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)
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 17
[ Page 15639 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Reports from Committees
B. Goodacre: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
[1005]
Hon. I. Waddell: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this House we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in the small House we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.
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).
R. Thorpe: Where we left off yesterday was talking about ambulance service and charges as they relate to folks who unfortunately need those in being transported from one hospital to another hospital within a region.
Hon. Chair, in the flurry of the way the session ended yesterday, I just wanted to clarify something that I believe the Minister of Health said yesterday -- that this had not been reviewed for some 15 years. I'm just wondering if we could start off by
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said yesterday, I think it's been in place for at least 15 years. The member is correct. It hasn't been changed in that length of time.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister would acknowledge that the health care system in British Columbia has gone through a few changes in the last 15 years -- quite a few changes in recent years and anticipated changes in the future. Does the minister believe that it would be timely to conduct a review of this long-standing policy, which many constituents are saying is out of date with the changes that have taken place and, more importantly, with the services that are needed in the future? Would the minister agree that a review is needed, and if so, when will it be done?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I agree. I think that we do need to recognize that things change over time and that policies
[1010]
R. Thorpe: The last part of my question is: when would we do it? Perhaps because it was a lengthy question, the minister didn't get a chance to answer that.
Let me just expand upon that. Would the minister also then agree that this is a review that should be
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of ways in which we can review policy changes. For example, one of them is to have the health committee working on an all-party legislative committee -- have the Health Committee working on that is one possibility. The second is within the ministry itself. Another one is
Whatever review is taken, I think that there is always a place for members of this House to have input, whether it's through their own recommendations or whether it's working with me and the ministry to determine what's taking place. Whatever format is used, I don't see any problem if the hon. member wishes to be involved in terms of giving me his thoughts. I don't see that being a problem.
R. Thorpe: What I'd like to do is ask the minister for a commitment to get back to this House -- by, say for argument's sake, June 15, well over a month from now -- on what proposal he would have for review. I would also say, in asking the minister to commit to that date, that if we're going to talk about doing something, let's make some commitments out there. Let's get our staff focused on doing some of these reviews.
I'd also ask the minister to seriously consider, in bringing that review back, that after his review this item be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. As they said in the throne speech, a new spirit of working together, trying to serve all British Columbians
Hon. M. Farnworth: I've given the member a commitment that we will do a review, and that's what will take place. I'm not going to commit to a specific date today.
The other thing that I would like to do is
[ Page 15640 ]
Health Committee. I would like to see that committee activated, and I have said that publicly. That's one of the committees I think we need to resolve. There are a number of pressing issues that could be resolved by the committee, so certainly I will consider this particular issue. But there are also about three or four others that I'm considering as well.
R. Thorpe: I don't want to belabour the point, but I know the member was a very active member of the Public Accounts Committee of this Legislature. I know that this member also knows that that committee had some very talented people on it. I'm sure that Health and Social Services has equally talented people. He also knows that they are able to handle a number of items at one time. We don't just have to hand off one project; we could hand off five or six projects.
[1015]
Let me move along here. Contingency funds
Hon. M. Farnworth: We don't have a specific line item that says "contingency."
R. Thorpe: Actually, I'm well aware of that. But within the various budgets, I would like to know what contingency funds are set up within each one of the line items. Just to help focus the minister and perhaps the staff, I'll quote from a letter of November 23, 1998, to the then Public Accounts Chair, the late member for Delta South: "We normally have various contingency funds to deal with health care delivery pressures that arise during the years." Those were the funds to which I was referring. That letter came from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry Responsible for Seniors. Do those various contingencies still exist, or has there been a policy change? If they do exist, could we please be provided with a list?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The letter that the hon. member has refers to the contingency vote which is within government, not within this ministry. That is under the purview of the Minister of Finance.
R. Thorpe: Then can I conclude that the minister
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think we need to clarify the terms that we're using here. The member is using "contingency" and "discretionary" interchangeably. The fact of the matter is that there's a difference between the two. Within our budgets there is considerable discretion. However, in terms of a specific contingency fund within the ministry, there are not budgeted contingency funds. But certainly in terms of budgetary allocations to projects and programs
R. Thorpe: I am pleased to hear that the minister is now advising us that there are discretionary funds that have not been -- or I am assuming have not been -- allocated to various programs. Without having to go through all this detail now, would the minister then provide us, the official opposition, with a list of where all of those discretionary funds are located throughout the $8 billion-plus budget, and the amounts of those funds?
[1020]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Perhaps I can explain to the hon. member how the discretion flexibility is in the system. It's not in terms of a budgetary item. As I said, there's not a budgetary contingency fund. What happens in the course of the health care budget is that during the year
Likewise in terms of program implementation. A program that is designed to deliver a particular service may come in slightly under budget -- lower than expected. You get flexibility there. The take-up, the time it takes to get something up and running, may in fact be longer than is anticipated; again, there is flexibility there. That's where there is the ability in the system to find flexibility to be able to do reallocation. It's not a question of saying that in this specific program there are X dollars that may or may not be there. It's much more in terms of being tied to particular projects and when and how they come on -- in terms of programs, the usage take-up, the time in the cycle when they come to fruition.
[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: Well, actually, I wasn't talking about capital projects; this is estimates, and we are talking about operating budgets here.
Let me try to be as specific as I can. Can the minister advise: within the budget that covers cardiac wait-lists in the province today, is every dollar now specifically allocated or are there dollars -- and I would think there may be -- that are earmarked for the next time there's a big public outcry with respect to cardiac wait-lists in the province? How much money is allocated in the Ministry of Health's current operating budget -- their discretionary budget -- to say: "We now have some new money, and we're going to deal with that right now"? How much is earmarked in this budget right now?
[1025]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's much better, hon. member, when we get straight to the point, as opposed to the dance of well, well, well, maybe
I would like to make one point. In terms of capital projects, when you're dealing with capital, you're also dealing with operating. If there's a delay in the implementation of capital, then that also has a point in terms of operating.
However, specifically, the member talking about cardiac services
[ Page 15641 ]
happening there. If we need extra money through the course of the year, for example, then we have two options: either (1) we find it internally within the ministry, or (2) we go to government -- to Treasury Board -- and say that we have this pressure, and we want to have it funded.
R. Thorpe: So I guess what the minister was saying is that we have had some experience; we take the expertise of this select panel that we have. Knowing that we have some experience, one would assume that you would build your current budget based on the demographics of your province and your experience of the past. My question is: what, then, is allocated in this current budget? We know that at some point in time during the year a problem is probably going to crop up. It's happened every year since I've been here. I would like to know what kinds of funds are allocated for crisis management with cardiac care in the province of British Columbia for this fiscal year.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We budget, hon. member, on the basis of the best advice we get. We do that on an annual basis. We have flexibility within that budget so that if with one particular procedure there is not as high a demand as has been anticipated, then the money allocated in the budget allocation overall is used in areas of other cardiac procedures which will fill up the void.
R. Thorpe: I'm moving along to orthopedic wait-lists. Does the minister have a standard of what is an acceptable wait-list for orthopedic work, specifically knee replacement?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I know the member knows my interest in performance evaluation and performance standards. I am pleased to tell the hon. member that that is one thing we are currently working on. We have an orthopedic panel in place, and one of their tasks is to develop an acceptable level of standard for how long it should take.
R. Thorpe: So I guess what the minister is confirming to me is that we don't have such standards today. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We do not have as of today, but we are developing them and will have them soon. I attach great importance to that, because we need those types of benchmarks within the Ministry of Health.
[1030]
R. Thorpe: Would it be the minister's expectation that there would be a standard for the province that would be applied fairly and equitably over all parts of this province with respect to that performance measure?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is the idea behind developing standards. I would add that when we complete this, we will be the only province in the country that has done this.
R. Thorpe: I don't want to get into this debate, but I know that the member was an active member of Public Accounts at the time when the deputy ministers' council on this subject discussed this some five years ago. I wish you well, but I'm from Missouri on some of these things. Time will tell. It tells all, doesn't it?
With respect to that, the average -- the median -- wait-list in the province, from the ministry's web site, is 18 weeks for knee surgery. I'm just wondering. When I look at goal 5 here in "Strategic Directions for British Columbia," one objective is "to distribute resources appropriately to all areas of the province." I assume that means all regions of the province. Does the minister think it's acceptable when the median wait time for knee replacement is 18 weeks
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct in anticipating my response around the first part of his question.
As to the second part of his question, last year we made an allocation into the base for an additional 1,000 procedures to be performed. That has yet to be allocated this year. It is my anticipation that we will be reviewing the allocation of last year to ensure that there is a fair and equitable distribution and that those procedures can be done in the areas where there is a longer than normal wait-list to try and ensure that there is equity in the system.
R. Thorpe: When will that decision be made? When will that announcement be made to the public of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are currently working on the particular issue, and it's my expectation that in the coming weeks we will be able to make an announcement. My expectation is before June 15.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure the work's all done and that the minister is waiting until after the estimates so we can have some locations around British Columbia -- so we can get pictures of him. In fact, if the decision has been made, what we should be doing is putting patients first instead of politics. Perhaps they can get those announcements out this week so that British Columbians can have some of that stress taken off their lives.
With respect to goal No. 1, to try to have "the best health status in Canada," objective 1.1.2 says: "Continue to deliver a comprehensive tobacco-reduction strategy to reduce the incidence of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease." With respect to that, can the ministry advise what work the ministry's doing with a program called Operation ID?
[1035]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I will find the information for the hon. member and get back to him on that question.
R. Thorpe: I'd appreciate it if I could get that in writing from the minister. We could move along here quickly.
With respect to long-term care in the South Okanagan -- and other members have raised that issue
[ Page 15642 ]
Okanagan, the families of the South Okanagan -- expect a detailed action plan that will be announced by the ministry with respect to how this crisis is going to be handled over time, when certain decisions have to be made and when certain beds are coming onside? When can we expect that announcement to be made?
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I answer the member's question, I want to answer it in two parts. First off, we are working on a long-term plan, which should be ready in the next couple of months. As I've said earlier in the House, part of that also needs to be part of an overall debate in terms of the type of care that we need in British Columbia that's part of the continuum -- recognizing that there is home care support, long-term care, continuing care, acute care and ensuring the appropriate level of care in each of the regions of the authorities. Part of the work that's involved is working with the health authorities to achieve that. But we are working on it, and it will probably be ready in a couple of months.
R. Thorpe: This issue is not a new issue; this issue has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, it's growing; the severity of the situation is growing. Is the minister saying that right now, the ministry has no action plan for bringing on additional long term care beds in the South Okanagan in the fiscal year 2000-2001? Is that what the minister's saying?
[1040]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the province we have undertaken a review around continuing care that was completed late last year. Now what is flowing out of that is a plan for how we implement in terms of the framework. That, as I said, will be ready in the next two months. Are there beds, specifically, in this particular allocation for South Okanagan? No, there are not.
However, having said that, one of the purposes of the plan is to identify what areas we do need to focus on. And recognizing that there are particular parts of the province that do have pressures over and above the norm, we can then look at addressing some of the funding needs. One of the issues that we're working on -- and this is, again, what I'm talking about in terms of trying to address the issues around continuing care, home care and facilities -- is that we want to see
Something like that, for example -- if we can get an agreement around that -- would allow us to do more with our current budget and allow us to address some of the issues the member is raising in his particular area. But in terms of what's specifically taking place within the province, as I said, we are building on a plan of implementation coming out of the framework review that was completed late last year.
R. Thorpe: Well, to say the least, I'm very, very disappointed, because this is an issue that has been growing year after year for the last four years. To say that we're now going to do a plan, we're going to have a study and we did a plan is, quite frankly, not acceptable. This isn't about spend, spend
I'd like an answer from the minister, because they had a study last year. There's nothing in the capital budget this year; there's nothing in the operating budget this year. And yet the minister stood here yesterday and talked about innovation and new concepts. My question to the minister is: when is the talk going to stop, and when is the action going to start taking place? This has been going on year after year. The folks at home just want an answer. Tell us it's next year. You should have told us that last year; you gave us that indication. When can we expect some action on this problem in the innovative approaches that the minister talks about?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. member. I appreciate the display the member is putting on for his constituents and his concern for his constituents. That's appropriate. But what I'd like to say is that we take this issue very seriously. We don't do it just in terms of saying: "Okay, throw money at a situation." But you need a good, solid framework, and you need to plan in concert with the local authorities to meet the needs that are coming into the different regions of the province.
[1045]
The province has been managing, with the resources it has, to try and address the needs around the province of British Columbia to ensure that we have in place the facilities required over the next decade, two decades or three decades. It doesn't happen overnight, nor will it happen overnight. We have to make sure that we're planning for an aging demographic that's moving through the system. We recognize that continuing care is part of that -- but so is long-term care, so is acute care and so is home care and home support -- and that we have enough appropriate types of care in different communities so that we can meet the legitimate needs of British Columbians throughout the province.
Part of that is being done here right now. The other part of it is where I said that we as provinces have to work with the federal government, because they have a role to play.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member says "sloughing it off on the feds." I'm not sloughing it off on the feds, hon. member. What I'm saying is that there is a role for the federal government, and they have indicated a willingness to partner with the province on issues such as this. They want to see plans in place. They want to know where they can best play a role, and that is working.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not being critical of the federal government. I am saying that I'm encouraged in fact by their recognition of their responsibility -- that we have to move to restoring the partnership to 50-50. Right now we're picking up 85 percent of the costs as opposed to 15 percent to the feds. They've indicated that this is one of the areas they see to make a priority, and we are in discussions. I'm encouraged by the way in which they're going. That's innovation. That's a big change from the way things have been over the last number of years.
[ Page 15643 ]
The second point is in terms of how facilities are provided. The member again asks about innovation. While there's nothing specific for new projects in this funding year, what I can tell the member in terms of innovation is that there is in Kelowna a P3, public-private partnership, which will open this year -- a new 75-bed facility. That's an innovation. One of the things we're doing is working with the different facets of health care in terms of how we can be more innovative in the system. I expect that the innovation forum at the end of the month -- continuing care -- will be part of the discussion around that in terms of the provision of those beds.
Let's recognize that what's required is a long-term strategy and a commitment to implement as that strategy unfolds. There is considerable work being done. I've identified this as one of the key areas that we need to focus on, which is the development of appropriate levels of care throughout the province.
Hon. Chair, I know he wants everything; he'd like it all this year. But we are working to ensure that the dollars we have can provide facilities throughout the province, and we're prepared to be innovative in providing them.
The Chair: I'd just like to remind all members that all members have an opportunity to question the minister, and they will be granted that opportunity.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure all members appreciate your guidance on that issue, hon. Chair.
This member does not want everything right now. This member, on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Penticton, just wants the janitor -- excuse me, hon. Chair; the current minister -- to live up to the promises of the last three Health ministers with respect to this issue in the Okanagan.
With respect to innovation, the minister says that he's pleased that a P3 -- a public-private partnership -- for long-term care is going to open in Kelowna. Since the minister is so proud of that -- that's good for Kelowna, and that's good for the seniors there -- can the minister advise if he has given his senior staff instructions to lift the freeze on consideration of all future projects under the principle of public-private partnership? Or does that freeze still remain in place?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There is no freeze.
R. Thorpe: Would the minister then commit today to writing every health authority in every health region in British Columbia, under his banner of innovation on health care
[1050]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to inform the member that we've just had a conference call with the industry -- all health authorities were represented on this call -- informing them that P3 partnerships would in fact be considered.
R. Thorpe: I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Fraserview was listening to that answer and will be able to advise his constituents also and perhaps be advised.
The last subject I'd like to cover, hon. Chair through to the minister -- and I do appreciate the time he's given me here today -- is head and brain injury in British Columbia. I want to ask these questions on behalf of Steve, Kim, Penelope, Ken, Jean, Karen, Sue and Ken, Bob, Harriet, Lisette, Brian and Carol. What strategies are in place, through the Ministry of Health, to provide awareness, access and care for those suffering from head and brain injuries?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Services are accessed in a number of ways. First off, there are the major brain injury programs at G.F. Strong, for example, VGH and the major tertiary institutions. Second is the work done by the brain injury societies themselves in terms of providing support to people who have suffered brain injuries. In terms of a lot of the services that can be delivered locally, they're provided by the health authorities. That gives the member an outline of how some of the services are currently provided.
R. Thorpe: I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to do this
[1055]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises an important point in terms of the provision of services outside the lower mainland. That's one of the areas in which we're trying to focus, to ensure that there is a level of care that recognizes that a lot of facilities are in the lower mainland and that we need to do a better job of providing services outside of the lower mainland in communities such as the member's. That's why we have established a working group with the Ministry of Health, health authorities and community service providers -- the brain and head injury organizations that exist throughout the province -- to develop a strategy to improve head injury services in British Columbia. Within the mental health budget there is funding for $400,000 to deal with neuropsychiatry which, in part, deals with some of the people who receive brain and head injuries. We are working to address the level of service and the ability to access services in other parts of the province. That work is ongoing.
R. Thorpe: The minister advises that he has a working group that's dealing with this issue within the ministry. Perhaps I could suggest that this working group take the time to visit the society in Penticton to see the work that's being done there, to see the identified shortcomings and to see what they believe are workable solutions. I've been so impressed with these groups. They're not asking for bundles and bags of money. What they're asking for is some recognition, someone that cares and someone that wants to work with them.
So today I ask the minister: will he direct his working group to come to the community of Penticton -- I'd be
[ Page 15644 ]
pleased to work with them -- to visit the society and to hear the solutions? One of the big issues we have is the lack of awareness of what the impacts are, the lack of known resources. These are, unfortunately, people who have lost their voices. I would like an answer from the minister as to whether he would commit to sending the group, or representatives of that group, to Penticton. I will make whatever necessary local arrangements are required so that, again, we can show British Columbians that every issue in British Columbia does not have to be a political issue -- that there truly are members on both sides of this House that want to serve their constituents and solve the problems for those families. I ask the minister to comment on that and on whether he'd make that commitment today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the things I'd like to say is that it is clearly the desire to ensure that we have health services that can be delivered and accessed throughout the province and meet the needs of people wherever they're located.
[1100]
One of the biggest challenges facing not just government but people who suffer -- whether it is a brain and head injury, asthma, Alzheimer's or one of a myriad of conditions -- is raising the issue of awareness. In part, awareness can result in prevention. But awareness can also result in a better understanding of treatment, options and services that are available to people, and so that is crucial.
I don't have any hesitation in saying that I'm more than happy to work with the member in trying to do that -- raise awareness, for example -- and I'm quite happy to commit that we will visit Penticton and meet with the folks that he'd like us to meet with.
S. Hawkins: I've sat through these estimates for the last few years, and it seems like reruns every year. I don't know if the minister has watched the movie Groundhog Day, but that's what it seems like every time members on this side of the House stand up. Every year the government is given the same issues. We get the same answers and, you know, very little action. The only thing that seems to change year after year is the minister sitting in that chair. That is so frustrating. What I'm hearing from members on this side of the House
The member from Penticton has raised the issue of long-term care, as will I. Frankly, the Okanagan region has
I'm not going to hold my breath; I do know that this minister has been nicknamed the janitor. He's the cleanup man. So maybe he will come into this ministry and clean up the messes from the last few ministers. I'm telling you, from a government that says health is a priority, I can't imagine how much more botched up you can get health care in this province. We are so far behind on information systems; we are so far behind on technology. We are so far behind in planning for our health provider needs -- service people, our doctors, our nurses. I'm told by my health region that we're short of pharmacists now. It's not getting better. And you know what? I'm hearing from my constituents that it's not getting better.
I'm going to raise the issues again, as we do every year, and I look forward to a lot of the same answers from this minister so that we can go back to our constituents and say: "You know what? They're planning for it." We'll see what happens.
The first thing that I want to raise is the issue of long-term care. I know there has been a P3; there are 30 beds opening for the Kelowna area. I'm wondering what the plan is. The member for Okanagan-Penticton raised it, and apparently there is no plan. There's no planning money in this budget; there's nothing being considered in this year's capital. I want to confirm that with the minister: is that true -- that there is no planning money or capital in this budget cycle for P3 or long term care beds in the Kelowna area?
[1105]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to hear the hon. member raise the issues of concern in her part of the world. I know she's very familiar with them and has a great deal of expertise and interest in this particular topic. Having said that
We recognize the issue, and there has been a lot of work done around continuing-care beds in B.C. The member says "money." Well, yes, money is important. That's part of it, but that's not the only way of addressing the problem. Part of it is through innovation. There are examples around the province of health authorities that are doing just that, which are managing to resolve some of the issues by looking at programs they're currently delivering and, in some cases through substitution programs, are able to address some of the needs. Some of the areas -- for example, the member talks about what's happening in the Okanagan region, Kelowna, where she's from, and Simon Fraser, in my own particular region -- have reduced the demand or the need from around 600 to about 300, by looking at programs that assist the frail elderly, for example. They can stay in their own home without having to go to a particular facility.
Those are just as important and every bit as effective as building more beds. Yes, we need to do more beds, and yes, we're working on that. Equally important is recognition that we can accomplish a lot by looking at programs and meeting the needs of individuals -- in this case, seniors -- by ensuring that there are programs in place that can keep them at home longer, where they want to be, as opposed to having to move them into an institution.
S. Hawkins: It's so frustrating, you know, because I don't know what the minister just said. There were a lot of words there -- a lot of empty words, unfortunately.
[ Page 15645 ]
There is a dire need. The government recognized it; the staff recognized it. It's a shame that it's being planned for now when, again, we're in crisis proportions across the province. Yes, it's nice to see that there are other ways of dealing with it. Home care is always a great way of dealing with it. I would rather -- and I know families and people that are affected would rather -- be cared for at home than in a long term care facility. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of home care. When you go to smaller communities around the province, there are not enough providers. We are manpower-short, nurse-power, physician-power and home care worker-short around the province.
Yeah, we have to look at new ways; I agree with the minister. It's just a shame, as I say, that health was supposed to be a priority of this government, and we keep seeing new faces in the Health minister's chair. It's encouraging, I guess, to see a deputy with a nursing background -- I think that's kind of nice -- because maybe we'll get some movement in some of those areas. It is frustrating for constituents and for people who are waiting. I think that there's not going to be anything this year. What the minister has told me is basically that.
It's frustrating for the health region administrators, because I know that they've been planning. We're down to bare bones. I've been told that we've done just about everything that we can do, and we've still got problems. I can tell you that part of the problem is not knowing what the budget is. This year my region, the Okanagan-Similkameen health region, is waiting for confirmation of a $24 million budget -- what they need. They are budgeting for $17.7 million, which is what they got last year, so that leaves us $6.3 million short -- a deficit.
[1110]
It's frustrating, I guess, because we're almost into the end of the first quarter of the budget already. We're working on an interim budget, and we don't know what the year's budget is going to be. We're projecting a deficit and looking at ways of how we're going to get that deficit down. That is frustrating, because it possibly means not very good results for patients. I can tell you right now that the wait for surgery -- and the minister knows this -- is the longest in the province. There are around 4,500, 4,700 or 4,900 people waiting for surgery in our region.
So I want to know from the minister, first of all: when can our regions expect their budget? Is the Okanagan-Similkameen health region going to get the money it needs? Or are they correct in predicting that they're going to have a $6.3 million deficit that is possibly going to impact through cuts to patient services and in other ways, as they try and make up that deficit? What comfort can the minister give to patients in that area that their services will be protected if there is a deficit in that realm?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises a number of issues. I'd like, for the member's information, to let her know that I met with her regional health authority just recently. My ministry will be meeting with them again within the next week or two weeks to discuss the budget with them and looking at their levels of service -- rates -- so that when we make the announcement on the budget, that's all been taken into account. That will be taking place very shortly. We had a good meeting with the board and the chair, so that is underway.
The member again raises the issue around long-term care. We are working on that, and we understand the need and the importance of it. It is not just a question of money; it is also a question of looking at innovative ways of doing things. That is taking place, and that's one of the things that the innovation forum is being held to address. There are practices taking place in different parts of the province that are meeting the needs around some of the issues the member talks about.
One of the things taking place at the forum is some of the practices that are taking place up at Kelowna, which is an example that can be used by other health authorities very effectively.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me why the budgets are delayed every year and why our regions don't see their money until the end of the first or second quarter every year -- when they know what their needs are, and they know that they need to plan for future years? Why does the budget process allow for that, and the regions don't see their money? They're predicting deficits and always trying to make them up at the end of the year.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We get our budget letter at the end of March, and then by the time we do the consultations and work with the regions and the authorities
[1115]
S. Hawkins: We have excellent people working in the regions. They know the demographics, and they know the needs. When you're talking about innovation, what about multi-year budgets? We set up these programs, and it's very expensive to set them up. At the end of the year we find out we're in deficits, and we end up cutting back. It's more expensive to get them started again. A lot of the regions know what their needs are. Does the minister have any comments about that so we know there's some protected funding year after year, so that we're not scrambling and trying to fix problems after they get to the crisis proportions they are now? Does the minister have any comments about that?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd be quite happy to discuss the issues around multi-year funding, but I'm going to
S. Hawkins: Yeah, your colleague to the left also sat in the minister's chair a couple of times, I believe.
Interjection.
S. Hawkins: Once? Oh, just once. Well, that was probably enough. It seems like we were getting the same answers
Interjections.
[ Page 15646 ]
S. Hawkins: Yeah, from the parade of ministers through the Health chair.
I'm very concerned that over the last few years, our hospital has actually deteriorated under regionalization. Kelowna General Hospital is functioning not only as a regional facility but, I would argue, as a macroregional facility. In the last few years the hospital has been carrying a deficit, which we never did before regionalization.
We service a large area, not just in our own health region, because of the programs that are set up at the hospital and because of the programs that have been added on. We do
An Hon. Member: Angioplasty.
S. Hawkins: No, we don't do angioplasty. We do angiography at the hospital. We have cancer services. We do surgery that's not offered at other facilities, and we do tests there, as well, that aren't offered in other places. In addition to that, we end up -- and it's becoming more frequent -- taking patients
It's frustrating to see that our hospital is bearing that impact but isn't getting the funding to deal with that. When our bed situation is as critical as it is
A lot of those problems haven't changed. We've tried to make it better, but a lot of those problems, I understand, are still in place. We had to open ten overflow beds. Unfortunately, the decision has been made not to keep those beds open; the decision has been made to close those beds. Those beds were used when there was no room elsewhere in the hospital. They are unfortunately contributing to the budget deficit and workload issue for nurses, because when we open ten more beds, we need more staff.
As the minister is very aware, although we don't have a huge shortage of nurses in the Okanagan -- because we do live in God's country; it's a wonderful place to live, and we tend to attract nurses there -- we do tend to work them overtime. It does become difficult.
There was an article, actually, in last week's Daily Courier: "Patients are now Out in the Hall." I know the minister probably would agree with me that that's inappropriate. I've seen more and more of it in the last few years that I've lived in this province. It's a shame to see that in our hospital; I've seen more of it in the last couple of years. I just want to quote from the article:
"Kelowna General Hospital now has an official policy of putting patients in stretchers in hallways. The new policy went into effect on May 1, but already nurses and a doctor are raising alarm bells. A concerned nurse, who officially can't say anything for fear of facing disciplinary action." -- I guess that's the government's whistle-blower policy; hopefully they wouldn't discipline her, but she thinks that she will be -- "told the Daily Courier her department has already been forced to use the patient placement contingency plan.
"A patient had been in a bed on a surgical unit, but at 7 a.m. was taken out of his bed, put in a wheelchair and brought to her wing. 'We then had to make up a stretcher and put the patient in the hallway in a stretcher,' she said. Nurses are already filling out professional responsibility forms on which they express concern they are not living up to the high standards they were told to uphold.'
" 'Not only is it humiliating for a patient to end up in a hallway on public display, but it is also very unsafe from a nursing point of view,' she said. Patients in the hallway don't have a call button, oxygen in some cases, suction, bathrooms or regular supervision."
[1120]
Well, you can see where the problem is; it's a vicious circle. We're trained -- I'm speaking as a past nurse -- to give really good, high care. That's what you want to do for patients. When you can't meet those standards, it's frustrating, and it's not safe for the patient. As the nurse pointed out, there's no oxygen, suction
So it puts a lot of stress on the caregivers. It puts a lot of stress on the patients. It puts a lot of stress on the families. Certainly, when I've moved around the province and visited other places, it was frustrating and very difficult for me to see maternity patients lying in hallways with their babies. That's the time a mom and baby bond. You want to do feedings, possibly in private with your family. I've seen that too. It's not a good situation. It's one that I think, again, the ministry is aware of. It's one that the hospitals are trying to meet. Our hospital, in particular, is trying to meet that challenge. Again, it's not funded as a regional facility; it functions as more than a regional facility. It functions, I would argue, as a macro-regional facility. We're taking patients from across the province and from the lower mainland, where you would hope they would have resources to deal with patients down there.
For a lot of caregivers, families and patients, it's the last straw. I'm wondering if the minister can comment on that. What are we doing to ensure that that's not happening? It's very degrading, it's very humiliating and it's not very good for job satisfaction. Certainly, if we're putting the patient first, it's not in the patient's best interest. We're not putting the patient first.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises a number of issues; I'd like to try and address them. First, in terms of the particular facility she talks about -- its role and purpose -- it is a regional facility in that it is one of six in the province. It has an important role to fill. We don't currently fund on the basis of it being a regional facility. Rather, it's funded on the basis of the work that is done. One can always look at changing the funding formula for institutions. I can tell the member that that in itself is not a solution, because if you push down in one area, you get bumps coming up in another area. You can change a funding formula to satisfy your particular view or your perspective from your region of the province, but that in fact has an impact somewhere else. You may find people disagreeing, saying that they should be on a different focus.
[1125]
The way it currently is structured is that we fund on a procedural basis, and that allows a huge amount of work to be done. What the member is talking about, though, is also, I
[ Page 15647 ]
think, a problem not just in Kelowna but right across the system. It's not just here in B.C.; it's right across the country. Every other province has exactly the same challenges and problems we face here in B.C. -- every single province. There is no difference.
We have challenges in the system that we are trying to address, recognizing that there are significant demographic population changes taking place, putting demands and pressures on the health care system. That's why we need to focus on a number of key areas to relieve some of the pressures on the hospitals, so that we don't have the example that the member talks about in terms of patients on beds in hallways -- that we have other appropriate levels of care that are available in communities for people to access. There's a great deal of work being done on that not just here in B.C. but right across the province. The provinces are trying to work cooperatively to find ways of resolving some of these problems.
Part of that, for example, is around human resources and the ability to have nursing staff and specialists and the people you require to provide services. That's why I said yesterday, and I'll it repeat for the member's benefit, that one of the areas we're working on, where B.C. is taking the lead role, is around human resource issues. We can look at how it impacts on the system and what we can do as provinces together in terms of measures to relieve some of these pressures. We do want to relieve them. We do recognize that if a patient is in a hallway, that's not where they would want to be; they would rather be in a room. We all know that; we all recognize that. We want to make sure that there are appropriate levels of staffing and that there are nurses there who can focus on nursing duties as opposed to doing non-nursing duties. We recognize that.
I appreciate the member's concerns; I understand where she's coming from. We are trying to deal with these particular issues. They're complex. There's not a simple answer that says: "Do this, and this will solve everything." The problem is not just here in B.C. but right across the country as well.
S. Hawkins: If I can just correct the minister, it's not where the patient would rather be; it's where they most appropriately should be to meet their needs and their safety needs. I think that's what the minister meant to say. I know that everyone would rather have a private room. They're not going to get one; that's the reality. But they should be somewhere where they can be safely cared for.
When I see patients in Emergency go to the post-anaesthetic recovery unit because there's no room at ICU, and they're being cared for on a ventilator there when they should be cared for most appropriately in the intensive care unit
I said, sort of tongue-in-cheek, that I guess everyone's been asleep at the switch, then, across Canada. Well, maybe. These issues -- the minister knows, because he's been around this place long enough -- are not new. The Canadian Nurses Association, different nurses' associations and physician groups have been raising the issue of human resources for the last ten years. I moved here as a nurse ten years ago -- couldn't find a job. I was critical-care trained.
[1130]
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
I remember that a few years ago, in the Finance minister's riding, at UNBC there was a threat of the northern nursing program closing. I think that was about three years ago. That was put to rest. I believe the minister was in Education at that time. We need foresight to look at those programs. We need to train nurses to work in those isolated areas. You don't close a program; you need to look forward. I don't think we've done that across Canada and certainly in this province over the last few years. The planning is perhaps just now starting to take place; but again, it's late.
Talking about critical care, because that's a huge concern, we are planning to open a new ICU at Kelowna General Hospital. Again I mention not only that the hospital functions as a regional facility but that we take patients from all over the province. We've got funding for 15 beds: 11 beds for ICU and four step-down beds. So I understand that the need is -- and I think the ministry knows this -- for three more beds. Certainly the need is for a million more dollars for those three ICU beds.
I want to know if the minister can comment on whether we're going to see that in this year's budget, because I know that is something that has been discussed with the health region. There is a dire need for those beds at that hospital. I would ask the minister to answer that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct that funding is there for 15 beds. In terms of an additional three beds, the funding request for that is being reviewed by the ministry at this time, and it's being done in the overall context of the provision of services around the province.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister be any more encouraging than that? No?
[D. Zirnhelt in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that in terms of the cost of what we're looking at for the three beds, the incremental cost is about $1.5 million. We are actively, as a ministry, reviewing it. I understand the concern that the member has for their particular area. I want to try and see -- you know, when we make decisions around allocations -- that they're done in terms of where the need is greatest in the province and what the priorities are.
S. Hawkins: The reason I do raise that -- and I'll put it on the record
Keeping in line with that, there is still talk of a cardiac surgery program being planned for our region and for our hospital. I'm just wondering: is there planning money for that? Is it being planned? And I'm wondering how you can plan a new program in Kelowna, when we still haven't sorted out the efficiencies in the programs that we currently have in the lower mainland and in Victoria.
We still have patients waiting; the cardiac surgery lists are still quite long. We still have patients in our own area waiting
[ Page 15648 ]
in hospital. I understand that nothing has changed; we've raised this year after year. We're concerned. I understand that our cardiac patients still wait four or five days, a week or two weeks in our hospital before they're transferred to hospitals in the lower mainland for interventions.
[1135]
I'm concerned that in a hospital where we're short of critical-care beds, where we don't have a cardiac care unit per se, we're talking about adding a new cardiac surgery program when the existing programs don't seem to be working for the patients across the province. A couple of years ago I did put a question to one of the ministers -- and again, the chairs change so often that I can't remember which one it was -- about the CCN, the critical care network program in Ontario, which works quite efficiently, actually. I'm wondering if the ministry is looking at anything like that for the cardiac surgery program. Have they looked at the Ontario program to see how they can find the efficiencies in making sure the patient gets into a bed in a program, so that our patients in the interior don't wait and don't have to wait ten years for another cardiac surgery program to open in the interior?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises some interesting points. I'd like to comment on them. First, in terms of the provision of cardiac services, we do have a cardiac advisory panel in place that is doing the work that's required. Clearly Kelowna is the next logical place for a facility, and I expect that is in fact the case. I think we're probably looking at the next three to five years as the time when we need to have one up and running, and that means there has to be planning done.
The member raises the issues around some things that are happening in Ontario. Certainly I would expect that if there are new techniques, new ways of doing things -- being innovative -- our panel will look at what's happening in Ontario. You have my commitment that they in fact will do that.
S. Hawkins: It was actually someone on the panel who suggested that I raise that in the House. That is not a new program; that's been up and running for several years and seems to be fairly effective.
I just put the concerns to the minister that, first of all, we have a hospital that doesn't have cardiac care beds -- coronary care beds. If you're planning for a cardiac surgery unit, there's a lot of specialized planning that takes place just for that -- a lot of specialized personnel that are needed, new ORs, a critical care
I'm also concerned that because we've added
Hon. M. Farnworth: We do have representation on the board of the Cancer Agency, and we work with them. The initial plan for Kelowna was six to ten beds -- currently there are six beds -- and it is reviewed on a regular basis. I'm quite happy to take the member's comments. We will continue to do that work and look at what's required in terms of Kelowna and the cancer centre and the hospital.
[1140]
S. Hawkins: I would appreciate it if the minister would follow that up.
Nurses, the Ministers of Finance and Advanced Education announced all these new spots for nurses. I understand there were 20 places that were going to be added to Okanagan University College in their program. I want to get a commitment from the minister -- and I understand he has written a letter -- that there will be 20 new places for nurses to be trained and that this is a definitive number, because I understand that OUC is facing a deficit as well, and perhaps those numbers might change. So just to get a confirmation from the minister, it is 20 new spots that are opening for nurses' training.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You're going to have to ask the Minister of Advanced Education that particular question around the exact allocation.
S. Hawkins: I thought it was a shared announcement from the different ministries, because I was listening to different people bragging about it. But that's okay. We'll find a spot for that.
I also want to ask about mental health funding, because I understand
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of what's
If she's looking at it in terms of the mental health plan, there is the framework implementation which will probably be released within, I think, a month, that will show what steps we have to take to see the follow-up taking place. There has been the annualization from the reallocation within the ministry of projects that were announced in January to ensure that there is ongoing funding there. Some of those programs will no doubt benefit her particular area.
Then in terms of
S. Hawkins: Again, I want to emphasize to the minister that that's an area for huge concern. These are patients who
[ Page 15649 ]
usually can't speak for themselves. It's not a sexy issue. They often fall through the cracks, and it's really a shame to see them in jail or on the street or unable to care for themselves. They desperately need those services. It's a commitment that the government made. Minister after minister stood up and made those announcements. I'm hoping that it's a commitment that this minister takes seriously and will honour.
The minister talked about innovation. There are a lot of good programs going on; I want to mention a couple that our region is involved in. One is the COACH program; I believe the acronym stands for Central Okanagan Action for Cardiac Health. It's a rehab program -- and the region is funding that out of their existing budget -- an excellent program, one that's, again, desperately needed in our area. There's a stroke program that's hopefully
So our region is looking at innovation as well. They certainly aren't looking at the ministry to do everything for them. There are excellent people in the community that are helping out. We're working with other regions, you know, because we do believe that patients come first. Early intervention and rehab are certainly areas that are addressed with those programs.
[1145]
My last issue. One of my constituents has written to me. He's quite concerned about Pharmacare. I have five very detailed questions. It's a letter to me, dated May 5, 2000, from David Kates. What I'm going to do is pass that on to the minister. If he can commit to giving me an answer in writing, I won't take up time in the estimates to do that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll be more than happy to take that up and to give you a detailed explanation in writing. Just a quick comment on the issue of mental health: I do recognize the importance of it to the member. One of the things I can try and do is provide the member with a breakdown in terms of services that are available for her in her community, her riding. You have my undertaking to do that.
J. van Dongen: For the benefit of the minister's staff, I have three concerns that I want to briefly raise with the minister. One is the replacement for the MSA Hospital. Second is the whole issue of funding for the Fraser Valley health region and the issues or discussion around population-based funding. The third is just a few comments about wait-lists for cancer treatment in the Fraser Valley.
Starting with the MSA Hospital, I want to record the fact for the minister that this hospital has been in the planning phases and in discussion for over ten years. This is a very old facility. It's experiencing a lot of difficulties in terms of providing service to citizens. We've seen a major population increase in our region. In the last ten years we've seen an increase, certainly in the city of Abbotsford, of over 50 percent. There's been a lot of effort within the community to get this project off the ground. As the minister knows, these projects are cost-shared between the community and the provincial government.
Now, in the meantime, there have been hospitals that have gone into Port Alberni, where we've had virtually no population increase. We've seen a major extension to the hospital in Prince George, where we've experienced maybe a 10 or 12 percent population increase. I think it's important to mention that, because it underscores the critical need in our community relative to other communities.
I just want to confirm on the record the current projected cost that the ministry is working with, in terms of the replacement for the MSA Hospital. What is the current figure that you are using?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the current anticipated cost is about $135 million.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister confirm what the provincial share of that is? My understanding is that it's 60 percent of the capital cost.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be 60 percent of the capital cost.
J. van Dongen: In terms of its analysis of this project, has the ministry done an analysis of the savings and operating costs that would be generated by a new facility? I'm talking about payroll costs for staff, nurses, doctors and all other operating costs. I think that is quite a significant figure, and I'm wondering if the ministry can give us any background on that analysis.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We are currently doing that work right now. There are a number of reasons for that. One, depending upon the configuration of the particular facility, that has an impact -- as do the changes that have occurred in terms of regionalization and how the new facility will fit into the region and the services that it is to provide. Also there is work being done that flows out of the Deloitte and Touche report on recommendations for improving the delivery of capital projects within the province as they are related to the health care system.
[1150]
J. van Dongen: I am pleased to see there's some work being done, but I think what's happening now is that a lot of the work is being repeated. I know that there was a decision recently to go back and review all the plans, and I think that's what the minister is talking about -- that the plans are being reviewed because of some of these changes. Could the minister clarify that? I see him shaking his head.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's not a question of repeating the work that's been done. In some cases it's reviewing some of the work that has been done, recognizing the changes that have taken place within the area. Other work that's being done recognizes that the facility that's required will be different in many ways than it was ten years ago, when it was first envisaged. I have recently met with George Peary and the board, and they've outlined some things that they would like to see happen; that has an impact in terms of what we do. That work is also new and is taking place. Then, as I said and just to repeat for the member, some of the work is required under the changes that came out of Deloitte Touche report in terms of making the delivery of capital more efficient.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. The MLA for Matsqui and myself recently toured the facility -- I
[ Page 15650 ]
think it was in April -- and certainly had the difficulties there underscored through that tour. There are beds in hallways. There are linen and other supplies stored in hallways. There's a lot of difficulty installing new equipment. A lot of the wards have great difficulty in terms of services through the walls -- plaster walls -- and that kind of thing. There's a real need for more bathrooms per bed, for example. There are situations where one bathroom is servicing 25 beds or a large number of beds. There are a lot of narrow doorways; there's no room for wheelchairs. People have to be taken out of the wheelchair to be put into the bathroom -- this kind of thing. So there are some great difficulties there.
I would be very interested in the calculations in terms of operating savings. I would like to get a commitment from the minister that those operating savings be analyzed and that they be defined, and I would like to have a look at those numbers at some point in the future. If the minister could give us a commitment as to when that information might be available
The Chair: I'd like to remind members that I will be noting the time very shortly.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm anticipating that the work within the ministry will be done relatively soon, so that it can then come to me for my consideration and to update me -- in terms of what the savings are, what the implications are and what the business case plan is -- in the very near future. After that I have a number of things I have to do with that. But at some point, when I'm able to, I will be more than happy to sit down with the member and discuss with him the implications and what is likely to flow from that. I'll do that at a point when I'm able to.
Having said that, I also note the hour. I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[1155]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:11 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)
On vote 19: ministry operations, $828,499,000 (continued).
G. Plant: The topics we have been pursuing are police services. I want to ask the minister a question or two about the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. The agency is newly established, having been created on March 11, 1999 -- just a little bit more than a year ago. One of the questions frequently raised in public debate is around the resources dedicated to the fight against organized crime. Some people will ask whether the province and the federal government are dedicating enough resources; I think that's a legitimate question.
The government, as I understand it, increased funding this year to the OCABC by $3.8 million. But as I understand it, that represents a cash increment that is intended to substitute for what was taking place with respect to the secondment of officers from the RCMP and from municipal jurisdictions, in effect allowing the agency to hire the people on its own rather than as a secondment -- although that may not be quite the right way of expressing it. I'm hoping the minister could comment on that issue.
Also, I might as well put the second question on the table. My recollection is that the government's decision to create and fund the agency a year ago was accompanied by a sense that the extent of the government's financial commitment to the agency would, in part, be a function of the extent to which the agency was able to demonstrate some success and was able to get up and running and find a way to use the money that was perhaps going to become available. Could I ask the minister to comment about that and what he foresees down the road in terms of funding requirements and availability for the agency?
[1015]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the Organized Crime Agency, which was established last year based on a report and recommendations done, I believe, by Stephen Owen, is indicative of the concern that this government has -- and one that I know is shared by the opposition and within the province generally -- about organized crime. It's one of the prices we pay for being in the location we are in the world. It's a beautiful location, but we are in a strategic location and one that operates as a gateway for not only friendly visitors but visitors who are not so friendly. Those include organized crime activities that flow through our ports and through our province.
The Organized Crime Agency had, I think, a very successful first year of operation. The head of the agency, of course, was Bev Busson, who has since moved on to be head of E Division in the province, which is a tremendous credit to her and indicative of the kind of strength that she has brought to the agency.
In terms of the resourcing of the agency, the agency has 25 provincial RCMP officers. It has had 20 federal RCMP officers, but that number is going to rise by another five in response to a request from the province. The federal government has agreed to increase its complement. In addition, there was a secondment of municipal police officers, mostly from Vancouver -- I think one from New Westminster as well.
[ Page 15651 ]
The arrangement was that secondment would be phased out. The province then agreed to make up the difference in an additional $3.8 million contribution to the agency, which will allow the agency to continue to bring in municipal police officers, but to do so on the basis of the agency's priorities. One of the difficulties with secondments, particularly secondments that are done through contribution, is that you can't very well say: "We want to take these officers, but not those." But now that that funding has been put in part of the agency's core budget, the agency's in a position to go to municipal police forces and say: "These are the resources we need." It gives the agency both more flexibility and more capacity to meet its strategic goals through the use of those resources. I think the combination of these contributions -- I think it nets out at about $11.6 million of provincial contribution and $3.5 million of federal -- has put the agency in a strong position.
I've met with the board. They feel very positive about not only their first year but also the direction they can now set, based upon the province's contribution and the increased resources from the federal government. I've also talked to the head of the RCMP nationally and confirmed their commitment to the agency. So I think the agency is off to a good start, and I think the direction that it's going to set in the year ahead will strengthen its capacity to deal, in a very practical way, with countering organized crime activities and gang-related and other activities within the province.
G. Plant: Sometimes when the government says that there is $3.8 million new money, members of the public are apt to think that that's going to translate into however many police officers or services you could contract for with $3.8 million. In other words, new money translates into new staff. I think I'm right in suggesting that in this particular case, the influx of money doesn't result in OCA being able to increase its staff complement, but rather to change the way in which
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that is correct. It replaces in money what was given in contribution, by the Vancouver police essentially. But it does, by doing so, give much greater operational autonomy and flexibility, and -- I can't resist making the point -- it also puts $3.8 million of more resources into the Vancouver municipal police budget by returning that equivalent number of police officers. So it increases the capacity of Vancouver police to deliver services, through that additional complement of officers, or indeed, if OCA now pays for an equivalent amount of officers through the $3.8 million that is transferred to municipal police forces in exchange for those officers.
There is $3.8 million more in the system. It will likely be expressed in the form of greater autonomy by OCA, but it will also be expressed by greater resources in the municipal police forces that now gain that money in exchange for any officers that they contribute. Or alternatively, if they retain a greater number of officers, then they have that increased capacity within their own ranks.
[1020]
G. Plant: Well, that's helpful. I don't think the minister should be embarrassed in pointing out the effect of the grant.
Let's just return, if I may, though, to one theme, which I guess could be put in terms of whether the $11 million or $12 million is enough. Does the minister have a sense of whether, over the course of the next two or three years, as OCA ramps up its operational capacity and its strategic intelligence-gathering capacities and its research capacities, it will have need for more money, and whether the government has a plan to respond to that need, given what the minister has said about his priorities in relation to organized crime?
Hon. A. Petter: The plan, as it was originally outlined, was for the budget to be maintained at the current level for the first few years -- albeit we have added more money to give greater operational flexibility, as we've discussed -- and then to assess the needs of the agency from there on in.
I should point out that we're also pressing the federal government to give greater recognition to the province for proceeds of crime that result from activities of provincial police and municipal police contributions and OCA in particular. That may well be a source for additional resources. I think it will be a matter of assessing the needs and the success of OCA as it proceeds. If it is successful in countering organized crime and additional resources can accelerate that success, then certainly we'll be prepared to consider those pressures at the time. Hopefully, some federal contributions, through proceeds of crime, will also be available.
G. Plant: I want to move to the subject of photo radar. The minister was kind enough to write me on April 20 in response to some questions I had in preparation for these estimates. I had asked the minister for information about the fines levied and the fines actually collected from the photo radar program for '98-99 and '99-2000. The figures that were given for '98-99 were that 273,313 photo radar tickets had been sent. What's described as the "total related fines amount" was $35,772,286. Then the "total photo radar revenues collected" amounted to $23,176,444. The figures for '99-2000 were preliminary, because the tickets for offences occurring in March were still being processed. The preliminary figures were that the number of tickets sent was 193,467. The total related fines amount was $25,389,878. The total photo radar revenues collected were $19,699,439. As a beginning to a series of questions about photo radar, can the minister indicate whether the figures that were given to me as preliminary, I guess just some two or three weeks ago, have changed? Or does the minister actually have any further information on that subject?
[1025]
Hon. A. Petter: No, those are still the figures that I have before me, and I don't think the updated figures will be available for a short time yet.
G. Plant: Can the minister explain what is meant by the phrase "total related fines amount," which is part of the recitation of information that I quoted from just a minute ago?
Hon. A. Petter: I believe it refers to the fines themselves, plus the victim surcharge that attaches to those fines.
G. Plant: Using the '99-2000 preliminary figures, fines have been levied, including the surcharge, in the amount of $25.4 million. Amounts actually collected are $19.7 million. That's just a restatement, but I want to see if I'm understanding the way the figures work.
[ Page 15652 ]
Hon. A. Petter: That's my understanding as well.
G. Plant: Is the minister aware of whether there has been any change in terms of the allocation of resources to photo radar? Or do we have the same number of vans out on the same number of streets of B.C. as we did last year?
Hon. A. Petter: I understand it's the same number of vans. About 30.
G. Plant: So there's the same police presence for photo radar today as there was, say, in the '98-99 fiscal year, where these figures begin.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to add to what I said earlier, I think the number of vans has remained constant -- around 30 vans. As I understand it, because of the growing numbers of vacancies -- we talked earlier about RCMP vacancies and the like -- the actual deployment of the vans is down somewhat in terms of the number of hours that they are in service. So the number of vans has remained constant, but the actual number of hours in which they are being deployed has come down somewhat due to the growing number of vacancies that have occurred within the province.
G. Plant: Can the minister give some details about the reductions? How many hours of deployment were there, say, in '98-99 versus the hours of deployment for '99-2000? If the minister has the figures in some other format, I'd be pleased to hear them.
Hon. A. Petter: The note I have here suggests that there were 5,000 fewer deployment hours carried out in '99-2000 compared to the previous year, due both to staff reductions and to some fitting of some replacement vans.
G. Plant: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last bit -- due to some refitting?
Hon. A. Petter: I take it that there were some replacement vans that were due to be refit, and for that period they were not on the road. It was a combination of staff vacancies and some refitting of vans that were being brought onto the road, still within the overall total -- the constant total.
G. Plant: I need something to compare the 5,000 fewer deployment hours to. Is there a number that I can use to say what percentage reduction that represents over the year or so before that?
[1030]
Hon. A. Petter: The very question I was asking, but unfortunately, we do not have the answer right here. I'll try to get the answer for the member. I agree: knowing that it's 5,000 fewer isn't helpful unless you know against what base that is. We'll try to find that, for myself and for the member's benefit.
G. Plant: I have been trying, without any success to date, to pursue an issue around the effectiveness of the process of serving photo radar tickets, and I was told some time ago that ICBC was the place to go for that information. I haven't been successful in getting that information from ICBC. The concern has to do with whether or not the contracting firm that, as I understand it, is responsible for process service, is doing a good job or not. Without some indication of how long it's taking to serve tickets and some explanation of why it may be taking as long as it is, it's hard to assess the quality of the service being provided. Does the minister track the work of the service of photo radar tickets? Does he have any information within his means of access about photo radar ticket service?
Hon. A. Petter: No, I don't believe my ministry does track the service of tickets. That is a function that was taken on by ICBC. I understand that at the request of the member, my ministry has sought to have ICBC provide that information to the member. If they have not yet done so, I'd encourage the member to take the matter up, perhaps, in the estimates of the minister who is responsible for ICBC.
G. Plant: I'm grateful for the minister's encouragement; whether it will produce any information or not is another matter altogether.
There is a review underway into the photo radar program, among other things. Is that a review that reports to the Attorney General, and has it been completed? If not, when is it expected or required to complete?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I believe the review that the member's referring to was announced last November. It's a review not just of photo radar but of traffic services delivered by police, including photo radar, red-light cameras, CounterAttack and corridor enhancement. It reports to the Attorney General. I believe it also reports to the minister responsible for ICBC.
G. Plant: I'm sorry. When is the report due?
Hon. A. Petter: The member shouldn't be sorry; I neglected to say when it was due. It's due to be completed by September of 2000.
G. Plant: It's a long time to wait for a review into a program that, I think, has been a colossal failure from start to finish.
I gather that from the minister's perspective, however, the virtue of the existence of the review is that it relieves the minister from any need to consider whether or not this program is serving the public interest, in the meantime, because he's just going to wait for the review to be completed. If the minister has some different plan, I'd be interested in hearing it. Can the minister indicate now whether it is his intention that the results of the review be reported to the public when it's finally done?
[1035]
Hon. A. Petter: I regret the fact that the member seems to have woken up on the bad side of the bed this morning, hon. Chair. He put a very unfavourable characterization on the purpose of this review.
The purpose of the review is in fact to assist not only the ministers but the public and indeed the member in assessing the effectiveness of a program that was introduced in order to save lives, because of the direct correlation between the speed at which people travel in excess of acceptable limits and the
[ Page 15653 ]
result of accidents that occur at those higher speeds, which have much higher both mortality and accident rates. What the review will do is assist us in making assessments as to whether the program is meeting its objective of improving traffic safety and reducing injury and loss of life.
There will in fact be an interim report prepared in June, I believe, which will be released for further discussion. Yes, the intention is that the final report will also be released. I think it makes sense to have an interim document so the public can consider it. We can gain further feedback and input and not rush to judgment, as apparently the member seems to have done.
G. Plant: I've been crawling incrementally in judgment on this, inch by inch, every hour of every day for the last four or five years. I never seem to have occasion to change direction. I guess I want, though, to make sure that I get an understanding of the scope of the review.
Conceivably, it might be something to study, given the expenditure of public funds that has been dedicated to this program to date, whether the results warrant its continuation. It might be that a potential outcome of a review that had the widest possible scope would be a recommendation -- given a variety of factors, including cost and results -- that the program ought not to be continued.
I'm not sure if the minister sees the review here as just being an inquiry into ways to improve and continue the program or whether he sees the review as potentially encompassing a consideration of the practical wisdom of continuing it at all. I don't want to prejudge the outcome; I just want to know how broad the mandate is of the people conducting the review.
Hon. A. Petter: In a nutshell, the purpose of the review is to improve the effectiveness of how traffic safety initiatives are operated. Everything is on the table in that respect. I can provide the member with a copy of the terms of reference, if he'd like. However, I do want to point out to the member, maybe to slow his incremental drift in the direction he's going and to at least await the outcome of the review, that the province continues to see reductions in speeds at photo radar sites. Of course we have seen in this province a resulting saving from the greater safety initiatives. That's expressed most directly in the pockets of drivers who haven't incurred any increase in their ICBC premiums in the last five years. But certainly everything that could improve traffic safety is on the table, and I'd be happy to share the terms of reference with the member.
G. Plant: Well, I think the last thing the minister probably wants to do is to encourage a debate on how and why ICBC premiums have not changed much and the perhaps extraordinarily limited role which driver behaviour has had on that. As the minister is no longer responsible for that portfolio, as he would be quick to point out, we'll have to pursue those interesting issues in
An Hon. Member: Another forum.
G. Plant:
[1040]
So the program has been up and running for four or five years. I'm curious to know whether those vans are getting kind of tired. It sounds like they're having to be refitted. Is the government going to be buying some more photo radar vans next year? Or does the minister have an answer to that question?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member may want to raise these questions in the context of the ICBC estimates, as well, because the vans are paid for by ICBC. I take it that there is a life for vehicles of this kind, and they are replaced where they exceed that usable life. But the minister responsible for ICBC can provide those answers more readily than I could.
G. Plant: I haven't gone back to refresh my recollection from the debate that we had the last time this issue was raised, but as I recall, there were some fairly complicated arrangements that were entered into to preserve the integrity of the law enforcement process and to protect it from the charge that ICBC was becoming sort of a paid police force. Is the minister saying that there would be no financial or other involvement whatsoever of the Ministry of Attorney General, direct or indirect, in the question of whether or not to replace photo radar vans? Is it something that is a decision made exclusively by ICBC, using exclusively ICBC funds and without any indirect cross-accounting whatsoever?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the full financial burden is that of ICBC. The actual replacement of the vans is done pursuant to a policy that the photo radar unit has with respect to the usable life of a particular van. Then the replacement is made, and the cost for that replacement would be borne by ICBC.
G. Plant: So the Ministry of Attorney General has no involvement in the replacement of the vans; it's exclusively an ICBC issue.
Hon. A. Petter: The cost of the replacement is an ICBC issue. The actual decision that the vans have exceeded their usable life and need to be replaced is an operational decision made by the photo radar unit. The cost of replacing those vans is a cost that is borne by ICBC.
G. Plant: I know we're making progress. So the photo radar unit has some responsibility here. Can the minister who has some responsibility for the photo radar unit indicate whether or not, as an operational matter, the photo radar vans -- any of them -- will in fact be replaced over the course of the next year? I understand that there are policies in place that govern those things. I'm wondering now about the application of those policies to this situation and whether or not the application of those policies will require the replacement of vans -- which will be paid for by ICBC.
Hon. A. Petter: The officials I have with me unfortunately don't know the number that would be replaced in the coming year. I'd be happy to follow up, as we have on other questions of this detailed kind, and provide the member with that information.
[ Page 15654 ]
G. Plant: That's helpful. I look forward to that information.
The last police services question that I want to ask is with respect to the use of Tasers. This is an issue that has attracted some public attention recently. I suspect that we are largely but not entirely within the domain of the operational decision-making autonomy of police forces. However, the Ministry of Attorney General has some input here. Does the Ministry of Attorney General have a policy position with respect to the use of Tasers by police forces in British Columbia?
[1045]
Hon. A. Petter: Under the existing Police Act, which is of fairly recent vintage, I understand that there is provision for approval of certain standards with respect to the use of various kinds of new technologies and the like. My predecessor approved a pilot in the Victoria police department to test the utilization of the Taser. That pilot ended, I think, last June, and the evaluation was then done. The evaluation proved to be very successful in terms of demonstrating that the Taser could in fact avert risk of injury, or particularly mortality, where it was used. As a result, it's now been approved for general use, and other police forces -- New Westminster, I believe, and Saanich -- have moved in that direction. I think Vancouver has indicated that it's going to start to move in that direction as well.
G. Plant: What relationship, then, does the review of the pilot project bear to the power to set standards that the minister referred to in the context of the Police Act. I guess the issue is: does the Ministry of Attorney General have some continuing role here in prescribing standards, and if so, has it done so as a result of this pilot project?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, now that the Taser has been approved for use, the matter really becomes an operational decision for the police forces. I should say, of course, that even to the extent that the minister does exercise authority here, the ministry has operated very closely with the chiefs of police and others in terms of initiating the pilot in Victoria, for example, and undertaking the evaluation.
G. Plant: A management review of the B.C. coroner service was conducted last year. There were questions raised that required such a review, including questions about the independence of coroners within the coroner service. I received a letter dated December 23, 1999, from the minister's predecessor, which included a copy of the independent review that was done. The letter told me that some steps had already been taken to address recommendations made in the report. The remaining recommendations were apparently discussed at a senior management meeting at the end October, with specific action plans to be forwarded to a senior official within the ministry by December 15, 1999.
My question is, as much as anything, I guess, tidying up a loose end. The report does have a number of recommendations. It's obvious that they were discussed. There were specific action plans to be forwarded to Mr. Stackhouse. Did the government accept the recommendations, and are they being implemented?
[1050]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it's my understanding that they have been acted upon and are being, or have been, implemented. I'll make sure I confirm that understanding, however, with staff who are a little closer to this than I am. If there's any need to correct that, I'll get back to the member. But that's my understanding.
Let me introduce Norm Leibel, who's the deputy chief coroner here and who just informed me that in fact my previous answer was correct: they have all been acted upon and implemented.
G. Plant: I appreciate that. That was the question I wanted to ask about coroners.
I want to move on to the subject of film classification. I'm sorry to disappoint the coroner service, but I can tell you that they're a valuable part of life in British Columbia. Their services are much appreciated. I know, in particular, that the services of stipendiary coroners -- fee-for-service coroners -- are much appreciated by the victims of the crimes that are often the reason the coroner service is engaged in the first place.
I want to move to the subject of film classification. This does not ordinarily occupy much attention in this forum, because the film classification branch is, I think, a model of how governments can do business.
There has been some discussion recently about video-game violence. In particular, a resident of the lower mainland with the unlikely surname of Campbell has become a pretty passionate and informed advocate for a new look by government at the question of whether video games should be classified more rigorously, perhaps, than they are now. I think there is a pretty effective system of classification in place for motion pictures; at least, I'm not aware that there's widespread public concern with the way in which the film classification business is done in British Columbia. As I understand it, the film classification people have, conceivably, jurisdiction over such matters as the depiction of violence in video games. There is a sense that existing models of classification are adequate.
[1055]
I know that this issue has excited some public interest. I know that this issue has engaged a number of municipal councils in the lower mainland, including Delta and Richmond and, I think, Surrey -- or it will be Surrey shortly. I don't think it's an issue where a detailed discussion here in the estimates forum would be as useful as the assurance by the minister that those within his ministry and within the film classification branch are prepared to apply their technical expertise to a reconsideration of this issue. It doesn't seem unreasonable to make that request, not just because there is some very effective advocacy going on out there in the community, but also because, from my own experience as a parent of teenagers, the level of violence in video games seems to me to be increasing. I think it's probably a good thing for governments to take a fresh look at these questions on a regular basis.
I wonder if the Attorney General could indicate if this issue has caught his ear and what, if anything, he plans to do about it.
Hon. A. Petter: This issue certainly has caught my ear. I guess I would start by just saying that my general reaction to it is that anything we can do to provide the public, and particularly parents, with more information on which they can base consumer decisions and decisions concerning the exposure of children, in particular, to violence and other adult
[ Page 15655 ]
material
In terms of the regulatory structure, I'm not fully versed with it. My understanding is that there is some window for the branch to do this. If it's viewed as adult material, then it can classify.
I should introduce the staff with me here. Barry Salmon is the project coordinator with the public safety branch.
There is some suggestion that the reach may not go beyond adult material, although how you figure out whether it's adult or not in the first place I'm not clear on. It's one of those issues we'll have to get to the bottom of.
In any event, there are also issues about how I'm going to cover the costs in the case of video games. There's a cost recovery basis, as I understand it, for film. Those are all issues that I think are worth pursuing and looking at. I'm very concerned, both as a parent and as a public official, at the extent to which violent depictions in particular are permitted on TV and movies. Anything we can do to enhance consumer choice and hopefully allow parents to curb the exposure of children to such violence, I think, is a positive.
So in the case of video games, my view is that it is a proposal that's worth considering. I have asked that I be given more information on what steps would need to be taken to move in that direction.
G. Plant: Conceivably, then, we're not limited here to simply public education but rather the possibility of regulatory change or policy change if, upon further examination and careful study, it should become apparent that there is more work that can be done within the parameters that the minister is talking about. In effect, I think we have the minister's commitment that he's directed staff to look into the issue fairly broadly. Is that fair?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think I've in fact said the same in public -- although I can't recall where -- that this is an issue that is of concern. I have therefore asked that the issue be followed up on and that there be an examination of how we might move to providing a classification program for the benefit of consumers in respect of video games -- and to give me both policy advice in terms of regulatory change that would be required and advice as to how we would then implement it with or without regulatory change.
[1100]
G. Plant: Those who are concerned about the issue will, I'm sure, be happy to hear that the minister is looking into it. They will probably also be impatient for an answer as to the outcome of the review or the consideration of these issues that the minister is talking about. Can the minister put some kind of time lines on the question of when we might hear further from him on what action, if any, will be taken in this area?
Hon. A. Petter: I think this issue was only drawn to my attention last week or maybe the week before, but only very recently. I guess I can only say as soon as possible. Not knowing what in fact is involved, I don't want to jam officials into a time frame that's unrealistic. But certainly I would like to get a response as soon as possible and be able to move on this if at all possible. So I would say it's within a matter of months rather than years, and hopefully very few months, before I can announce what action, if any, might be taken.
G. Plant: That's helpful. One thing that I have not had the opportunity to do enough of yet in respect of this particular issue is to examine comparative approaches in other jurisdictions, and that can take some time. I think there's always an opportunity for B.C. to become a public policy leader in important issues like this. But I'm sure that the minister's staff are going to give careful consideration both to the issue and to the complexities that are raised by it. I'm glad that the issue has the minister's ear. I don't know if there are any questions that need to be asked about that; I don't see any others.
My colleague the member for Langley is going to want to ask some questions in a minute or two. The next series of questions, I suppose, could be described as wrap-up questions. I can't promise that they follow the helpful sequence that has been followed to date, and it may well be that in some cases the minister won't have staff available. But if we just put the question on the record, as it were, then at least we'll have some basis for getting some further information down the road.
The first thing on this list, I should say, is unusual. It's an offer I'm going to make to the minister. I raised the question earlier in the estimates of the accuracy of electronic recording as a means of creating transcripts of court proceedings versus the accuracy of court reporters. The questions and the answers that were part of that debate have excited some interest in the community, of people who are concerned about court reporting -- in particular, the minister's statement that the study had been done into the accuracy of audiotape recordings. The statement that there had been a study that indicated audiotape recordings were as much as 40 percent more accurate than court reporter transcripts caught the ear of some people.
I've been provided with some information by people who are interested in this that consists of studies done and analyses of the efficacy and economy claims made around different forms of recording systems as compared with court reporters. The contention being made is that as a whole, the research undertaken across North America does not support the claims of the ministry with respect to the accuracy of electronic and audio recording technologies. Rather than attempt to pull out different passages from the different reports that I've been given copies of, I'm going to instead make copies of the reports I've been given, provide them to the minister and encourage him to have a look at these additional studies to ensure that his own sense of the status quo is informed by the broadest possible collection of available data and information. So I thought I would mention that.
[1105]
In fact, there is even some material here that comments on the particular test trials that were done at the Vancouver law courts that may have been the basis for the information provided during the earlier part of the estimates debate. So that is something I'll do for the minister so we can exchange information.
Unless the minister has anything on that particular question, I would move on to an issue that I should have can-
[ Page 15656 ]
vassed earlier. That is the progress in implementing the electronic filing system that is proposed for use in the land title branch. The minister will recall that last year the Legislature passed legislation intended to implement electronic filing in the land title office. The bill that was passed has been enacted but not yet proclaimed. I have recently obtained a copy of the Benchers' Bulletin of the Law Society of British Columbia for March-April 2000, which has a report on a delay in the e-filing initiative in the land title branch. The minister will recall this issue of the Benchers' Bulletin because it also has a picture of him on the front cover.
The statement made in the bulletin is that the electronic filing system under development at the land title branch will be delayed six to eight months because the land title branch has terminated its relationship with DMR Consulting Group and is seeking a new technology developer. It goes on to point out that the ministry is still committed to the project and that there are revised projections for the implementation of the electronic filing arrangements. Could the minister give us a larger overview, first of all, of what has gone on here?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm assisted by Susan Allen, who is director of operations and systems in the land title branch. The electronic filing system project remains an objective of the ministry. In fact, we think the case for the project is, if anything, stronger than when it was first launched. However, in efforts to advance the project it became clear that there were difficulties with the company that had been contracted in meeting the requirements as anticipated and within cost. There was an agreement reached, therefore, between DMR and the ministry to terminate the relationship. There was no liability on the part of the ministry toward DMR for that. What it has meant is that there will be a delay while we seek another contractor who can deliver on the project specifications within the budget targets. As soon as that is done, the project will proceed as originally planned, but the delay will be in the range of five to eight months at the outside.
G. Plant: The minister says there was no liability to DMR Consulting Group. Did the ministry spend money funding its obligations under this contract with DMR Consulting Group? What is the total amount of that expenditure? Can the minister indicate whether the work product, if you will, of that relationship has some ongoing value, or is it work that was all thrown away?
[1110]
Hon. A. Petter: No payment whatsoever has been or will be made to DMR under these arrangements. There have been other expenditures in preparing for the project which will remain relevant as we move to a different contractor or group of contractors.
G. Plant: One of the issues I think existed a year ago when the bill was introduced and then passed had to do with
Hon. A. Petter: I think the work done to date has confirmed the viability of the project -- has demonstrated a business case which, as I suggested a few minutes ago, is in fact stronger than the one that was originally put forward. In fact this has shown that the marketplace for this form of electronic system is stronger than was initially expected. So all the work that's been done to date confirms that the technology is certainly there, but it's also cost-effective and the marketplace will support the use of technology.
The concern has been to make sure that we have the right service providers in place to deliver on the technology in a cost-effective way. I think the view was taken that it required a different contractor or group of contractors to deliver on the technology once some of these assessments have been done. That's why the delay is being incurred, to make sure we get it right as delivered. But everything to date strengthens the view that this is a project which is, from both a financial and technological point of view, viable and cost effective.
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask a question to the minister regarding a problem which has gained some attention with today's Vancouver Sun story on the front page, headlined "Landowners Not Told of Heritage Site Restrictions." I first discovered the extent of this problem a few months ago when I was contacted by a farmer named Melvin Vander-Hoek in Agassiz, British Columbia. Since then I've been to his property a number of times.
I've met with him in his kitchen as delegations of authorities from the provincial government came to meet with him essentially with the message that he has to stop development of a project he had going on land that he acquired in December of 1999. Now, I've searched the certificate of title and found no notation indicating any heritage site or archaeological site indication. However, government authorities told me that they have known about a heritage site at this property for something in excess of 30 years but have never taken a step to actually register or make a notation with the land titles registry.
[1115]
I note that, I believe, section 32 of the Heritage Conservation Act does allow the provincial government to make notations of heritage sites at the land titles registry. I received a letter from Malcom McAvity of land titles in March of this year, indicating there were precisely two such notations with land titles under the Heritage Conservation Act. A short while later I received a letter from the heritage branch of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, indicating that they know of at least 21,259 archaeological sites in British Columbia. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what the delay or the impediment has been in terms of filing heritage sites with land titles.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware of the concern raised by the member -- or have become aware of it in recent days. I understand that the designation is voluntary; I guess I'm not clear in my own mind who institutes it. My guess would be that it's instituted at the behest of the ministry responsible for heritage designations. If that supposition is right, then the member may want to take this issue up with that minister in
[ Page 15657 ]
his estimates. However, I'd be happy to try to get more information -- and Mr. McAvity is not here today, unfortunately -- and to either arrange for a follow-up out of my ministry or encourage the member to try to get a greater clarification from the Small Business ministry.
I guess what the land title system does is that it requires certain kinds of encumbrances to be registered and allows others. I assume from what the member said, if the information is correct, that two have been registered. But the question of what triggers that registration and who brings it forward is an issue he may wish to explore with the minister responsible for heritage.
B. Penner: I appreciate that advice, and I can assure the minister that I will be doing that. The minister was present last week for a debate on Bill 8, the Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act, which had the effect of amending the Heritage Conservation Act and extending the period during which individuals may be prosecuted for running afoul, even inadvertently, of the Heritage Conservation Act. Previously there was a six-month limitation; that's been extended to two years. What's worse is that two years doesn't even start to run until authorities learn about the offence taking place. So in some ways it's almost indefinite, because you don't know when authorities will find out about the offence.
This highlighted a concern which we addressed last week in the Legislature about the lack of notice that private property owners are given about heritage sites. I'd like the minister to tell us whether the land titles branch, to his knowledge, is opposed to registering these types of properties -- if they have any difficulty doing so.
I note, for example, that it's common practice for there to be legal notation indicating that an individual property may be affected by the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which imposes similar types of restrictions on what owners may do with their land. But it seems to be a very uncommon practice to make such a notation regarding the Heritage Conservation Act.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not aware that there's any aversion to such registrations. But I understand that Mr. McAvity is following up, based on some of the concerns that the member has raised, and looking at the matter. I'll ask him to give me a fuller briefing on the matter so I can become more conversant with the role played by land titles. But I'm not aware that there's any aversion on the part of the land titles branch to making such notations where they're sought.
L. Stephens: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions around the criminal justice system. I know that the opportunity passed some time ago, so I appreciate the critic's allowing me to ask some questions at this point in time.
[1120]
First, I'd like to thank the minister for a letter I received putting in place JP services for Langley RCMP. I've spoken to Superintendent MacDonald. He's very pleased, as are both mayors. So I want to thank the minister for making sure that this went through quite quickly.
I also want to thank the ministry for the answers to the questions that were given during the briefing that we received from the ministry staff. I appreciate those answers as well.
The questions I want to ask are around No. 8 of the "Goals and Strategies": "implement comprehensive policies on violence against women in relationships, sexual assault and child abuse/neglect." I want to start with the violence against women in relationships policy that has just been recently revised in January of this year. I see with the new document that there are going to be three components developed. The first is the violence against women in relationships policy, which is the one we have here. The second one is sexual assault. The third is violence against children and youth.
The update substantially changes police section 3: "Response and Arrest," and Crown section C, "Bail Hearing." I wonder if the minister could talk about some of the other gaps that were identified in this particular policy and when those would be addressed?
Hon. A. Petter: Sorry, hon. Chair. We're struggling over here to find the page within the ministry performance plan that the member is referring to and what gap she's therefore referring to. I apologize for not having
Maybe I could get the member to briefly restate it, and then we'll try to get on the same page, so to speak.
L. Stephens: The Performance Plan 2000-2001, Ministry of the Attorney General, page 13. It says "Goals and Strategies." And No. 8, second bullet, talks about: "implement comprehensive policies on violence against women in relationships." The ministry's policy that was revised in January of this year substantially changes those sections that I mentioned. A couple of years ago there was a review done by the Attorney General's ministry and the Ministry of Women's Equality that had consultations from around the province. It talked about what some of the gaps in services were. A number of those were identified, and the Attorney General's ministry undertook to close some of those gaps.
Now I'm presuming that in this new update of the policy in January, some of those gaps were addressed and the substantial changes that I mentioned to the police section 3, "Response and Arrest" and Crown section C, "Bail Hearing," were issues that were addressed. But there were some others that were identified, and the one that most people around the province were concerned about was the mutual battering and the mutual charging -- the fact that the police were tending to charge both parties as opposed to one or the other. That was causing some significant difficulties, and that was one of the gaps that people had identified. I wonder if the minister has taken any action on that particular issue.
Hon. A. Petter: I will try to give my best answer based on the fact that the personnel from the ministry most directly related to this are not present. As I understand it, the major outstanding issue in terms of finalizing a policy is in the area of sexual assault policy. One of the key issues there, which I have discussed with the Minister of Women's Equality, relates to policy with respect to the use of alternative measures in sexual assault cases -- the extent to which those measures are available or are not available, for example. There has been a policy that Crown counsel have put in place, for example, that says that such measures should not normally be deployed but nonetheless are available in certain extraordinary circumstances. That, I know, has caused some concern and controversy in certain quarters. That's an issue that I have looked at
[ Page 15658 ]
and reviewed. I have talked with the Minister of Women's Equality on it, as well, and intend to talk to groups in the community who are concerned about it. I think it's that policy and perhaps some other aspects that have prevented a finalization on the sexual assault component the member is referring to.
[1125]
L. Stephens: The sexual assault policy is a separate issue -- it's part of it, but it's a little separate issue -- from the violence against women in relationships and the mutual charging issue. I wonder if the minister could speak to that -- whether or not there's been some discussion around the dual charging that is happening around the province and whether or not the ministry is planning to do anything about that.
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, there has been a comprehensive wife assault and violence against women in relationships policy in place for some time and a ministry policy in respect to child sexual abuse as well. That policy has also been expanded as a violence against children and youth policy.
If the member is suggesting that there are particular issues that need to be revisited within those policies -- in particular the mutual assault issue -- I'll be frank: that's not an issue that has yet come to my attention until this moment. But now that it has been drawn to my attention, I 'd be happy to review it and get up to speed on it. And if the member, in particular, has concerns and views that she would like to share with me, I'd be very happy to work with her on this as we worked on the previous issue she referred to and made some headway in getting a telewarranting service -- a rather different issue, I admit, but one that I think demonstrates that I'm quite open to the member's suggestions. If there are some gaps, even within the existing policies, I'd be happy to work on those. The major gap, of course, is the finalization of the sexual assault policy. That's what I was referring to earlier.
L. Stephens: I thank the minister for that, and I will endeavour to bring to the minister's attention some of the outstanding issues that are still out there. He's absolutely right; a sexual assault policy is one that is ongoing. Since 1995, I think, the ministry has been endeavouring to come to grips with bringing forward some kind of sexual assault policy, and it's still not one that has been completely and fully developed. I wasn't even aware that Crown counsel had guidelines. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to make those available to me -- what they are, whether or not they provide for transition house workers, emergency room personnel, victim services workers and simply service providers, and whether or not it's broadly known what that sexual assault guideline is for the Crown prosecutor.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to share the policy with the member. The policy as I understand it doesn't relate specifically to sexual assault; it relates to the use of alternative measures and when they are available. It creates a continuum of offences -- from those that are presumed to lead to alternative measures to those for which alternative measures are never available. Sexual assault, as I understand it, falls within the category of offences for which alternative measures are rarely available -- only under exceptional circumstances. That has caused some controversy as to whether they should be situated in that category or indeed moved to the category in which they are never available. It's that policy I was referring to. If the member doesn't have a copy of that policy or would like to receive one, I'd be happy to share it with her.
[1130]
L. Stephens: No I don't have a copy of it, and yes, I would be very glad to get one.
Violence against children. I'm not sure if the minister is aware, but there was a conference in Vancouver called Protecting Children Who Witness Abuse. There were a number of professionals from all over the world, actually, that attended that conference. One of the suggestions that came from it was to include children who witness abuse in the violence against women policy, designating that as child abuse, so that at the time of charging, the perpetrator is charged with two offences: one is the violence against the woman, and the other is child abuse. I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to including that kind of alternative within the policy or in legislation.
Hon. A. Petter: I was certainly aware of the conference the member referred to and of the concerns generally that were raised at that conference. Of course, both my predecessor and I subsequently have pursued issues with respect to child abuse -- including seeking the federal government to increase the age of consent, for example.
The particular issue the member's referring to makes
Again, I'd be happy to pursue that. If the member has some information to share with me on that further to what she shared orally now, I'd be most appreciative.
L. Stephens: I do have the information, and I will get it to the minister. I appreciate his willingness to look at that.
I have one further comment, and that is about stalking. We've seen on the front page of the Province today what can result from that kind of activity. This is an issue where the woman who was slain is alleged to have said that she documented all of the evidence for the police, and she said the police didn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
I realize that the police aren't going to be able to get every incident like this and that there are going to be complaints that turn out to have some violent and tragic endings. I wonder if the ministry is looking at strengthening or enhancing in some way the stalking provisions in this province -- whether through legislation or through a stand-alone policy on stalking.
Hon. A. Petter: I haven't had a chance to read the story that the member refers to. But let me say generally that it's been the policy of government to view stalking very seriously. The evidence of that is also in another article that I think is probably in the paper today, indicating that the federal government may be moving to increase the penalties under the Criminal Code for stalking. That move came in response to
[ Page 15659 ]
requests from this province and my predecessor that the Criminal Code should reflect more seriously the damage and violence that is associated with stalking and the menacing effect it can have on people's lives. I guess what I'd say generally is that the government takes a very serious view of stalking.
We welcome, therefore, the federal government's response, if indeed it is intending to proceed to increase the penalties. I should point out that by increasing the penalties to ten years, it will also open the door for charging people or for dealing with those who are charged and convicted of stalking as dangerous offenders under the dangerous offender designation.
In respect of the particular incident the member refers to, I just haven't acquainted myself with the facts on that, but I'd be happy to do so and follow up.
[1135]
L. Stephens: A lot of the problem that I'm hearing from around the province is that women are having difficulty getting the police to investigate, so that's where a lot of this seems to stem from. There have been a number of complaints made repeatedly -- not in all parts of the province, but in some parts of the province -- that it's difficult to get the police to investigate these.
One last question, and that is about CPIC: whether or not it's possible to have domestic violence and firearms controls linked to the CPIC system, and whether or not there is a method of flagging these particular cases so that the police have ready access for notification of past history of violence or misuse of firearms.
Hon. A. Petter: I share the member's concern that all agencies of government and of the police take complaints regarding stalking seriously and follow up. Again, I think that message can be sent in a number of ways. But certainly perhaps the increase in penalties in the Criminal Code will be one further way of sending that signal to the community at large.
In respect of CPIC, I'm not sure if I'm missing the member's point. But as I understand it, CPIC carries information on all criminal offences. That would include offences related to domestic violence and offences that relate to misuse of firearms. If the member is thinking of some additional information beyond that, again, if she wanted to communicate that to me, I could review that. But as I understand it, CPIC would carry information right now of any criminal misconduct in relation to the two areas she referenced.
L. Stephens: Just for clarification, I've spoken with the RCMP, and my understanding is that they do carry the various types of offences on their CPIC system. But domestic violence is not flagged; it's not like a K file. It needs to have the same sort of K-file designation as their paper files do, so CPIC could probably use that to inform their members more broadly.
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for clarifying that point. It's an issue that again, through this discussion and debate, I'll ask staff to follow up on and give me advice on how that might be done and in what way it could be implemented.
G. Plant: In the public accounts for the year 1998-99 it is recorded that the estimated appropriations for the Crown Proceeding Act were $10,740,000. There were other authorizations totalling some $29,317,000, for a total appropriation of about $40 million under the Crown Proceeding Act. In years past I've been able to get a list of the various proceedings which resulted in appropriations under the Crown Proceeding Act. I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General to provide me with a list of the various proceedings and amounts relating to the Crown Proceeding Act for 1998-1999. It's not something I need now, but it's a documentary request. If the minister could let me know whether I can get it, I'd be delighted.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have staff here who are directly familiar with this. If this is information that's been provided in the past and the member wants it updated for the current public accounts, I'd be happy to follow up and provide him with the current information in the form he has received it previously.
G. Plant: What I'm proposing we do is that we move to liquor control and licensing at this point. When that's complete, there will be some questions on the Provincial Capital Commission and B.C. 2000 grants. My colleague the member for Chilliwack is the critic responsible for liquor control and licensing, so I'll leave you in his capable hands. We'll probably end up carrying through over lunch.
[1140]
B. Penner: It might be prudent at this time to send a message to my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who would like to at least observe this part of the estimates. I'm informed that the message has now been sent, so we will proceed.
I thank the minister and, through him, his staff for providing me with a briefing some time ago and for a number of documents produced at the behest of the ministry. I am in possession of the performance plan 2000-2001 for the Ministry of Attorney General, which has a synopsis, as it were, of the plans for the liquor control and licensing branch. However, I note that I was informed during the briefing that there was no specific business plan prepared for the liquor control and licensing branch itself for this year. I'm advised that's because the liquor control and licensing branch is devoting the majority of its energy to implementing the recommendations of the Surich report, which I believe was completed in the fall of 1998 and was formally adopted by cabinet in June of 1999.
I understand also that there are not just the Surich report recommendations per se that need to be dealt with but substantial amendments which were passed by the legislature last year -- which totalled 60 or more -- affecting liquor licensing in the province. I recognize that this is a major undertaking but note with a little bit of disappointment that there is no business plan specifically for the liquor control and licensing branch for this year.
With that out of the way, I'd like to get a few preliminaries settled. During the briefing I was mistaken as to the total number of FTEs allotted to liquor control and licensing. I wonder if I could have that clarified now, on the record. How many FTEs are there this year in the liquor control and licensing branch as opposed to last year?
[ Page 15660 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I should introduce Bob Simson, who is general manager of liquor control and licensing within the ministry. The liquor control and licensing branch is, as I think the member is aware, incorporated within the performance plan for the ministry. Therefore there is, within the ministry's plan, a component that is directed at liquor control and licensing -- to make that clear for the record. The short answer to the member's question is that the FTE complement this year and last has not changed. It's 80.
B. Penner: One of the specific recommendations of the Surich report
I'd like to begin here with the issue of U-brews and U-vins. I know that over the last number of years there has been some controversy about what at least used to be a growing segment of the liquor industry in the province. I'd like to know at the outset how many U-brew and U-vin operators the ministry is aware of in the province. How many, as of today, are now licensed under the new regime?
Hon. A. Petter: I understand there are 303 licensed currently and a few others that are in discussion with the branch.
B. Penner: That's out of the total number of how many in the province?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I understand it, the ministry has had about 400 applications, but as I say, all but a very few have been licensed. So 303 are licensed now. There are a few others that are still in discussion, but it's not as though there is a large number of others that have not met the licensing requirement and are waiting in queue.
[1145]
B. Penner: How many staff are directed to implementing the regulations as they pertain to the U-brew and U-vin operators in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: There's no specific designated complement of staff that deal with this issue alone; it's absorbed within the licensing capacity of the branch. Just to give the member some context, there are about 8,000 licensees that are licensed by the branch. So the addition of these 300 is a significant but not hugely significant additional pressure.
B. Penner: One of the concerns that had been expressed with regard to U-brew and U-vin operators is that there were apparently a number, perhaps a small number, who were essentially operating almost as breweries or wineries, in the sense that they weren't really requiring their customers to participate in the brewing or wine-making process. I'm wondering if the ministry had a number or percentage of U-brews and U-vins that were operating as breweries or wineries and manufacturing alcohol for their customers. What was the scope of the problem?
Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to give my best answer to this question. Then we should break and come back to this, unless
The licensing process has not been a process in which there has been an effort to do the actual policing the member was referring to. The licences help to impose more clearly the conditions and demark the conditions under which these licensees operate. So it's not as though, through licensing, there has been an identification of people who may be exceeding what the licences now require. But now that there's a licensing regime in place, it will indeed be possible to enforce and ensure that neither U-brews nor U-vins overstep the limits and that they do not effectively become, as the member says, breweries or wineries but rather provide the service that they are licensed to provide.
And with that, hon. Chair, I think what I'll do is move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada