we should be open to them.
I should say that this initiative has been a joint initiative, obviously, with the judiciary. Much of the credit goes to the courts and to the judiciary for their involvement and leadership in respect of this initiative. I should also say that the consultation process and the listening process aren't just with the bar or the communities or indeed the editorial writers -- certainly not the editorial writers. I did raise this matter when I met with Judge Metzger and encouraged him to keep me informed of how the courts themselves view the process and to give me advice as to how the process was being implemented. I would continue to look for advice, obviously, from the judiciary, who are playing a central role in overseeing the implementation of this initiative.
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure if it's appropriate in the small House to make introductions, but with your leave, I would seek to do so.
Leave granted.
B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce a face that's becoming common around the Legislature and, hopefully, will soon be much more common. That's the former mayor of Chilliwack, John Les, who has joined us in the gallery. Today is a fitting day for him to be here, because this morning the Attorney General made an announcement about funding for a new courthouse in Chilliwack. The former mayor, John Les, has worked long and hard to achieve this goal, and he certainly deserves a good part of the credit for the announcement today. So would everybody please join me in making John Les welcome.
My colleague from Richmond-Steveston has just stepped out, but he's left the floor to me. I would like to pursue a number of questions related to the issue of DNA identification and testing.
We all know that a federal statute, the DNA Identification Act, is getting close to coming into force. It will have significant impact on laboratories across Canada. I know that the RCMP have a lab in Vancouver that conducts DNA testing for criminal investigations. Last August, I had the benefit of having a tour of that facility, accompanied by Ruth Rogers of the Attorney General's ministry. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank her and the Attorney General's staff for arranging that for me.
[1500]
What I learned in that visit is that there are serious backlogs and delays in the testing process. When there are specific, very serious investigations that need to get priority, those cases can be moved up, but of course it has the effect of causing others to be backlogged. It's not uncommon for DNA analysis to take up to three, four, five or six months at times, because of the delay. My concern with the coming introduction and implementation of the DNA Identification Act and all of the mandatory testing for people convicted of a certain schedule of crimes is that the backlog may get much, much worse.
I'd like the Attorney General to tell us what arrangements his ministry is providing, or what role they're playing, in
[ Page 15580 ]
making sure that our DNA lab in Vancouver does not get absolutely swamped when the new requirements under the DNA Identification Act come into force sometime this summer.
Hon. A. Petter: Since we're in the business of making introductions, I should just note that joining me for this section of the estimates debate is Austin Cullen, Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the criminal justice branch, who is ably assisting me.
I think the member's comments with respect to DNA testing and the potential that affords in terms of criminal investigation are well taken. I also want to credit the work of my predecessor, who worked very hard to urge the federal government to pursue the DNA Identification Act and to start to use DNA evidence to a greater extent to solve unsolved crimes and also as a tool for ongoing investigation.
The member is correct that there are pressures with respect to the lab in British Columbia. That lab is of course federally funded, and it is one of the issues that I have. I will continue to press with the federal government, as my predecessor did, the need to maintain an adequate source of funding so that the valuable tool that the lab can provide to criminal investigation is maximized. I want to give the member the assurance that, just as my predecessor was extremely dogged and diligent in pushing for the legislation and for the establishment of this lab, we'll be continuing to press for adequate federal resources to ensure that the lab is adequately resourced for the purposes that it serves.
B. Penner: The minister's answer is only somewhat helpful. In the past, the Attorney General's ministry has taken credit for some funding of the DNA laboratory in Vancouver. There have been announcements trumpeting the great work the provincial government is doing in funding various crime labs in the province. I'm wondering what role the province has to play in dealing with the backlog at the labs.
We know that the DNA Identification Act will be coming into force soon. That will require testing of thousands and thousands of convicted criminals in Canada, and a certain percentage of those will be here in British Columbia. There is going to be an impact. When it's convenient, the province likes to take credit for funding certain parts of the crime labs in the province. What's the province going to do here in this regard?
There's a second component to the question. Recently I was reading in the newspapers about a case involving a person who was arrested in Calgary, Alberta, I believe, in relation to an investigation of unsolved murders involving prostitutes. This brought to light a problem that I think is of some long-term standing, and that is that we have a number of DNA samples retrieved from different crime scenes around the province, but they haven't been cross-referenced. There are two parts to any DNA database. There is the testing and typing of the perpetrators -- the known DNA -- and there are those DNA samples that are retrieved from crime sites.
We need the new DNA legislation to force convicted criminals to give their DNA for typing in the known DNA registry or database. But we don't have to wait for that to get on with doing the DNA crime scene analysis and doing the matching that can occur there. If we could get that work done, that could help link crimes that have occurred in Vancouver, Vanderhoof, Prince George and Calgary, for example. I'm told by people who work in the RCMP that each detachment has lockers filled with DNA samples that may not have been submitted for analysis. Yet if they hadn't done that and if they were plugged into a crime scene database, we could help connect the dots and track the movements of the people committing serial crimes.
I guess my question is a two-part question. What role does the province have to play in making sure the backlog doesn't get out of control? Secondly, why hasn't the province moved to encourage a centralized or coordinated approach to testing crime scene DNA that we already have access to but is unfortunately, in many cases, sitting in police lockers throughout the province?
[1505]
Hon. A. Petter: Maybe it would be helpful, if the member wants to get into the details around the funding arrangements, to wait until we reach the section of the debate on police services, where I think that information will be available. The current year's funding arrangement, as I understand it, is 100 percent federal. It's true that there will be a movement towards a cost-shared arrangement in future years. It's also true, of course, that the province has, on its own, helped to fund a DNA dental lab facility in the province, as well, which is $500,000.
But if the member wants to address particular questions of caseload and pressures and how that will be handled as we move towards a cost-shared arrangement from the total federal complement right now, I think it's probably better -- if it's acceptable to him and to others -- that we wait until the police services component of the ministry's budget is being examined, in which case I'll have staff who are able to assist me more on that point.
G. Plant: I'm in the minister's hands. I notice the public trustee is here. I know the minister did talk about one other matter that he was thinking of attending to. I have one more issue in the criminal justice branch context that's going to take ten minutes or so. If you want to move into the public trustee stuff
Hon. A. Petter: How long are you going to take?
G. Plant: Well, the criminal justice issue is a ten- or 15-minute issue.
Hon. A. Petter: Let's do that. Let's get that out of the way.
G. Plant: Okay. I want to ask the minister a question or two about the special prosecutor process. This is -- I think even the minister would probably agree -- a part of his responsibilities or the responsibilities of his ministry that he might wish he didn't have and that probably the citizens of the province wish was not so continuously an object of public attention. But it is nonetheless important, it seems, given recent history in British Columbia.
The special prosecutor process, if you can call it that, has its statutory home in the Crown Counsel Act. There are a couple of provisions there. But it has its genesis in a report that Stephen Owen did as an inquiry commissioner in November 1990, which was called the "Discretion to Prosecute Inquiry." The minister is probably aware that the report contains a number of recommendations. Clearly it was after the report
[ Page 15581 ]
was drafted that the Crown Counsel Act was changed to give effect to Mr. Owen's recommendations, although not, I think, to the letter.
There are some nine recommendations in Mr. Owen's report. There is not, as I understand it, a public policy manual available to the minister or to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the official responsible for the criminal justice branch. There's not a manual that operates like a rule book that says: "If XYZ happens, then you do ABC." And I'm not at all certain that there should be. We're here almost in a quasi-constitutional realm trying to figure out what the Attorney's role is in respect of special prosecutors.
[1510]
I want to ask questions in three areas. The first is whether it would be fair to say that Mr. Owen's recommendations in this report constitute, for the ministry, a touchstone, if you will -- the sort of bedrock of principle that is looked to when, as and if the special prosecutor procedures in the Crown Counsel Act are engaged. In other words, is it a place, really, that all members of the public can look to to learn something about the principles that govern the appointment and the activities of special prosecutors?
Hon. A. Petter: Very simply, the answer is yes. It is a touchstone, certainly, in terms of the principles and functioning with respect to special prosecutors.
G. Plant: One aspect of the special prosecutor appointment process that is, I guess, a bit opaque to me is the question of what happens when a matter -- let's say a complaint of a criminal charge or an allegation of a criminal nature -- is brought to, in the first instance, the criminal justice branch as opposed to the police. I think that the ministry, through officials, has in the past stated publicly on more than one occasion that the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General does not conduct criminal investigations. That's a job for the police.
Not everyone in the public understands that that's the role of the police, and some think that it's the role of government. While they may be wrong, that doesn't stop them from referring matters that they consider to warrant criminal investigation directly to the criminal justice branch or, for that matter, directly to the Attorney General. For all I know, he may get mail from people from time to time saying that such and such a thing should be investigated.
One of the virtues of the process in terms of insulating the politicians from the business of prosecution
However, my understanding is that it's not the model that is, in all cases, followed. There are, from time to time, complaints or claims or allegations brought to the attention of the Ministry of Attorney General. The ministry does not simply say that you're in the wrong place but actually, perhaps, acts as a conduit or a referring agency, in effect saying: "We will refer the matter to the police and then see where the matter goes from there."
[1515]
I am a little bit nervous about that. It does seem to me that there is a risk that you'll compromise the integrity of the criminal justice branch -- the Crown prosecutor process -- if the branch or the Attorney General or ADAG even embarks on the substance of considering a criminal complaint so far as to say: "We'll be the referring agency."
If the goal is truly to, as far as possible, achieve a politically neutral process, it seems to me that there is at least an argument -- and, I'm tempted to think, a pretty strong argument -- that says that in all cases, the branch should simply say: "This is what we do when people come to us with criminal complaints; we send them to the police." I have that concern about trying to do it more than one way. I wonder if the Attorney has his own perspective on that issue, which might shed some light on the question that I've raised.
Hon. A. Petter: I think these are tough issues. There are competing arguments. I can understand the member's struggle with them. If I can describe what I understand the practice to be, it is this. The view that's taken is that certainly if someone provides a bare allegation or something without any substantial basis to the ministry with respect to an allegation of criminal wrongdoing, the response would be that if they believe there is some evidence to substantiate that allegation, that allegation and the evidence should be presented to police.
However, if material comes to the hand of any public agency -- or anyone in the province, frankly -- that raises a question or provides evidence that might provide the basis for criminal wrongdoing, the view is that the responsibility is to make sure that the information finds its way to the police. For that reason, when the ministry -- including the criminal justice branch, to whom I would normally refer such things, because I don't think I should be making that judgment -- has material that seems to suggest there's something to at least look at, without reaching a conclusion, which would be inappropriate, the ministry does then pass that on to the police. It's no less the ministry's responsibility or the branch's responsibility than it is that of a citizen or public agency.
I understand the member's concern and his pure model. On the other hand, the perception that evidence might have been submitted to the criminal justice branch that they did not submit or pass through to the police and then, for whatever reason, ended up not being the subject of investigation when in fact it ought to have been is, I think, the greater concern here in this balance -- or at least the competing concern in this balance.
I think the position that's taken by the criminal justice branch is that when evidence is presented to them, without reaching a conclusion or in any way prejudicing subsequent steps by the police, what they do is pass it on to the police for the police to make their own best judgment as to whether further steps are required or not -- insofar as it's their responsibility, as it is the responsibility of every citizen or any agency of government to do the same.
G. Plant: That's a helpful attempt to try to wrestle with what I think is not an easy issue. Let me put the problem in slightly different terms.
[ Page 15582 ]
[1520]
Let's look at it now from the perspective of the police and ask the question whether, if you're sitting at your desk in a police office somewhere, it makes a difference if you get a call from -- I think the person used to be called John Q. Public -- Jane Public, the ordinary citizen, as opposed to perhaps getting a call from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the head of the criminal justice branch, referring a matter -- a criminal allegation -- to the police to be dealt with as the police, in their absolute discretion, see fit.
I think that we at least ought to pause to ponder whether there's a difference, potentially, in those two kinds of telephone calls and whether that distinction is a legitimate basis to revisit the issue I asked about a moment ago, whether it's appropriate for the criminal justice branch, in effect, to be the referring agency for allegations of criminal wrongdoing. I don't want to leave the question that I put standing alone, because I think it needs to be put in the context that it actually will exist in, which is: there may well be no public knowledge that this has happened. There'll be very limited opportunity for public scrutiny of what has happened.
So we're in this misty world of perceptions and the appearance of fairness, the appearance of justice, the appearance of impartiality, the appearance of neutrality. We want to make sure that the kind of people who find themselves the subject of special prosecutions are treated in a way which is politically neutral but not necessarily more onerous than ordinary citizens would be. So I try one more time, in effect, to state the problem for the Attorney, to see if he has a response to it.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I don't want to make it more of a problem for the member, but the fact is, I think, that there are some competing interests here. At the end of the day I think it's the appearance of responsibility, however -- responsibility to the maintenance of the criminal justice system -- that convinces me.
The member may want to put himself in the situation of wondering what he might say, on the opposite side of the House, if it came to light that a citizen provided the Attorney General's office with evidence and that office said, "Thank you very much," and returned it and didn't pass it through. And then, for whatever reason, the citizen didn't submit it to the police, or perhaps something else happened. What would the appearance be there?
These are tough issues, made more tough -- here I'm going to complicate it a bit more for the member -- because the criminal justice branch does act sort of in two capacities here. One is as the recipient of information from the public and others that it just passes through. And it's also in a capacity where at times, in the course of public inquiries or other public activities by government or agencies related to government, questions come up as to whether there is something of a potential criminal nature, and we need advice from the criminal justice branch as to whether it should be referred through to the police, and that advice is then given. In those situations, then, the agency will act upon that advice. Does that compromise the police? I don't think so. I don't know of any other way of doing it. You have to seek your advice.
These are tough issues. I appreciate the member's concern. I think we have to have confidence, though, that in an imperfect world, where we're trying to balance interests, where there are different agencies playing complementary roles and wearing different hats, people do play their roles in a way that is consistent with the overall objectives of the justice system. I believe the police will understand, when matters are passed on from the criminal justice branch to them, that that is not intended to in any way send a signal or to suggest that that matter is to be treated any differently than a matter that's handed to them by the public.
If the appearance is otherwise, I think we should move to dispel that appearance. I would worry more about the fact, as I say, that information that might well have led to an investigation did not do so because, in fact, we worried so much about the appearance that the appearance overrode what I think is the more fundamental obligation: the responsibility of passing the information along.
[1525]
G. Plant: Well, I'm struck by the force of that last point. It doesn't resolve the issue completely, but I hasten to acknowledge the relevance of that point in the overall argument or the consideration of the overall issue. I mean, we are talking about, of course, a process that is engaged when the information in question may be information of an allegation of wrongdoing by one of the minister's own colleagues or someone on the other side of the House. It can strike awfully close to home. As we saw last year, there is enormous public interest in making sure that the process works in a way which is impartial and fair as well as responsible.
That leads me to the third area I want to pursue for just a minute, and that is the role of the Attorney himself in all of this. I think the primary responsibility statutorily here is that of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The Attorney General has a statutory role in terms of being able to provide directions, and the Crown Counsel Act requires that those directions be published in the Gazette, with provisions that permit that publication to be delayed if it's in the public interest to do so.
In terms of the functional operation of the process, is the minister himself brought into the decision to appoint -- and the examination consideration of, a report of -- a special prosecutor in all cases? Or is there a kind of a functional, practical distinction kept so that it's really just the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the head of the branch, who is really the primary custodian of all of the decision-making here?
Hon. A. Petter: I am tempted to say yes. The answer is yes, on both sides.
The way it works, as I understand it and am coming to understand it, is that all the day-to-day decisions with respect to the appointment of special prosecutors and the conduct of special prosecutors is conducted completely at arm's length and without regard to advice from the Attorney General in any way, shape or form. Having said that, the Attorney General is briefed and kept up to speed on the appointment of special prosecutors and, in particular, is briefed with respect to decisions that are made in reference to the right the Attorney General retains to intervene, conduct or stay any case for which a special prosecutor has been appointed. Obviously, to know whether to exercise that right, one has to be informed. Having said that, I don't believe that right has ever been exercised, and I think it would be an extremely extraordinary circumstance where it would be.
[ Page 15583 ]
In order to ensure that that right is in fact a real right and that the accountability it implies is real, information has to be shared at the appropriate time. For that reason, the Attorney General is briefed with respect to all such prosecutions and given briefings from time to time as to their progress and disposition, particularly in reference to the opportunity that exists, even though it may seldom if ever be used, to intervene.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. I was hoping to have the opportunity to ask a question or two of the public trustee in relation to some matters that fall under his domain.
Hon. A. Petter: I will simply introduce Jay Chalke, who is the public guardian and trustee -- the title's been changed -- and take a brief leave in order to allow him to come to the table and answer questions.
The Chair: Shall we recess the committee for 15 minutes?
G. Plant: No, I'm ready to go.
The Chair: All right, no recess necessary.
[1530]
G. Plant: I'm glad to have this opportunity to ask a question or two of the public guardian and trustee. As the trustee knows, this takes the place of the briefing that he and I were going to have by telephone in half an hour's time.
A pretty significant change in the legal world of British Columbia -- at least I think so -- occurred on February 28, when the adult guardianship legislation, including the Representation Agreement Act, came into force. I'm not certain that as many British Columbians know about this yet as ought to, but I'm sure they will in the fullness of time. I wonder if the trustee could give an overview of how he has seen the unfolding of the implementation of this legislation over the last few weeks.
The Chair: Before I recognize the public trustee, I'm going to require some clarification on the standing orders procedure in this committee. I understand that the deputy minister and the minister can respond to questions. It's not clear to me that the standing orders permit others to respond to questions. If we could get a clarification on that
G. Plant: I seek leave for the public trustee to answer the questions.
Leave granted.
The Chair: Problem solved.
J. Chalke: The proclamation of adult guardianship has been a long time coming in British Columbia, so if you ask for the overview, I would say it's been a while getting here. Having said that, we have been quite busy in our office directly and together with a number of people in the community over the past year since the time of Bill 92, which perhaps was the last opportunity to provide an update on our activities.
Since that time, a number of regulations have been promulgated under all four guardianship statutes. There has been a lot of policy development done. For the first time in British Columbia we have guidelines for incapacity assessment that have, in essence, the force of law for capacity assessors. Those have been promulgated, as well as helpful guidelines under the Health Care (Consent) Act for health care practitioners.
In addition, our office has been working on a lot of internal policy with regard to our new functions. For example, under the Health Care (Consent) Act we are the decision-maker of last resort in British Columbia when someone has no comity of person, no representative under representation agreement and no family members, and they require a health care decision and are not able to give or refuse consent to their own health care. In those circumstances our office can either make a decision or authorize someone else. We've spent a lot of time, for example, trying to determine what criteria we'd apply to authorize other people to make such decisions.
We've been working quite closely with a number of partners in the community, with our planning groups. We have four, primarily: the abuse, neglect and self-neglect planning group; the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, planning group; a workload project; as well as the incapability assessment steering committee. Those planning groups have been quite active over the last eight months.
We've been very active in the area of public information development. We have seven brochures that we've completed. We've just finished a booklet and published it, and we are in the course of distributing it to all members of the Legislature -- a booklet called "It's Your Choice: A Guide to Making a Representation Agreement." I'm very conscious that there's lots of interest out there in the public about what this new representation agreement is. Our hope is that this document will really help people understand the new law. We're looking, as well, at having it translated into a number of other languages in the near future and providing it in alternative formats.
As well, we have published a guide for communities that are involved in community response networks. We've done quite a bit of work supporting that development, and there are now 70 community response networks across British Columbia.
[1535]
In terms of time, probably the biggest thing that we have done has involved educating people in the social, health and legal fields. We have held more than 60 training sessions for staff of regional health authorities and community health service societies from October of last year through March of this year. We have about 12 more sessions planned through the end of June.
We have been heavily involved in the Continuing Legal Education Society's program on adult guardianship in both Vancouver and Victoria. The program here in Victoria, in fact, was the largest registration they'd ever had for a CLE program in Victoria, so it was quite a success. As well as having made just a number of presentations to seniors organizations, gerontology associations, parents groups, church groups, the B.C. Brain Injury Association, the Community Living Associa-
[ Page 15584 ]
tion, notaries, lawyers, health care providers, care facility operators, etc., over the next couple of months we are going to be putting on a number of training sessions for incapability assessors and doing a tour of health regions with respect to our function under the new Health Care (Consent) Act. So that's a bit of a quick overview of the implementation over the past nine months or so.
G. Plant: I appreciate the overview. One of the issues the trustee knows is out there in the community is the question of which classes of professionals would have the ability to create, draft and execute, I guess, section 9 representation agreements. The trustee and guardian will be aware that notaries public have expressed concern that when the new regime of the laws and the regulations actually came into force, public trustees were not included among the classes of professionals that were able to draft section 9 agreements. As I understand it, there's a process underway to review, among other things, that issue. I wonder if the trustee could provide an overview of that process and when it's expected to conclude and what issues are included in it.
J. Chalke: Yes, we've retained Dulcie McCallum, British Columbia's former ombudsman, to assist in consulting with the various groups that are involved and providing some recommendations with respect to the issue of whether the regulation-making authority in the act, which is to allow persons other than lawyers to be consulted for the purpose of making a section 9 representation agreement
I am aware that Ms. McCallum has met with the Society of Notaries Public, as well as with the Law Society and many others. But her review also encompasses matters not just with respect to property law but also with respect to what is really new in the Representation Agreement Act, which is the ability to appoint someone for the purpose of health care planning. So that's really required her to talk to a number of people in the health care field, as well as, perhaps, the more traditional professions of notaries public and lawyers.
G. Plant: Could the trustee explain what happens when Ms. McCallum does her work? There's a report to him and then, through him, a report to government. Or what is it?
J. Chalke: That's correct. I'll be reporting to the government promptly so that they can consider that recommendation.
A Voice: It's a hard job.
G. Plant: It's the important part of the process. We're all at his beck and call. I think otherwise we throw stones at each other or something. So that's the important job he has.
Ms. McCallum has an important job and don't mean to pre-empt. In fact, I think it might be wrong to even engage the trustee at this point in a debate about the issues around the concerns that notaries have, but I will indulge the trustee and guardian with just one or two of my own comments for the public record, if you will. It does seem to me that the competing concerns are not all that easily resolved.
[1540]
When we are a creating new legal instrument that expands the role that helpers can have in the lives of others, obviously it is the intention of government to make that new tool available as widely as possible -- in fact, to the whole of the public of British Columbia and in particular to an aging public -- so that this tool will hopefully serve to assist and protect, to provide all of us with an opportunity to kind of spread out the web of decision-making as we get older.
I am very struck by the concerns of those who say that if section 9 representation agreements can only be prepared by lawyers, then there are potential barriers in terms of cost and access that I think are significant and relevant.
I am also struck by the observations that I've heard made to me by legal professionals and others with respect to the wide variety of issues that need to be taken into consideration by anyone preparing a section 9 representation agreement on how it obviously is generally the case that lawyers have -- by dint of a longer professional education, I suppose -- more opportunity to be exposed to that wide range of issues. The challenge, I guess, is going to be to strike that balance.
I am someone who has a strong respect for the role which lawyers play in our society in terms of protecting our civil rights and the long tradition they have in doing that. What has over the last few weeks been equally if not more impressive to me is, really, the all-encompassing commitment that the notaries have shown to the process of educating themselves in this business of section 9 agreements. I'm told, for example, that three-quarters -- 80 percent -- of the notaries in the province have taken the CLE courses and others that the trustee is talking about.
It is, of course, contrary to my interest as a member of the legal profession to do anything to limit the jurisdiction of that profession. In the course of her research and the inquiry, what I hope Ms. McCallum is able to do, in addition to the other things around health care that the trustee talks about, is to look substantively and functionally at the education that is available for notaries and to ask the question of whether that might in fact be enough to protect the public interest in respect of representation, ensuring that the representation agreements are quality instruments and also thereby ensuring that there is a higher degree of public access and perhaps at lower cost.
That's really where my own view is right now in terms of what I think is not an easy issue to resolve. As I say, I'm not sure that the trustee needs to express an opinion -- or even that it is appropriate right now -- because after all, that's why he has hired Ms. McCallum. I assume that I'm not unduly restricting the trustee's opportunity to comment, but I'll give him that chance to wade in or choose not to.
[1545]
The Chair: Well, trustee -- at your own discretion.
J. Chalke: Just to say that I have said to Ms. McCallum that in my view, representation agreements need to be affordable and accessible and of high quality. Beyond that, really, it has been up to her to carry out those consultations and consider where that blend of education and insurance and other things really lie. I'm awaiting her report.
G. Plant: I'm sorry; I'm going to talk about a different issue. It may be one which engages the Attorney's attention, with the assistance of the public trustee. From time to time, I
[ Page 15585 ]
have been briefed by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena about a subject that, I gather, is of importance to his constituents. It has to do with the role of child actors. My regret is that I have not spoken to him recently enough to get an update on what he thinks the status of this issue is, and he's in another House debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
In broad terms, I think the issue has to do with who controls the income of child film actors. The question, without oversimplifying it, may be as simple as whether it's the public trustee and guardian who controls the income of child film actors or whether it's the parents of the child film actors. I wonder if the Attorney can give us a progress report of the status of this ongoing concern.
Hon. A. Petter: I believe this is done under the aegis of the Minister of Labour through employment standards, but there is a role for the public trustee. I'll try to provide one of those high-level answers and hope that I am correct.
As I understand it, there were three elements to the changes that were effected in October '97. One was to require permits to be sought from the director of employment standards in respect of child actors. The second was that the employment standards director could then impose conditions as a condition of issuing such permits to protect the interests of such children. In addition, there is a requirement that 25 percent of the income where there are lifetime earnings of over $5,000 has to be deposited with the public trustee to be held in trust on behalf of the child actor.
G. Plant: Is this an issue which is, from the trustee's perspective, still under consideration, or are we just simply living with the rules promulgated in October 1997?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not quite sure what the member means by just simply living with. October '97 is not that long ago. As I understand it, the rules have been well received, and the public trustee informs me that he thinks they are working well and do afford a good measure of protection for child actors -- while recognizing that within our burgeoning film industry, child actors are frequently required and there are, therefore, good opportunities for young people to participate in such productions. We want to make sure they do so on a basis that is fair to them, and these changes seem to be working in that regard.
[1550]
G. Plant: To make sure I have the Attorney's position on this, his position is that these rules are working well, that they are serving the public interest, and as far as he understands, that they are well received.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me take one step back. My interest is that children in the province -- in this context, child actors -- are protected so that they can enjoy the opportunity to participate in film productions and receive remuneration but do so in a context that protects their interest. I am informed -- not incredibly well informed, I hasten to add, but informed -- by both the public trustee and, based on my recollection, by those I have talked to in the film industry and in other areas that these changes seem to have been well received and seem to be working well. If there is any suggestion that they aren't or that they aren't serving that in-line purpose as well as they could, I'm certainly open to review them. Both the public trustee and the community suggest that they are in fact serving the purpose for which they were intended.
G. Plant: Returning to adult guardianship implementation, broadly speaking, could the minister indicate whether the current fiscal year's budget for the office of the public trustee includes additional money for the implementation of the package of adult guardianship legislation?
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that last year there was an allocation of $1.6 million towards implementation, and this year there is a further $700,000, for a total of $2.3 million that was allocated for the purpose of implementing the adult guardian legislation.
If I might add a little editorial comment from my point of view, I had the privilege of attending a ceremony in Vancouver a few weeks ago really to congratulate the literally thousands of people who participated in the legislation. To be there and see them or their representatives and share in their sense of accomplishment was really quite a gratifying experience. I dipped my toes a little bit in these waters when I was Health minister for a few minutes previously. I followed the issue with interest. It was very gratifying to see the culmination of that process and to see the implementation underway and to see those who were responsible for it, who are for the most part the people in the community and the public trustees -- Mr. Chalke and others. Government, of course, played a facilitative role. I think the legislation has been a tremendous success in terms of moving on many concerns that were in the community.
G. Plant: The minister speaks of $2.3 million in implementation money. Is there any ongoing operating money that is going to be required here? Or to put the question in another way, has this implementation resulted in an increase in the funding requirements for the office of the public trustee and guardian on an ongoing basis?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the $2.3 million is ongoing but, like everything else in government, subject to adjustment. So it could go up or it could go down. But the allocation of $1.6 million and now the further allocation of another increment of $700,000 is ongoing. As fine-tuning goes on, the costs may come down a little bit. It may be slightly less in future years. But it was intended that this be ongoing funding.
G. Plant: That answer makes me want to make sure I understood something. I think I understood it wrongly before. Last year it was $1.6 million; this year it's $2.3 million. It's not just $700,000. And on an ongoing basis, subject to the fluctuations that the minister talks about, we're talking about $2.3 million every year. Is that a better answer? Is that what the minister intended?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that's what I mean. It's a $700,000 increment this year, on top of last year's increment. And the total is $2.3 million. I wasn't going to do that old federal government trick of trying to wrap it all up and claim it as a one-year increase, but if the member wants me to do so, it's a $2.3 million increase, using the baseline of before the previous year.
G. Plant: Far be it from me to get into budget tricks, federal or otherwise.
[ Page 15586 ]
Interjections.
[1555]
G. Plant: The temptation is well-nigh irresistible, but in the spirit of progress
The implementation of the adult guardianship legislation has, I think, been viewed with interest by the Legal Services Society in terms of whether there may be a demand for some additional services to members of the public who cannot otherwise afford lawyers. I'm wondering if there is any special arrangement with the Legal Services Society, any particular aspect of LSS funding that is touched by this, or whether perhaps this additional responsibility is simply one more job that the LSS has to do within its frozen budgetary allocation.
Hon. A. Petter: I suspect that the impact the Legal Services Society might have been concerned about would have occurred under part 2 of the act, which was not part of the package of what was proclaimed in the final analysis.
There are, perhaps, some small impacts under the abuse and neglect provisions that could put some small incremental pressures on LSS, but nothing, I think, that would raise the kinds of concerns the member was alluding to. So I suspect he's referring to what might have been impacts under part 2 but now are not because that was not, in the final analysis, part of the package of sections that was proclaimed.
G. Plant: I know that there were concerns even as recently as last summer. And I know what the minister is talking about in terms of some parts of the package of legislation that weren't proclaimed. But I think there was still a concern in terms of providing access to independent legal advice for health care decision-making, that that was an issue that was engaging the attention of some people in the LSS. Perhaps I could pursue that question one more time.
Hon. A. Petter: I think that the member is correct in saying there has been a concern around funding for the purpose he describes, but the Community Legal Assistance Society is being funded by the Ministry of Health to provide that assistance.
[1600]
G. Plant: That's helpful.
I want to ask some questions now about corrections branch issues. Again I want to express my appreciation to the minister's staff for providing me with some information here. One of the documents that I had awhile back -- and I don't know that we've had an opportunity to talk about it in this kind of a context -- is a report on the electronic monitoring program, done for the senior management committee at the corrections branch, that I think was presented to that committee late last November.
I think the terms of reference of the project go back into April of '99. That may provide a bit of a useful context for some questions around that. I'm not going to read those terms of reference in full. But the observation is made that the workload in the community division of the corrections branch, which includes bail, probation, parole, conditional sentences and temporary absences with electronic monitoring "
Approximately $5 million of the community division budget is used to operate the electronic monitoring program. The report talks about some important aspects of changes in the broader community workload, which includes a phenomenon that I think we've talked about in this estimates debate in years past, which is what's described here as the demonstrable hardening of the community caseload. I think that that's an experience that has been true across the corrections branch over the last number of years. The people who are in the care and custody, if you will, of the corrections branch are increasingly tending to be more serious, rather than less serious criminals.
I think there were some concerns about whether the electronic monitoring program was cost-efficient in terms of its use of limited resources. There was, I guess, the larger question of whether the program should perhaps be readjusted or refocused at a slightly different target community. At the risk of overgeneralizing to make the point, I suppose the question is whether the EMP was going to be targeted at a slightly higher risk category of inmate than had been traditionally the case. Could the minister indicate what the status of the program is today in light of this review that was conducted last year?
[1605]
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me introduce the two staff members who are here assisting me. First of all, to my right is Cindy Morton, who's the new deputy minister for the ministry. To my left is Don Demers, who is the assistant deputy minister for corrections.
The report that the member refers to is part of a larger process, a review, that is taking place with respect to the electronic monitoring program. As I understand it, the function of that review is to try to determine what the best use of resources is, by comparing the allocation of resources to electronic monitoring with that of probation -- to see, when you look at the relative risk of offenders, whether you're getting a more cost-effective result in one place or the other, or whether, for certain categories of offenders, it's more cost-effective in one place or the other.
As part of that review and ongoing assessment, there's also a pilot project that has been initiated based upon the recommendations in the report that the member referred to. That's going to focus on the northern region. The purpose is to carefully test and evaluate the various changes proposed in the review paper. The project is due to commence, actually
We've talked a lot, through these debates, about technology and the various ways in which it can assist. On the other hand, we want to make sure we're not using technology for its own sake or using a technology that is more expensive than a lower-tech alternative that may be as effective. So that's what the review is about.
At this stage EMP is not used for high-risk offenders. It's used for lower-risk offenders. That's why it's appropriate to compare it with probationary costs.
[ Page 15587 ]
G. Plant: When I had a look at the report, I was struck by the dedication of resources in terms of staff time required to administer the program. The minister's comments a moment ago about whether or not something that's lower-tech might be a more cost-effective system are apt in that regard. I'm trying to find the number in the report, but it seems to me that there was something like 5.6 participants enrolled in the program per corrections branch staff person. That struck me as being a very high dedication of staff resources. Actually, I've found it: "Another way to interpret the numbers supervised is to note that, on a daily basis, each FTE assigned to the electronic monitoring program is responsible for, on average, between 4.5 and 5.5 offenders."
I'm still struck by how labour-intensive the supervision seems to be for this. I wonder if the minister shares that concern or has any observations to make in respect of that question.
[1610]
Hon. A. Petter: To reiterate what I said earlier, but hopefully to focus a bit more on the member's issue, it's a matter of making sure the technology is appropriately used in a cost-effective way. EMP is less costly than custodial alternatives, and it was seen in that light when it was initially introduced as a less costly alternative to keeping prisoners in custody. On the other hand, as the member points out, on average at least, it is more costly than the options that exist within community supervision by a significant amount. The member's ratios probably come from information received from the ministry.
That's exactly why we need to carry through on this review and do some pilots -- so that we do use EMP appropriately to reduce cost where it can be used to do so but don't suddenly wake up and find that it's being used to provide more costly alternatives to community supervision in situations where community supervision can work as well.
G. Plant: I don't disagree with the thrust of the minister's remarks, but I still remain puzzled by the numbers we're talking about. It may be that I'm not as well-informed as I ought to be about the way the technology works. Theoretically, we have 300 individuals wandering around -- or rather, not wandering around, generally speaking; confined to their homes -- wearing technology that was recently displayed on provincewide television by a former NDP Member of Parliament. Maybe I'm way ahead of the technology here. It doesn't seem to me that it would require more than five or six people to sit by their radios listening carefully to administer all 300 people in the program -- who, after all, are mainly sitting at home wearing their bracelets.
When I say half a dozen, I actually mean two per eight-hour shift, 24 hours a day. Since there's Saturday and Sunday, maybe I should increase the number to seven or eight. I'm clearly missing something -- and I don't think I'm alone in this -- in terms of how this program works. Frankly, it seems remarkable to me that it takes a full-time staff person all of their working week to be plugged into the radio machine that is only tracking five people who are supposed to be, with respect, sitting in front of their TV sets in their living rooms at home 24 hours a day.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not quite as perplexed as the member, but that's only because I'm being briefed on this. The answer, as I understand it, is that first of all, you need six people at base to do the ongoing monitoring of the equipment on a 24-hour basis. Then the program is not confined to just electronic monitoring. There are other components in the forms of personal contact, etc., that are required in order to meet the objectives of the program, so it's not just electronic monitoring. There are other follow-up contacts that are required and made and supervision of a less continuous kind than you get in community supervision but more continuous than if it was just electronic monitoring and nothing else. I take it, when you put all of those elements together and apply it to the number of individuals who are currently on electronic monitoring, you end up with the ratio we discussed.
G. Plant: When I examine the figures for enrolment in the program, which the minister's staff kindly provided me, on a daily count basis averaged by month over the last fiscal year the average is 263 offenders. At the risk of reading too much into the statistics, it might be argued that there's a bit of a trend toward a decline in the enrolment in the program over the past year, although it came back up again in February and March. Is the minister able to say whether or not, from the corrections branch perspective, enrolment is remaining constant? Or is there a decline, perhaps, as a result of the ongoing consideration being given to the way in which the program should best be used?
[1615]
Hon. A. Petter: The numbers -- I think the member has this information -- appear to be staying fairly constant. The number last year was about 263, and the forecast number for the coming year is 262. The expectation is that the number will, over the next year at least, remain fairly constant. Now, I suppose that once these reviews and pilots are done, that could be subject to change. But as far as we know right now, we expect the level of electronic monitoring to remain about the same.
G. Plant: The report that I referred to earlier includes the observation that the count on EM fluctuates between 250 and 350 offenders, provincewide. For the 12 months for which I was given the statistics over the past year, there's really only one month in which the participation rose above 300. What is the program capacity, and if it's around about 350, why is the ministry sort of consistently running below that capacity by 50, 60 or 70 inmates or participants per month?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that although the capacity may be greater, the program comes with certain criteria -- medium-low-risk offenders -- and one doesn't want to apply it where the risk is sufficiently low that less costly suitable alternatives are available. The number of clients or offenders that we end up with, who are eligible for and enrolled in the program, is driven by those criteria. It's not a matter of having this capacity, and we've got to find offenders to meet it; it's a matter of having criteria that allow a number of offenders up to that capacity. The average of 260 is a reflection of those criteria.
G. Plant: Putting it another way, there are as many spaces occupied in the program as there are people qualified for it. Would that be an appropriate way of expressing it?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, qualified
[ Page 15588 ]
costly alternatives to electronic monitoring, the ministry would use those less costly alternatives.
[1620]
G. Plant: Electronic monitoring is interesting, because I think it does sometimes create the illusion that there is some sort of technological quick fix for corrections issues. As the report indicates, that's not necessarily so.
I want to put one other point to the minister, which involves looking at
The note that the minister's staff gave me goes on to say that offenders are not identified as waiting to be on EMP. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what his staff meant in providing that note. I'm still trying to get an overall picture of participation in the program.
Hon. A. Petter: I take it that what it means is that there is in fact no third category -- that there is no situation of no equipment and no supervision.
G. Plant: So if you're wearing the bracelets, you are in contact technologically with the supervision equipment. Is that a universal truth?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes -- and failed technology is the universal truth.
G. Plant: I think there is a delicate balance, or at least an interesting one, struck between the role of the judiciary in terms of fixing sentence and then the role of the corrections branch in determining what to do with an offender who has just been sentenced. I think that balance is sometimes more like a tension than a balance. I think the judiciary are often fairly jealous of their jurisdiction to determine what an appropriate sentence should be. Yet at the same time, I think the corrections branch is staffed with people who are professionals in the areas of risk assessment and of determining what is or is not an appropriate way to hold somebody in custody.
I may not be mistaken in assuming that the corrections branch is taking a slightly different approach to this. Or perhaps it's an evolving approach to the idea of risk profile and the role that plays in sentencing and then, ultimately, the relationship that has with the decisions made by judges. I wonder if the minister can alert me to what his ministry's perspective is on this issue at this point.
Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, there is obviously a balance or a tension in these kinds of matters. From the ministry's point of view -- and for many of the reasons we discussed around cost-effectiveness and the like -- electronic monitoring is viewed as a custodial option. And just as one might not expect the judiciary to decide what cell in which to locate a prisoner, I think the ministry's hope is that the judiciary wouldn't decide whether EMP is or is not an appropriate option but might provide some guidance, which the ministry would do its best to take account of.
[1625]
The problem here is that the technology has its limits. One might not want to apply EMP in a fairly dangerous offender situation -- and presumably wouldn't. At the same time, to use EMP in a situation where a lower-cost community alternative would work may be cost-ineffective. From the ministry's point of view, there's a feeling that if the judiciary can communicate the intention with respect to custodial versus non-custodial sentencing and the objective of any conditions attached to that, then the appropriateness of this particular technology and its cost-effectiveness is something the ministry will then try to make judgments on, consistent with judicial intent. That way we can apportion the responsibility in a way that resolves the tension or affects the balance.
G. Plant: If I may, I'd like to now take that answer, which was helpful but relatively confined to EMP in particular, and blow it up to the whole big-picture issue of the relationship between what judges do and what the corrections branch does around sentencing. I think that from the judges' perspective, they see themselves as being the point in the system which is most directly accountable to the public or to public opinion in terms of what should happen to a particular offender.
I have some sympathy for that position. It particularly seems to me to be a bit of a disconnect when the judge has tried to impose a custodial sentence, and then we find that the offender in question, having been given a certain assessment by the corrections branch, is not actually spending time in jail. It's not just a question of keeping the judges happy. I do think there is an important issue here around what the public expectation is for the role of sentencing.
I don't need to remind the minister that this seems to be a continuing issue of concern. I get a regular dose of correspondence, and there's certainly a regular blast of media on the question of whether or not judges are taking a hard enough line on particular kinds of crimes. When you throw into that mix, the additional element of what it is that happens to somebody when they're convicted of a crime and apparently sentenced to a custodial sentence but then given some sort of alternate disposition by a corrections branch on the basis of a risk assessment, I think the complications are more, rather than less. Could I revisit the last question, if you will, in the larger context of having the minister explain to me what he thinks the appropriate role of the corrections branch is in relation to the judicial role of determining what is and is not an appropriate sentence in particular offences?
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's question. This is another one of these issues where we try to grapple for the right balance. First of all, let me be absolutely clear that the corrections branch gives due consideration to all judicial recommendations and complies with all court orders. That's the starting point. However, there is an apportionment of responsibility here that hopefully can result in the best outcome.
There are certain decisions that the corrections branch may be able to make to achieve the purpose of the court order
[ Page 15589 ]
in a more cost-effective way than if that ultimate decision were made as a condition of the order. I think what is really needed here is good communication, understanding and confidence -- confidence on the part of judiciary that their orders will be respected and the conditions carried out and at the same time, confidence by the judiciary that if they do stipulate their conditions in a way that is less prescriptive, the intention will be carried out by the corrections branch in a way that doesn't impose undue hardship or cost, for example, on the taxpayer.
These are tough calls, because the member's right. The judiciary is under a lot of pressure these days to demonstrate they are making the right decisions, so there may well be a temptation to become very prescriptive in court orders or conditional sentencing. On the other hand, the danger of that is that could lead to putting demands upon the system that are in excess of what is in fact necessary to achieve the real purpose.
I think the solution, as in so many things, lies in good education and communication back and forth so that the apportionment of responsibility, as best it can be understood and shared
[1630]
G. Plant: The discussion can focus on a variety of considerations that are relevant in the context of sentencing and, oftentimes, from an administrative perspective -- that is, from the perspective of anyone administering the justice system and forced to live within limited fiscal constraints. The issues of safety of the public are given reasonable attention, and the issues that are specific to the offender and what is appropriate for that offender in terms of programming or those sorts of things, are often -- I think almost always -- given consideration by the administrators of the system.
The element that I think is sometimes lost from the public perspective as the person, the offender, is processed through the lens, from the point when they are before the court, are found guilty of something, to the point where they are in the custody of the corrections branch
Judges try to do that when they give sentences. It may be that you have a particular sentence where it can be demonstrated that a particular offender is in fact, for whatever reason, no longer a risk to the public but actually committed a crime that is pretty darn serious. A judge tried to give a sentence that was reflective of that and tried to give appropriate weight to the idea of expressing community denunciation for the act. Yet because the offender is not somebody who poses a real risk to the public, the offender "gets off light," to use the sort of conventional language of the public.
I want to have this minister's assurance, as a recent arrival to the position of Attorney General, that he recognizes the importance of denunciation as one factor among others and that his ministry recognizes that's an important factor. Really, as I've said before in this context, we have to be careful; we have to be mindful of fiscal constraints. But I don't think we can let the fiscal tail wag the sentencing dog, if I can put it that way.
[1635]
Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'd answer this way. If we're talking about denunciation in the sense that there is a censor placed upon conduct through the process of the courts that we have to make sure is maintained, then I agree with the member -- provided we are not equating that censor with revenge, for example. We are equating it with a need to put in a clear social -- I'll use the member's word -- denunciation. At the same time, I'm hopeful it's a form of denunciation that produces a positive outcome, where possible, and leads to rehabilitation -- and that's a fine balance sometimes.
If one goes to court and is found guilty of an offence, I would have thought that is indeed a form of denunciation. The question, then, about what further consequences flow from that is the very issue of corrections, and there are competing philosophies about that. Certainly I agree that sentencing should not undermine the element of censure, I'll call it -- denunciation the member calls it -- that is inherent in the criminal law. I would subscribe to that.
There are some, I fear, who think that the system should go further and that it's about seeking some form of revenge. I don't think that's what the member means. At the end of the day, the hope would be that the system can in fact rehabilitate offenders. Censure, I think, is an important part of that, provided one recognizes that it is to lead to that positive outcome -- hopefully, ideally, not always, perhaps not often enough.
G. Plant: One of the ways that we keep the hounds of the vengeful at bay is by ensuring that those of us who are responsible for the system take appropriate account of all the legitimate considerations -- the statutorily prescribed considerations, one of which is that principle of denunciation -- qualified by or added to by the other principles the minister is talking about.
I want to move on to a different aspect of corrections -- and I hope I'm in the right ballpark here -- and that is the business of psychological or psychiatric assessments for offenders, which the minister notes is in the public domain much of late. I want to explore a little bit further the minister's answers to some questions yesterday. My understanding is that in the case
The Criminal Code provisions that contemplate the possibility of a 30-day remand for psychiatric assessment are primarily directed at determining whether or not someone is fit to stand trial or might be found innocent by reason of insanity. The 30 days that the code permits could be extended to a further 30 days, but no further. When we are talking about the idea of sentencing -- of doing psychiatric reports in the context of sentencing after conviction -- we're really stepping outside the intended purpose of those provisions of the Criminal Code. Is that the minister's sense of the thrust of the law here?
Hon. A. Petter: No, I think the dangerous offender provisions fall within the ambit of the Criminal Code and do go to
[ Page 15590 ]
sentencing. I would include them within the ambit of the Criminal Code's contemplated forms of psychiatric assessment.
G. Plant: I think it's a different section from the section that includes the 30- and 60-day remand. As I understand it, the minister's position is that in terms of performing the psychiatric assessments that are court-ordered, the ministry accords a priority to assessments that are ordered for the purpose of determining fitness to stand trial or criminal insanity. As a result, there may be a lower priority afforded in terms of the use of limited existing resources to the use of or access to psychiatric assessments for the purpose of assisting in sentencing dispositions. Have I got the minister's position right? I'm trying to restate what he said in answer to a question yesterday.
[1640]
Hon. A. Petter: No, not quite right. Let me comment to the member, and then if he wants to explore it more fully, we may want to defer it until I can get the criminal justice branch back here again.
What I was saying yesterday was that -- and I was really reporting out on information I'd received from Crown counsel as to the experience, as I understood it, in the courts -- the decision on the allocation of resources is made by the Forensic Psychiatric Institute and that branch of the Ministry of Health. I was reporting out as to what the experience was in the courts as I understood it, based on information that was given to me by the assistant deputy minister of criminal justice from the Crown.
The experience was that they did not experience difficulties in respect of gaining the psychological assessments that were required within the time frame set out by the Criminal Code. By that I mean the full time frame, the 30 days plus the additional 30 days. It may be that a court or others would prefer it in a shorter time, but by the stipulated requirements of the Criminal Code, the assessments are provided within those 60 days -- 30 plus 30. I assume -- and the member may want to pursue this with the Ministry of Health -- that's because the institute has made it its priority to provide those assessments within the statutory time frame of the Criminal Code. Indeed, I was reporting out my understanding, based on the information I received, that such assessments were provided within that statutory time frame.
Where assessments are outside of the Criminal Code time frames in respect of fitness to stand trial or a person seeking a defence of not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder -- or dangerous offender hearings, for example, where they're required for dangerous offender hearings
It's not always possible to do so. It varies regionally. In some cases the time frames are exceeded; in some cases they're not. They have to prioritize based on an assessment of the immediacy and danger and court orders, etc. I'm hoping that further information will come forward to me, because of the fact that the ministry's reviewing these issues further with the forensic psychiatric services component of the Ministry of Health.
All I was doing was reporting the experience, as I understood it, to the House. If the member wants to get into the actual question of how these decisions are made, and how the priorities attach, that's a decision that's with the Ministry of Health and the psychiatric services component, not, as the member's question implied, with this ministry or with Crown counsel.
[1645]
G. Plant: So I'm clear on the process, if there is an order made or the requirement to conduct a psychiatric assessment for the purposes of fitness to stand trial or a possible plea of not guilty by reason of mental disorder, the matter, jurisdictionally speaking, leaves the Ministry of Attorney General and hits the Ministry of Health to comply with the requirements of the order. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'd feel a little more comfortable if I had criminal justice here, but I'll do my best.
As I understand the process, as I've already indicated, the experience has been that the outside time frames of the Criminal Code are adhered to. However, where the institute has difficulty in meeting the requirements of a forensic assessment within the requirements set down by a court order or the like, what they would tend to do is inform Crown counsel of that fact. The Crown would inform the court, and then there would be an effort made to try to set the matter back so as to allow for that time frame. There would be a communication back and forth, I take it, but ultimately, the responsibility for the assessments lies within the Ministry of Health.
G. Plant: And the funding for the staff, the physical plant and infrastructure and all of that to actually make it possible to make those assessments -- that's all Ministry of Health money?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, with respect to the services, it's Health.
G. Plant: I know that in the ministry's letter from 1997 there was reference to an option that the ministry had been discussing with Corrections officials concerning the development of specialized units for mentally disordered offenders located in correctional centres. There was talk about a pilot project for a 13-bed MDO unit at Vancouver Pretrial as a possible model. I think I saw a report from last year that indicated that had perhaps been pursued. I'm wondering if the minister could confirm my understanding and then provide a bit of an overview as to what role Corrections does have in terms of mentally disordered offenders. Who is it that goes into these units?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me confirm that indeed the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, in a partnership with the corrections branch, operates a 13-bed mental health unit inside the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre. As I understand it, the way it operates is that the commission pays for the actual provision of psychiatric services -- as I indicated before, consistent with my previous answer. The security and the building occupancy charges would be covered through the budget of the corrections branch in this ministry.
G. Plant: Conceivably the units could house people who fit all of the various profiles we've been talking about in the
[ Page 15591 ]
course of this discussion: people who are being assessed for fitness to stand trial; people who are being assessed for the possible plea of being not guilty by reason of a mental disorder; people who may be under assessment for the purposes of a dangerous offender application; people who are under assessment for the purposes of a pre-sentencing report, in some cases; or finally, people who are serving custodial sentences but are experiencing a mental disorder. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: Any manner of inmate who suffers from a mental disorder, including the ones who fall under the various categories the member has described.
[1650]
G. Plant: Is there a shortage in capacity of these beds? Is there a wait-list, if you will, for people to get them? What's the status on that front?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that one could always find more inmates to fill more beds, if there were more beds. It's a little difficult to answer, because in fact there are psychiatric services provided elsewhere throughout the corrections system, and where these beds aren't available, then those services are provided elsewhere. I think, frankly, if there were twice as many beds, they probably would find inmates who would be suitable to fill them. Insofar as there are as many as there are, those inmates receive services elsewhere within the corrections system.
G. Plant: I think my question may have or probably led the minister to think that I was asking it specifically only in relation to the unit in the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre. I think the fairer question really would have been the system-wide question, so I acknowledge the minister's attempt to answer it on that basis.
I guess the other way of putting the question is to ask: at any given moment in time, is there room in custody for all of those people who are subject to orders that they be detained in custody within the legal parameters that we've been talking about, including the Criminal Code provisions?
Hon. A. Petter: It's a bit speculative for me to say. There have been various reports and studies suggesting that there is a very high level of mental disorder associated with criminal behaviour and present within our system. So one can speculate that if there were more services, there would be more use for those services. I think this in fact is one of the issues that is the subject of review by an ADMs' committee and has to be part of ongoing discussions between this ministry and the Ministry of Health. Clearly the prevalence of mental disorder within the prison population is something that is of growing social concern. At what level one effects the appropriate level of service is, I think, an open question and one that I think is subject to ongoing review.
[1655]
G. Plant: Let me try my question, then, a little bit more precisely. I wasn't intending to engage the minister in the difficult task of trying to determine how much mental disorder exists among the inmate population within the jurisdiction of the corrections branch and the Ministry of Attorney General of B.C. I was actually more concerned with the, I hope, smaller category of people who are in custody as a result of judicial direction that they be in custody for the purpose of being assessed for fitness to stand trial, for determining whether or not they will have a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disorder, for the purpose of determination of whether or not a dangerous offender designation should be sought, and so on -- people who are the subject of a judicial order that they be detained in custody for that purpose. Those are the people I'm talking about. The question is: is there room for all of those people, or is there a capacity problem for those people?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'm not sure this is going to provide the member with the number he's looking for. If it doesn't, I think what we'll have to do is to try to get back to him with that, because I'm not sure the figures are broken up this way.
I'm informed that of the two most serious categories, which would be mentally ill and certifiable, and mentally ill and not certifiable, there would probably be a hundred inmates who would meet those two findings of a mental illness in that sense -- that's not to say the number that's being assessed at any one time, but the number who are found to fit within those categories. Those would be the priority for mental health services within the prison system and would be receiving services on that basis.
G. Plant: I am concerned to know that anyone who is directed, traditionally, to be held in custody pending or while these assessments are being conducted is in fact held in custody, as opposed to discovering that there is no room for them. It's probably just the way I'm asking the question. I'll see if the minister could give me that confirmation.
Hon. A. Petter: I must have misconstrued the member. I apologize if that's the case. If the member's question is, "Is that category of inmates who are held for assessment held?" the answer is yes, absolutely. The answer is simply yes.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. I want to ask some questions about community justice. I want to begin by asking questions about legal aid. Mr. Demers would probably love to be in a position to assist with that part of the discussion.
D. Demers: We have troops on the way.
[1700]
G. Plant: Wonderful.
The first question is a question I should probably have asked in the briefings, and I apologize for it. Can the minister tell me how much provincial sales tax was collected from lawyers' fees in the fiscal year that's just ended -- and perhaps, if he's got it, the number for the year before that?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, this, of course, is a question that should be directed to the Minister of Finance. The amount collected from provincial sales tax on legal fees in '98-99 is $83.1 million. I guess that's $83 million, roughly.
G. Plant: Does the ministry have a figure for '99-2000 yet?
Hon. A. Petter: For this fiscal year, I think the projection is around $88 million.
[ Page 15592 ]
A Voice: I wonder where this is going.
G. Plant: Yes. The minister may wonder where this is going. I'm sure the minister knows, so we'll see if we can figure out how to fill in the rest of the blanks.
The ministry was kind enough to provide me with the note that
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
G. Plant: Actually, that is in the Legal Services Society annual report. The provincial grant for '98-99, I think, consisted of $81.5 million as the basic grant plus $535,000 to pay the human rights tariff costs and to help with the society's Y2K project. That would be a total provincial contribution of just a little bit more than $82 million. Does the minister have any trouble with those numbers?
Hon. A. Petter: This feels like a courtroom. No.
G. Plant: Now, one that's a little harder for me to get my head around
On page 40 of the annual report of the Legal Services Society for 1998-99, the accumulated deficit has been reduced between the '98 year and the '99 year from $16.1 million to $10.3 million, a reduction of something like $5,878,000. I'm not sure that that actually is an amount that, in effect, was repaid to the province over the course of the '98-99 year. I think that the number that the province considers is the reduction in the deficit would be smaller than that. It may be that someone will have to ask the author of the Legal Services Society balance sheet why that number there is almost $6 million, versus the number that the Attorney thinks was actually repaid. What is the number that the Attorney thinks was actually repaid in respect of that accumulated deficit -- or reduced may be the better term -- in the '98-99 fiscal year?
[1705]
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's question may be based on a misapprehension. There is no repayment of debt to the province. This is a reduction in accounts payable, and therefore the number indicated from $16.1 million to $10.3 million represents that reduction year over year from 1998 to 1999. There is no payment back to the province.
G. Plant: In effect, the society is carrying a deficit on its books, but by means of its operation, is reducing that deficit over time to the point where, hopefully in the near future, it will become zero. Is that a correct way of putting it?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
G. Plant: So the reduction, then, over 1998-99 is the $5,800,000-and-some-odd difference between those two figures recorded as the accumulated deficit figures on page 40 of the annual report. The way the society gets there, presumably, is by reducing its expenditures in relation to its revenue. Is that a fair comment?
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
G. Plant: Wonderful. The minister will now be delighted to know that we get to do the arithmetic.
The province notionally gives the society $82 million, but of course actually got $8 million of that from the feds, which reduces the amount the province actually had to fork out by $8 million. Then there's the fact that the society is having to operate in a way that allows its accumulated deficit to be reduced, in this case to the tune of almost $6 million. What looks like a provincial grant of something like $82 million to the Legal Services Society works out to be more like $68 million of actual and accounted-for cost versus revenue to the province from the PST of something like $83 million.
Someone who was less than kindly disposed to the provincial government would argue that the province has, in effect, profited to the tune of $15 million from the legal aid system, in the sense that it has collected $83 million from the clients of lawyers in British Columbia but has really only actually had to fork out something like $68 million -- including both actual cash and the accounting for the impact of the accumulated deficit on the operational expenditures of the society of something like $68 million.
I'm sure we can quibble about the numbers, but the larger public policy question still remains. Isn't there something wrong with the government taking all this money from legal accounts as a result of a tax which was imposed, the justification of which was for legal aid, yet it doesn't actually really direct all of that revenue into the legal aid system?
[1710]
Hon. A. Petter: I guess I have difficulty with the member's analysis. The fact that the Legal Services Society chooses
In respect of the other matter, I accept the member's analysis that there are funds contributed by the federal government. But if you're going to deduct those funds, then I think you
You know, we can easily go and enlarge the circle of the kinds of services and programs the province provides in respect of legal-type matters that are being funded, one might
[ Page 15593 ]
argue, from the revenues that are derived from the tax, such as the family maintenance enforcement program, at $14 million; the debtor assistance program, at almost $1 million; the family justice counsellor services program, at $7 million; or even the residential tenancy program, at $7 million -- all of which are providing to the public services that might otherwise be provided in one form or another by legal aid lawyers. The extent someone gets assistance from the debtor assistance program or gets assistance from the residential tenancy branch is the extent to which they may not require legal aid services, for example.
Sure, one can argue: "Let's take this off the table and that off the table. Then we equate that to the amount collected in the tax, and the tax is larger than the amount given." First of all, I don't think one of the things you're taking off the table is justified, and that's the reduction of deficit component. In addition, the government spends money from tax revenue, which one might as well attribute to this tax, on all sorts of other important purposes that provide the public with services in respect of legal matters.
G. Plant: The public policy rationale that was offered in defence of the introduction of the tax on legal services was that the money would be used to pay for legal aid. The minister's rationale is quite different. The minister's rationale is that the tax collected from lawyers' accounts can be used to fund a wide variety of activities in the legal system, including the residential tenancy program, the debtor assistance program and the other ones he mentioned. Is the minister comfortable with this change of policy approach to the use of the funds collected from the clients of the lawyers of British Columbia -- the lawyers and the notaries, for that matter?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I think it's important to note that B.C. spends more per capita on legal aid than any other province and is well above the national average. The national average, I think, is $15 per capita, and B.C.'s expenditure is $22 per capita. B.C. also, I might say, receives a lower proportion of the shareable legal aid costs from the federal government than any other province -- about 27 percent. The average is about 37 percent. I think B.C. does have an extraordinary commitment to legal aid, as reflected in those numbers.
Beyond that, the member says that clients who receive legal services pay a tax. My response is that that's true. Does all of that tax revenue go to the provision of legal aid, or can it be equated to it? The answer is no. But can it be equated to other useful services that provide those same people with services that are helpful to them in resolving legal matters? The answer is clearly yes.
I go back to the family maintenance enforcement program, a very useful and helpful program in providing the resolution of important legal matters. If such a program didn't exist, it might well fall on the shoulders of legal aid, at $14 million. And the debtor assistance program and certainly residential tenancy -- all these programs provide resolutions of matters that might otherwise fall on the shoulders of legal aid services or not be funded at all and provide useful services to those people who pay that tax.
[1715]
You put it all together, and we're leading the country in terms of our commitment to legal aid. We provide other useful services that provide people with alternatives to legal aid in resolving legal matters. You wrap it all up, and that overall amount is well in excess of what's collected through the tariff. I dare say that there's a redistributive effect as well, because many of these services go to help people who are in lower-income categories and could not afford legal categories, which of course is the function of legal aid as well.
G. Plant: I think the difficulty, though, is that among other things, because of the impact of the funding constraints experienced by the Legal Services Society over the last two or three years, the society has in fact cut back across a range of areas in terms of the services that it does provide. That in turn, in fact, has redistributive effects and poses additional costs on the legal system.
For example, when there is a shortage of duty counsel available in the criminal court system, then the work now being done by duty counsel ends up being done by somebody else. It ends up being done either by native courtworkers or by other court liaison workers. It may end up being done by justices of the peace and judges, who now have in front of them litigants who formerly would have been entitled to, or had access to, some publicly funded legal representation at the outset of their experience of the criminal justice system, for the purpose of knowing whether or not they really should just plead guilty and get it over with or in fact embark upon a defence.
They aren't now in a position, because they don't have the advice they need to make that decision. They end up being dragged along three or four steps, at least, into the criminal case process. Then they take up time in courts, because the judges feel obliged to ensure that people who appear before them and are unrepresented are given every opportunity by the judge, at least, to understand the circumstances and the potential consequences that face them. In fact, the system does not get off lightly when the Legal Services Society is forced to cut back on services.
Those, I think, are equally important systemic effects as the argument that the Attorney makes about taking money out of the Legal Services Society so that it can fund the family maintenance enforcement program or the impact
The minister defends the underfunding of legal aid by reference to other programs. The problem is that the underfunding of legal aid has an impact on the system as a whole, which I would argue may well in fact increase the cost of the system as a whole. It certainly decreases its efficiency and perhaps also operates to create real injustice for people who are charged with criminal offences which may have a serious impact on their lives and yet are no longer able to afford or have access to retain counsel.
Hon. A. Petter: I've got to debate my breakout, hon. Chair.
I appreciate the member's correction that he was not suggesting that money was being taken out of the legal aid pot to put elsewhere, because that of course is not the case.
[ Page 15594 ]
Nor has funding been cut for Legal Services. It's been maintained. As I've already indicated, far from underfunding -- at least relative to other provinces -- this province overfunds relative to every other province.
What has happened here is
Before we get there, let's talk about why the duty counsel issue has arisen and what the problem is. It isn't that the province has withdrawn funding. It's that there is a major new incremental pressure that's been brought to bear on the Legal Services Society in the form of the services they now have to provide in respect of new issues resulting from the migration, or the in-migration, of the Chinese immigrants on the boats recently -- estimated this year to be as much as a million dollars. If you add to that the fact that there's another $4 million of services that are expended on immigration for which the federal government provides no compensation to the province, then we get to the root of what the real problem is here.
[1720]
I agree with the member's concerns on duty counsel. If that million dollars were funded, the money would be there to restore that duty counsel funding, as it should be. If the federal government came to the table and put in another $4 million to cover the rest of those services that are provided for immigration, we would be in an even better position. If they provided the average that's provided to other provinces, we would be in a better position still.
If we're going to harness our energy on underfunding, the figures clearly show that the province is not underfunding. What is happening is that the federal government is not providing compensation for -- starting with -- the extraordinary expense that was incurred last year and that is likely to increase this year in respect to the migrants and the ongoing expense relative to matters that the federal government has a particular responsibility and interest in with respect to immigration or the national average.
So I would invite the member: let us work together in harnessing our collective concern about federal underfunding so that we might bring more money to bear. If we can get even that $1 million from the federal government for the expected pressure due to the Chinese migration that's expected this year, then we would be able to assist the Legal Services Society in providing duty counsel.
G. Plant: I would enthusiastically knock on the door of the government of Canada along with the minister to demand that the government of Canada ensure that the province is not out of pocket for the impact placed upon a wide variety of provincial services, not just legal aid, arising out of the influx of migrants and refugees from mainland China. If the minister is looking for an enthusiastic partner in that campaign, then let me be the first to join him.
If, on the other hand, the minister is just looking for a little money, let me tell you where he can find it. Last year he thought he was
Five million dollars could buy a lot of duty counsel. Five million dollars could go to the Legal Services Society and say: "You know that accumulated deficit, for which you are having to reduce your expenditures and your services in order to ensure that you can repay it? We'll hold off on that one more year, because -- guess what -- we've got $5 million more this year collected from the ordinary folks out there in the world who have to go and get a lawyer to help them draft a mortgage document or all the things that people do to get legal services."
If the problem is that there isn't enough money, I don't think that's a problem. The clients of the lawyers of British Columbia are forking out another $5 million this year, which is going to go
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: It occurs to me, hon. Chair, that the member may have been sitting in opposition as critic for this ministry for a number of years now in the false belief that the Attorney General actually collects this tax and gets to keep it in a little kitty in the corner drawer and disburse it as he or, should we have a woman in this role, she sees fit. Regrettably, from my current perspective, that's not the case, of course. One has to seek funding through the normal processes of Treasury Board, and this funding is pooled with others in the consolidated revenue fund.
[1725]
Having said that, I do want to go back to the point I made earlier -- that legal aid costs are important. I'm very concerned. Because I didn't go back to this earlier, I think I should emphasize it. The provision of legal aid is a very important public service that we provide in this province. We must continue to provide that service, and we must do so in a way that meets, as best we can, the growing pressures in respect of such services.
But the funding still has to be prioritized within the larger envelope of funding, and we also have to be mindful of other programs that provide useful services to individuals to help them vindicate their legal rights as well, such as the family maintenance enforcement program -- $14 million -- and residential tenancy -- $7 million. If you put all those together with this, you see that the tax collected from those who pay for legal services is returned in the form of legal services or these other services in a way that I think shows some balance.
Then, when you go back to the comparison we talked about earlier, you find this province, even in respect of legal services alone, is leading the country in its commitment to legal aid.
G. Plant: Perhaps in the context of that vigorous defence of the right or the importance of providing legal services to those who need them, I might ask the minister to comment on one related issue.
I've got a press release here that's probably not in the Attorney General's briefing materials, because it's actually a
[ Page 15595 ]
Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture press release. It's dated March 10 of this year. The heading is
I would be the first person to want to express my profound support for the role of artists in terms of making our society an interesting and useful place to live. But I wonder whether the minister is able to comment on whether in fact his ministry has undertaken work to develop a legal advice program for artists to be funded in part by the legal services plan. The minister will no doubt form the conclusion that I am, examining the suitability of that recommendation in the context of such matters as the fact that the Legal Services Society has just gutted the duty counsel program in the courts of British Columbia.
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, just to be completely clear, the duty counsel program has been reduced only in respect of non-custodial duty counsel -- I think the member knows that -- but that's not to diminish the concern that we should try to secure funding to do that. I've already suggested the appropriate way to do that, because I think there's a pretty direct correspondence between the increased pressure as a result of migrants from mainland China and the pressure that poses in that reduction.
There have been no discussions to date in respect of the recommendations the member refers to with respect to the provision of legal services for artists, but there may well be some discussions. If the Ministry of Small Business comes forward, there obviously would be some discussions. But I must say that I don't envisage this as a priority that would lay claim to the existing budget of the Legal Services Society.
G. Plant: The minister referred to the impact on the budget of the Legal Services Society of the additional costs of providing legal service to refugee claimants, and there is every expectation that that is a challenge we will face again in the year to come. As a first question: what planning has the ministry done, either in conjunction with the Legal Services Society or not, to try to anticipate what this year's costs might be? And then secondly, are there at least discussions ongoing with the federal government in an attempt to persuade the federal government to reimburse the province for these additional expenditures?
[1730]
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the estimate was generated, in conjunction with the Legal Services Society, that the pressure
G. Plant: Well, as I said, I'd be happy to provide whatever support might conceivably be useful on that front.
I want to move away from the Legal Services Society to the issue of residential tenancy for a moment or two. The Residential Tenancy Act was amended, I think, in the relatively recent past to change some of the
Hon. A. Petter: I'm tempted to say yes and sit down, but it's only because, in so far as we know, there have been none.
G. Plant: The lack of any such prosecutions would be an indication that there is not a large number of landlords who are breaching their legal obligations under the act including, for example, their obligations in relation to such matters as damage deposits. Has the ministry conducted any analysis -- formal study -- of the incidence of landlord compliance with their legal obligations under the act?
Hon. A. Petter: No, I don't think that's entirely correct. In order to pursue a prosecution, you would need have a tenant who was prepared to be supportive of that prosecution. One of the difficulties has been that not all tenants are prepared to devote the time and energy to vindicating their rights through a prosecution. I think this is an issue that is being reviewed to see how we can ensure better enforcement of the act.
Of course, there's an arbitration process, as well, that hopefully resolves many, if not most, of the disputes where tenants are prepared to become involved. Still and yet, I don't think one can simply assume that the absence of prosecutions is necessarily an indication that all landlords in the province are living up to their obligations.
G. Plant: That's fair enough. I guess the question is what analysis, if any, has been done to determine whether or not landlords are in fact fairly living up to their obligations? One hears from time to time anecdotal evidence about bad landlords, and one hears anecdotal evidence from time to time about bad tenants, but I think there are limits to the utility of anecdotal evidence.
[1735]
I am particularly curious to know whether the ministry has done any form of analysis of whether there is a problem out there, for example, in relation to damage deposits. I know the ministry has had the Residential Tenancy Act under consideration for a number of years, and certainly there have been a number of opportunities to look at this issue. Is there any analysis out there -- any form of rigorous study, I guess -- that would indicate whether there is a problem with landlord compliance in relation to such matters as damage deposits?
Hon. A. Petter: I can't provide the member with a statistical analysis. There certainly is, I think, a sense that on the issue of deposits, in particular, there is not complete compliance. One of the difficulties is, however, that often the issue is one that tenants -- if they are prepared to resolve it -- will try to resolve through arbitration, which is fairly costly and may be time-consuming.
But to pursue a prosecution in those circumstances, I think, is probably not realistic for a number of different rea-
[ Page 15596 ]
sons, some of which are the cost of the prosecution, the time it would take and the priority that would have to be attached to it, in light of what is likely a relatively small amount of money. The other is, as I said earlier, that tenants are often not prepared to be supportive of such prosecutions under such circumstances.
G. Plant: Moving away from the use of the criminal law, if you will, in this context and moving away from the subject of prosecutions more generally, the minister says there is a sense that there is a problem. I'm not sure what it is that constitutes the evidence upon which he is able to make that statement. I mean, it seems to me that a very good way to be in a position to make that statement -- an objective way, a legitimate way to be able to make that statement -- would be to say that there has been a study done. A bad way of making that assessment would be to go on the basis of the phone calls that the ministry got over the course of the last six months or a year. So I am curious to know whether there's been any kind of disciplined, rigorous examination of this issue.
Hon. A. Petter: Maybe the following information will be helpful to the member. About one-third of the arbitrations that are done do relate to this deposit issue; that's about 8,000 cases. So a very substantial amount of the time and energy is related to this. In addition, about 1,300 director's orders per year, I believe, are for return of deposits. So those numbers, I think, are indicative of the fact that the deposit issue is a central concern. This is not an issue that is being resolved voluntarily in all cases; 8,000 arbitrations is a substantial amount of time and energy. As I say, it constitutes about one-third of the total arbitrations that take place and is indicative that in fact this is a serious concern.
G. Plant: Is the minister able to say whether the only issue in those 8,000 arbitrations was the return of the deposit? Or might it also be the case that, in fact, in the vast majority of those cases there was probably some argument about some other issue that might include, for example, a landlord saying: "Well, you've damaged my suite. I don't want to return the damage deposit because the damage to my suite exceeds the amount of the deposit"?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have the information here; we don't have it here. I can try to get it for the member, as to how many of these cases would be landlord-initiated and how many would be tenant-initiated, in terms of trying to secure the return of the deposit versus trying to retain the deposit and perhaps seek additional amounts. If the member would like that information, I can see if it is obtainable.
I might also point out that there are other studies or data submitted by other organizations suggesting that the deposit issue is a major concern and that problems do arise for tenants. But the member is probably privy to some of those same organizations and the information they provide, as I am.
G. Plant: I wonder if I could just pursue a little bit further the last question that I asked. It was partly answered. The question was whether there were other issues likely to be a part of the arbitrations that the minister earlier indicated were about damage deposits. The minister's figure was 8,000 arbitrations dealing with damage deposits. My guess would be that a fairly large number of them -- perhaps the vast majority; I don't know -- would have been arbitrations in which there were other issues, going one way or the other, that affected the damage deposit. So it wasn't just simply a question of getting the damage deposit back, but someone was saying there was some other problem. And really, it may have been the other problem that was the primary concern.
[1740]
Hon. A. Petter: There may be other issues. But the fact remains that in these 8,000 cases, the damage deposit was an issue, and there was a disagreement or dispute with respect to whether or not that deposit should be returned.
G. Plant: That's helpful. The minister is saying that in those 8,000 cases, the return of the deposit was an issue as opposed to the only issue. That was really the clarification that I was seeking.
The minister may overstate the case when he indicates that I would be privy to the same studies that he is, which have been done on this by outside organizations. Maybe I could impose on the minister's staff to, in the fullness of time, let me know what other studies there are by other organizations that are a part of the ministry's consideration of the question of compliance with rules around damage deposits.
I have one general question, which could be broken down into specific parts, about the criminal injury compensation program. I then have some questions about the family maintenance enforcement program. We may end up deferring some of those to the next sitting. I'll hold onto that thought for a moment.
What I've been trying to do is get some sense of the relationship between the amount estimated as the program expenditure for the criminal injury compensation program and the amount actually spent. I appreciate that we're talking about a statutory program that has to be funded to the extent of its expenditure and that the budgetary estimates are just that -- estimates.
When I try to relate the actual expenditures from the Public Accounts, which only go up to '98-99
Hon. A. Petter: Indeed.
G. Plant: What I'm going to do is table a document, if I may. I don't have to table it; I'll give it to the minister in due course. We'll spare the attempt to table documents.
The Chair: In committee -- thank you.
[1745]
G. Plant: I hate to burden the Chair with more paper than he needs to do his job.
Even when I adjust for the difference between the filing dates, I still can't adjust the numbers. I can't pretend that I have sat down and done an attempt at a month-by-month analysis. But let me just give the minister a bit of an indication
[ Page 15597 ]
of the problem I'm having, and then I'll give the minister the paper. Then perhaps we'll come back on Monday, and he'll have the answer.
In '96-97, for example, the actual expenditure is $26.7 million, according to the public accounts. For the 1996 calendar year the program's annual report gives its expenditure at $26.6 million. So notwithstanding the overlap, the expenses are about the same. But over the course of the next two years the actual expenditure in the public accounts is $2 million or $3 million more than the program's expenditure as recorded in the annual report. I'm trying to find that missing money. It may be that it's only missing because of the difference in reporting periods. I'll give the minister a copy of that.
I'm a little bit in the minister's hands. There are a couple of my colleagues who want to ask some questions about the family maintenance enforcement program. Maybe I can do this one bit of business. There was some public controversy last year around the retendering of the contract for the family maintenance enforcement program. That program is delivered by a private sector, non-government agency. Given the public controversy that arose last year and given the obvious public interest in a reasonable level of accountability for performance by agencies outside government that are performing services, could the minister give a bit of an overview of the status of the work being done to tender the FMEP project?
The Chair: Before I recognize you, minister, I'll just let you know that the other committee has risen. So we would expect the motion here very quickly.
Hon. A. Petter: The short answer -- and then we'll come back the next day and discuss it if the member wants to -- is that we will be going into a tendering process as soon as we can. The documents are being prepared. The existing contract was extended for a two-year period, which was shorter than had been previously intended and just long enough to allow that tendering process to take place and a transition to take place, should there be a new contractor.
Having said that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada