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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 18
[ Page 15661 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have Leslie Gibbenhuck, chair of the Children's Liver Alliance in Canada. She is visiting us from Penticton, along with her 11-year-old son, Jarad. Leslie has been an activist regarding hepatitis C since she found out that her son contracted the disease in 1995. Jarad was actually infected during an operation in 1988.
Accompanying Leslie and Jarad are friends Ron Thiel and Sue and John White. They will be meeting with me tomorrow morning, and they are visiting here today. I would ask the House to please make them most welcome.
B. Barisoff: On behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, I'd like to welcome all those people who are here for Agriculture Day, whether they're here in the gallery or outside. We have people from all over the province representing agriculture. It's a fine day, and we'd like to welcome them all here. Will the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce two guests from the Kamloops area who are here for Agriculture Day today and for our real extravaganza last evening. I'd like the House to welcome Doug Haughton, who represents the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, and Leo Sunder, who represents the Associated Ginseng Growers of B.C. Would the House please make these visitors welcome.
[1410]
Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure to introduce one person who's here because of Agriculture Day and two people who are here just because it's a nice place to visit. The first is a constituent of mine, Judy Galey of the B.C. Potato and Vegetable Growers Association of Victoria, who, as I say, is here for Agriculture Day. The second introduction relates to my mom, Elizabeth Petter, and her friend Dede McBride, who's here visiting from Trail. I'd ask the House to join me in making all three of these visitors welcome.
R. Thorpe: I would like to join with the minister in welcoming Leslie Gibbenhuck and Jarad. I've known them for over five years. Leslie has worked tirelessly on behalf of hep C victims, not only in Penticton and in the province of British Columbia but across Canada. I would like to acknowledge her work and let everyone know that she'll be conducting a seminar tonight to assist 86 to 90 claimants in this work. So Leslie, welcome; Jarad, welcome. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: In the gallery today I have a very good friend of many, many years from Golden, Roy Short, down here visiting his elderly mother for Mother's Day. So welcome, Roy. With Roy is his brother-in-law Fred Halderson, who lives in Victoria. Please make them welcome.
G. Hogg: There are 77 vibrant, active and inquisitive grades 4 and 5 students from Star of the Sea School here today, along with their teachers, Mrs. Fraser, Ms. Dayton and Mr. Durante, and many of their parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Sawicki: To my distress, I don't actually have any agricultural land left in my riding, but my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds always shares Burnaby's Big Bend with me. On behalf of him and myself, I would like to welcome to the House Herb Van der Ende of United Flower Growers in Burnaby and Casey Van Vloten of the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association in Burnaby.
B. Penner: It's my distinct pleasure today to introduce my parents, Wilf and Frieda Penner, who have taken the day off from their apple orchard in Chilliwack to travel to our provincial capital. They are joined by my uncle and aunt, Art and Margaret Penner, who are visiting from Harrison Hot Springs. Would the House please make them welcome.
E. Gillespie: I'd like to introduce two delegates who are here from the Comox Valley as part of B.C. Agriculture Day, George Hamilton and Jeff Hamilton, cranberry growers in the valley. Would the House please make them welcome.
A. Sanders: I'd like to welcome Mr. Melanson and the Silver Star Elementary grade 5 classroom; I think there's a number of parents as well. I hope they have a good day in Victoria and all the best.
Hon. H. Lali: Today in the Legislature is Mr. Ernie Willis. He's a director of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, and he's also a constituent of mine from the Princeton area. Would the House please bid him welcome.
M. Sihota: In the chamber today is Mr. Peter Volk. The Volk family has deep roots in my constituency, in Metchosin. In fact, Hermann Volk was the first mayor of the community of Metchosin. He was an active farmer in the chicken business, as, of course, is Peter Volk. I'd like all members to please give him a warm welcome.
Hon. C. Evans: I waited to see who other people would introduce. I'll just read a short list of people I don't think have been introduced yet that I've been having meetings with today: Herb Barbolet, Farm Folk/City Folk -- proving that Agriculture Day is for city people too; Russell Husch of the B.C. Fruit Growers, from Lake Country; Morris Hanson, a B.C. milk producer from my own constituency of Creston; Thal Poonian, an orchardist from Kelowna; my dear friend Lyle Price, from Port Alberni; and Ivar Rage, Western Greenhouse Growers, Port Alberni. I'd like the House to make them welcome, but I'd also like to make sure all MLAs visit the displays downstairs over the course of the rest of the day. Will the House please make these growers welcome.
[1415]
B. Goodacre: I have three introductions. Visiting from my riding and my hometown of Smithers is Paul Davidson, whose family runs a dairy and beef farm just outside of Smithers. Paul and I, 12 years ago, were on the same championship hockey team in the Smithers hockey league. My wife Mary-Etta Cloud is visiting here with her sister DeLois Burggrof from Fairbanks, Alaska. I'd like you to make all three of them welcome.
D. Zirnhelt: Representing cattlemen from the Cariboo and Chilcotin, Harold Starr and Mark Nairn are in the precincts today. Please make them welcome.
[ Page 15662 ]
Oral Questions
FUTURE USE OF JERICHO LANDS
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Jericho lands are 38 acres of provincially owned land in my constituency in the city of Vancouver. They are immediately adjacent to 52 acres of federally owned land. Previously, the government had committed to a full and open public process to examine the redevelopment of those lands to meet the social, physical and economic needs of the neighbourhood and the community. Unfortunately, this government has broken that commitment. BCBC is now trying to ram through a subdivision that speaks more to the government's need for cash than to good public policy. My question to the minister responsible for BCBC is: can he explain why the government has broken its commitment to the people of Vancouver? Why is he trying to rush through a single-family subdivision which will not meet the needs of the community, the city or the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This issue of what we shall do with Jericho lands has indeed been a topic of much discussion both in this chamber and elsewhere. BCBC has been working with the city, with community groups, with first nations and with others, consulting thoroughly on how they should move ahead. No decisions have been taken on what direction they should move. They are looking at all options, including the possibility of development on the site.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental question.
G. Campbell: What BCBC is presenting to the community is a single-family subdivision proposition. Only 10 percent of the people there support that kind of development. As the government tries to ram through this single-family development, what happens is that we lose opportunities for seniors housing we lose opportunities for young family housing and we lose opportunities to properly plan public spaces. Surely the minister understands that the need for million-dollar homes is pretty slight in terms of public policy in British Columbia. My question to the minister is: will he stop the subdivision application today? Will he enter into a true and open public planning process with the city, with the neighbourhood, with the feds and with aboriginal communities if he so desires, so that we can have a proper plan for the future of the city and the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has recognized the need for social housing, even though the critic speaks against the establishment of social housing in British Columbia. The use of Jericho lands is an issue in which many have a stake, and many should have their voices heard -- including the neighbourhood, first nations, the city of Vancouver and those who care deeply about these lands. This is not something that I think should be a partisan process. I invite the Leader of the Opposition or members of the opposition to meet with me or BCBC and give their views on how we move forward, using Jericho lands well to meet the needs of the province and of the people of Vancouver.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition with a further supplemental question.
G. Campbell: The problem with the minister's response is that it is not representing what the government's position is. They are trying to ram through a single-family subdivision. The minister knows -- or the minister should know -- that the province undertook to have a major, open public process which included the city, the neighbourhood, aboriginal communities and the province. That is not taking place today.
[1420]
If the minister believes it's taking place today, he's clearly not being well informed by his officials. His officials have said clearly: "This is something that we are putting forward. It's going to be a single-family subdivision." That's the only choice they have given the neighbourhood. Will the minister undertake to stop the subdivision today and allow for a full public process to take place so that those lands will be socially beneficial as well as economically beneficial to the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, I think it's good that the Leader of the Opposition has recognized that there's more to land use planning than satisfying one's developer friends. It's a slight change from when he was mayor of Vancouver. Let me say again that this is the Liberal opposition that spoke of social housing as a waste of taxpayer dollars.
We are committed to moving forward on development of Jericho lands but doing so in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the neighbourhood, to the city and to first nations in the area, because this is a very high-profile issue that we need to deal with sensitively.
MANAGEMENT OF
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS'
SINKING FUNDS
G. Farrell-Collins: As usual, what the government says and what the government's actually doing often are two different things. That's certainly the case in this situation.
I have another question for the Minister of Finance. About 80 of B.C.'s small improvement districts have borrowed approximately $10 million over the years to build infrastructure or improve infrastructure such as septic tanks and water mains. The residents of these improvement districts are now faced with paying huge lump sum payments when their bonds come due. Will the Minister of Finance explain why his government mismanaged these sinking funds? And will he explain why his government mismanaged the people of those improvement districts, who are facing huge lump sum payments because his government didn't manage those sinking funds properly?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I know there are a number of districts that are concerned about this. I think there are four or five around the province; it is a small number. The difficulty is this: those financing instruments are indeed held by others in the public sector as well. There's not an easy and obvious fix to this. The ministry is working closely with those districts to try to find an answer that makes sense to the taxpayers of those districts.
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: It would have made sense to the taxpayers of those districts if the Ministry of Finance had done their job. Their job was to make sure that at the end of the day, when those bonds came due, those districts had put enough
[ Page 15663 ]
money in to pay off the principal on those bonds. That was the job of the Ministry of Finance. They set the rates; they managed those debts for those small communities. They can't afford a huge debt management division like the Ministry of Finance has, so the Ministry of Finance say they'll do it for them. Why did the Ministry of Finance fail year after year after year in the 1990s to adjust the rate so that ratepayers in those areas wouldn't be left holding the bag for a huge lump sum payment that few of them, if any, can afford to pay?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The allegation of fiscal mismanagement is simply and utterly false. I invite the member opposite to come and talk to folks in the ministry, officials who have been dealing with this issue, because that is simply wrong. Yes, that is an allegation that has been made by a couple of regional districts. We in the Ministry of Finance are working with them to find a solution. They're working with the improvement districts, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the B.C. Investment Management Corporation to identify some options to deal with this situation in a constructive and professional manner. I invite the member opposite to join this problem-solving in a constructive and professional manner.
K. Krueger: Don't tell us it isn't true. The improvement district of Clearwater borrowed $125,000 in 1981. Because of this government's mismanagement of their sinking fund, they will have paid out $516,000 on that $125,000 by the time the bond expires, and they'll still owe $63,000 of the principal. Will the Minister of Finance explain to the residents of Clearwater why his government's negligence has cost them $63,000?
[1425]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I sort of thought we'd be hearing from Kamloops-North Thompson eventually, since this is indeed one of the districts, up in Clearwater, that has been working with the ministry to find a solution for it. I invite this member to look at some constructive and professional options to it. The money that this improvement district owes is owed to the school district in the region. There is not an easy and obvious solution to this. We are going to be working with the improvement district, with the school district and with, as I said, B.C. Investment Management Corporation to find a solution for this difficulty. But to pretend that this happened in a vacuum and that this is somehow mismanagement is simply completely false. I invite the member opposite to lower the volume, crank up the constructive side, and let's find a solution for this.
The Speaker: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson with a supplemental question.
K. Krueger: Here's a couple of the solutions that the minister's ministry has suggested: "Existing sinking fund balances could be allowed to fall short of the target amount or the shortfall refinanced at maturity." There's classic NDP money management -- just borrow it over again.
In 1981 the Casino waterworks district borrowed $10,000 to purchase a water holding tank. That bond matures in 2006. And when it does, after paying some $30,000 in interest and principal payments, the district's 25 families will still owe approximately $6,000 or $240 per family, because this government wasn't doing its job. They borrowed $10,000, they paid $30,000, and they still owe $6,000.
You ask us for solutions. The only solution to this government's incompetence is resignation -- and let a real government get on with the job. Will the Minister of Finance tell the residents of the Casino waterworks district and the residents of every other improvement district why this government failed them and what he intends to do to clean up this mess?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Perhaps the member would like to talk to the person who was Minister of Finance on December 11, 1981, when the sinking fund was established -- 1981, hon. member.
The school district in the area requires and relies on repayment of this debt for part of its own financing. This is a complex and interconnected series of arrangements. We are seeking progressive and constructive solutions. I invite the member to join in those rather than continue the rhetoric.
PROPOSED SUMAS POWER PLANT AND
FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY CONCERNS
J. van Dongen: Next month the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council begins hearings into the planned Sumas 2 gas-fired power plant located just south of Abbotsford. This power plant raises serious air quality concerns for Fraser Valley residents in an already smog-ridden airshed. We understand that this government will not be intervening in the Washington State review process. Will the Environment minister explain to the citizens of the Fraser Valley why she is not standing up and doing everything possible to fight against this proposal?
Hon. J. Sawicki: Certainly the MELP staff has been involved in the concerns and shares the concerns over air quality and other issues regarding this project. We have in fact been coordinating all of the interests around this proposed project and putting forward our comments to Washington State. They have sent back the draft environmental impact statement. So we are involved; we are taking leadership. Clearly the hon. member recognizes that this project is taking place across the 49th parallel, and therefore the federal government is involved as well.
[1430]
The Speaker: The member for Abbotsford has a supplemental question.
J. van Dongen: The minister says it's involved, but they're not taking a position. B.C. Hydro has said that it wouldn't build a similar plant in the Fraser Valley because of air quality concerns. This minister has rejected standing up for air quality in the Fraser Valley, while other agencies such as the city of Abbotsford have sought intervener status in this U.S. process. Will the minister admit that the real reason her ministry has not sought intervener status is because this government actually favours allowing this U.S. company to proceed, in spite of the fact that it will make a bad air quality situation even worse?
Hon. J. Sawicki: It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that this government does not pay attention and is not concerned about air quality. We are the government that has taken initiatives on greenhouse gases and climate change. We have taken the initiative on vehicle emissions. We are taking the initiatives to help people get out of their cars.
Certainly I appreciate that Abbotsford is concerned about this project. We share that concern, and that's why this minis-
[ Page 15664 ]
try has been working cooperatively with every other level of government to ensure that we express the very serious concerns we have with this project.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Tabling Documents
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table two reports: first the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors 1998-99 annual report, and also -- to retable -- the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors performance plan 2000-2001, which also includes the environmental scan of 2000-2003.
Hon. D. Lovick: By leave, I call the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries.
Leave granted.
Reports from Committees
B. Goodacre: I move that the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries be adopted.
Hon. Speaker, this report describes work conducted by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries from July 1998 through March 2000 with respect to the development of a new agrifood policy for British Columbia. The report represents a selection of the many views of the agrifood industry and the citizens of British Columbia that were expressed to the committee during its public consultation process. It demonstrates the substantial volume and wide diversity of opinions and issues which were raised.
The committee welcomes the opportunity to educate and advocate on behalf of agriculture in British Columbia. We respect the contribution made by the agrifood industry to the economy of our province and to our society as a whole. We intend to continue our examination of the evidence before us, and we will work towards developing a new vision of a comprehensive agrifood policy that will serve all British Columbians today and into the future.
I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like to thank the Deputy Chair and all members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout the process, as well as the office of the Clerk of Committees for their ongoing assistance and support.
The Speaker: Speaking on the motion, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary.
B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, as Deputy Chair of the committee, I'm pleased to rise in support of the motion to adopt the committee's first report to the Legislative Assembly.
In July of 1998 the committee embarked on a remarkable public consultation process which took us to 14 communities in each of the agricultural regions of the province. Our first report illustrates a wide range of ideas presented to us, including input from young organic farmers to the major industry associations, from large grocery retailers to organizers of local farmers' markets, from food processors and distributors to interested consumers.
The response from these and other components of the agrifood sector has been very strong to date. We have accumulated over 600 submissions, representing every portion of this great industry. But this first report highlights only a cross-section of the many issues which are currently under our consideration. The committee still has a lot of work to do, but I am pleased, on behalf of my caucus colleagues, to join the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine in presenting this first report to the House today.
[1435]
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. Evans: Permission to make a ministerial statement?
Leave granted.
Ministerial Statement
AGRICULTURE DAY
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, when the Minister of Mines gets up in the morning, he can check the price of gold and silver and lead and zinc and a half-dozen stock prices and take the temperature of his industry. When the Minister of Forests wants to know what's happening, it's even easier, because the price of studs is on the radio. The industry is centralized enough that the CEOs and half the workers would fit in a small hall.
Agriculture isn't like that. Last year, if you had friends growing apples or ginseng or wheat, you would have to hear from them about the price of their produce, because it's not on the news. If you heard it at all, you might have thought that farming was finished.
Yet the industry grew. It is because we are producing more than 200 commodities and more than 4,500 products that not one or even six indices can tell you the state of the industry. Thanks to the diversity of production, the nature of the land base, the independence of the producers and the rules around supply management, neither are we a corporate or a centralized industry, with 97 percent of farming remaining a family business. The Minister of Agriculture couldn't meet all the employers in any building smaller than B.C. Place.
Everything about farms and farmland comes down to the question of viability. When we removed Six Mile Ranch from the ALR, we sparked a debate in which ordinary citizens, of course, wanted to talk about government policy or attitude or a land ethic. But the farmers wanted to talk about how to make farming pay.
A couple of weeks ago the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head held a forum on GMOs. The people in the audience wanted to talk about the corporate bad guys, food quality and health, and the WTO. But the farmer on the panel wanted to talk about the price of milk. I don't know of any other industry where the work of production is all at the level of family business, yet the value is all taken out at the level of corporate enterprise.
Even the independent wholesalers and distributors have disappeared from the marketplace in recent years. Now in
[ Page 15665 ]
many places you cannot sell food to the retail store literally across the street from the farm, unless it's been bought first through a central desk in Toronto or Saskatoon or Oakland, California.
Farming changes, yet the industry grows. Producers adapt. This continues to be the only resource industry that has employed more people every year for 20 years.
In 1999 the people who farm this province produced the highest net cash income for B.C. agriculture ever in the history of the province. It was up 24 percent, or $87 million, over the year before and 53 percent over the five-year average.
How did they do it? That story is too complicated to tell in a short ministerial statement. What do they need from us? The answer to that question is viability. How to get there is up to all of the leadership on this floor, everyone up in the gallery and the consumers and citizens watching this on TV.
Answering these questions is partly what Agriculture Day is about. Surely it's an opportunity for farm leadership to be seen to lead and for us to make announcements and to listen. But that's not all it's about. Agriculture Day is about farmers learning about government, and it's about MLAs and ministers and party leaders and deputies and staff and, at least in my dreams, even the press gallery learning about farming and talking about viability.
This is not the work your grandparents did. This is not pastoral, and it is not about lifestyle. This is about business and people and land and product and governance.
[1440]
I have chosen not to use this time to relate the good works of the last year, although I am very proud of what we continue to accomplish. Instead I have used the time to talk about the industry and this event in order to encourage everyone to meet everyone and to learn from one another.
I know that ministers and MLAs are busy and that every hour is just another cause requiring your attention. But remember, hon. members, that at least we woke up here. Our guests come to town only once a year, and they come from all over the province. They come inside this building for a dialogue with all of us. Let's make it happen, let's make it work, and let's keep doing it.
B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the minister's statement on agriculture. First, I'd like to commend the Agriculture Council and the Pendrays for the fine barbecue last night. Their efforts show their true commitment to the industry, enlightening us all about their concerns.
There is no doubt that we have some crucial issues facing us regarding the survival and growth of the agriculture industry in this province. Some of these include; the family farm: the grain farmers in the Peace River, because of their close proximity to Alberta; the tree fruit industry in the Okanagan and the effect that it could have on the tourist industry; and the chicken industry on Vancouver Island.
But we do have some bright spots: the grape and wine industry in the Okanagan and other parts of the province -- we have been able to produce some of the finest wines in the world -- and the greenhouse industry in Delta and the Fraser Valley. Who would have thought B.C. Hot House would export tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers to the U.S., particularly to California?
However, there is a lot more to do in establishing a provincial agriculture policy that works, one that encourages growth and rewards innovation and hard work. Unfortunately, governments have the reputation of slowing down progress and getting in the way of it -- in some cases, even destroying the entrepreneurial spirit that has made this province and country great.
We all must be committed to take the steps to do what is necessary to reverse this trend, particularly in an industry that is so vital to all British Columbians. Developing a provincial agricultural policy that works would be a strong step in that direction. However, we have a lot facing all members of this Legislature. Members should remember that farmers are the backbone of B.C. We must continually remind consumers where their food actually comes from and must support the B.C. farmers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In Committee B, in this chamber, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
[1445]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
On vote 36: ministry operations, $8,125,203,000 (continued).
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again we return to the scintillating debate that is Health estimates.
J. van Dongen: Before the lunch break we were discussing MSA hospital. We talked about the deterioration of the physical plant there. We talked about the very significant population increases in our region. We talked about potential savings in terms of operating costs -- which I believe to be significant -- that we think can be achieved with a new facility. I'll certainly look forward to further discussions with the minister when some of those further analyses are complete.
I want to just touch base on another issue which is very much population-driven -- that is, the operating budgets for the Fraser Valley health region -- and again emphasize the very, very significant impact of a 5 percent-plus annual population increase in our area. On operating budgets, as with capital requirements, that is a very significant increase. If you're not living through that, you may not fully appreciate the implications of that major population increase for our managers and staff in the region.
The ministry has over the years
[ Page 15666 ]
letter from the minister's predecessor -- about a year ago now -- confirming, in response to my letter, that a population-based funding formula is absolutely the right way to go.
That letter talked about ongoing discussions in the ministry. I know this has been raised by other members, but I wonder if the minister could confirm these discussions. What kind of date can we expect for closure on the discussions? What kind of implementation plan would the ministry envision to get to this population-based funding formula?
[1450]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to the member's concerns, I can say that it is a challenging issue for a number of reasons, not the least of which is trying to gain consensus among the different health authorities in the province -- the CHCs and CHSSs -- as to how a population funding formula should work and what criteria should be included in it. That's really one of the key areas in terms of how funding is allocated in a population-based model: what socioeconomic indicators are used to make that formula. Throughout the province there are different demographics, different populations, different age groups and different incidents of illness -- those sorts of things. Those all come to bear on the funding model.
Having said that, we have a committee in place. We are working on issues around funding and funding models. There is still a fair bit of work to do at this particular point in time. I can't give the member a firm date, other than to say that if you're to move in this direction and you're to try and make changes or if you're to try and put together something that will meet the needs of your health authority -- and I recognize that it is a fast-growing one, as is the one that I represent -- it has to be done on a consensus basis. To try and impose something, I think, would have extremely negative consequences. There's a considerable amount of work to be done. I can't give the member a definitive time line with this particular point.
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
J. van Dongen: While the minister was responding, I dug out my letter. It was a letter of April 22, signed by the minister's predecessor. I just want to quote from that letter: "Your points regarding funding pressures for high-growth areas are valid and recognized by the Ministry of Health. Discussions are underway concerning the potential to expand the application of population-based funding." I know that in previous correspondence -- and I'm certain that the minister and his staff are aware -- there have been a number of occasions where the ministry has confirmed that population-based funding is a reasonable objective for a funding formula.
The minister, in his response a moment ago, talked about the need to get consensus. I want to put to him this question. I think it's fair to say that the ministry needs to consult with all of the stakeholders, all of the agencies involved and all of the regional boards. But is the minister being realistic -- or does he think he's being realistic -- in thinking that he can achieve a consensus before he implements some new formula?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I certainly think you have to give it your best shot, and consensus is always desirable -- more desirable than having to impose something. One of the problems around the funding formula or moving to a populationbased formula is that it creates two things. One, you have to agree on the formula to take into account the factors that we discussed a moment ago.
I'll use an example; that's our case. In your area and my area, if we were to focus on the fact -- heavily weighted towards the fact -- that we're fast-growing areas, you and I might agree and think that's a great thing. We can go home. Your health authority is happy; my health authority is happy. But it creates winners and losers, so an area that's growing slower
One of the challenges we have is, as much as possible, to try and get consensus that this is the right model to go to and then also recognize that you're going to have
One of the ways you do that is by thoroughly examining the change you want to make, have a good idea of how that change is going to impact on particular health authorities and then be able to say to those that are being negatively impacted: "Okay, here's how we're going to resolve those sorts of things."
[1455]
If you can show how it'll work and how you're going to resolve the negative impacts, that means to me that you're getting close to building a solid consensus. There's no point in making a change that says, "Okay, we're going to recognize that there are pressures in some health authorities," and not be able to answer the questions or deal with the negative consequences that are certainly going to be there in other health authorities which would be impacted adversely.
J. van Dongen: My sense of the history of this issue and this discussion, though, is that there hasn't been as much debate about what the end objective as a formula should be as there might have been on how to get there. I think a lot of the comments that the minister just made, which I tend to agree with, speak more to transition than they do in terms of the overall objective as to where we need to get to in terms of a funding formula. Certainly it wouldn't be logical and sensible to establish a new funding formula to make the whole change overnight -- in one year.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
I think you have to establish an objective and then figure out a gradual way to move the various regions in those directions. There may be regions where the new funding formula indicates that there be no increases in their budget as time goes down the road. But they would then have the opportunity to make management decisions within their operation that will bring their cost per capita more in line with the rest of the province on a gradual basis.
Surely that's not an unreasonable approach. On the other hand, where you have regions that are seriously lacking,
[ Page 15667 ]
based on the new funding formula, they would be brought up on a gradual basis in terms of their budget so that they're not running out and having a significant increase in one year. But it seems to me that the issues the minister speaks about are transition issues. I wonder if the minister could clarify the distinction I'm trying to make here.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the discussion, in terms of the objective
In terms of actual movements at the current time, there are a number of examples of work in fact currently taking place. Each year, in terms of money on the margin that is available to be expensed by the Ministry of Health to health authorities for particular services, the idea is to try and bring up those areas that are underfunded and are outside the mean or the provincial average.
We talked about an example of that earlier this morning in terms of orthopedic surgeries and how we can recognize and reconcile that some parts of the province have longer wait-lists. What I've said is that that money is now built into the base. So what we are doing is a review of where the money went and looking at reallocating it this year so that it goes to authorities and regions that are on the long side of the average in terms of a wait, for example. So we are moving to bring them up more to the provincial average. That approach is taking place and will continue to take place in the same context as we are also engaged in the discussions that I think will eventually lead us to a point where there is a high degree of consensus.
[1500]
J. van Dongen: In response to the minister, I would say that I derive my interpretation on this issue from the fact that I think a number of ministers now have made some pretty unequivocal statements about the population-based funding formula. Again, I agree with the minister that there are transition issues, some of which he spoke to, and that the ministry -- whenever there are supplemental dollars available -- is trying to bring up certain regions on particular issues. I would certainly encourage the minister to get hold of this issue and make a decision on it and establish an agenda for the ministry on it that can be worked at on an annual basis.
It's an equity issue. It's an issue not just for citizens in these rapid-growth regions but also for staff, for doctors and for regional managers who face particular pressures from these funding inequities.
I want to just make a few comments on the other issue I raised, which is radiation therapy. I've engaged in some correspondence with the minister and his predecessor over the last six or eight months. I would say that during that time, I've had more complaints or concerns from citizens about waiting times for cancer treatments than I have had in the previous four and a half years. We've certainly forwarded to the minister some of the particular situations. In the course of the correspondence
I'm looking at a letter dated February 3 that came, again, from the minister's predecessor and another letter dated March 9, from this minister, that I thought provided some useful information on this issue. There are a couple of issues that I found interesting. One is the letter of February 3, and I quote: "There is a worldwide shortage of radiation oncologists and radiation therapy technicians."
In subsequent correspondence the minister and I talked about this issue of recertification. There doesn't seem to be any easy mechanism for people who have already been trained in radiation therapy to get recertification. They may have been a practising technician for five years and, in one case, took leave to have a family and then are prepared to get back in to the workforce. Here we have a situation where we have a worldwide shortage, and that's been confirmed in other places by other people. People who want to get back into radiation therapy can't get back in without taking the whole course completely over from start to finish. I'm aware of three people who are in that situation.
There may be some legitimacy to the answer; I don't know. But at the same time that this is going on and at the same time as we have this worldwide shortage, in the minister's own words, we appear to have a move by the Cancer Agency to upgrade training to a degree-type program and establish higher training requirements. I wonder, given the shortage of staff -- and the minister took great pains to say that it wasn't a funding issue; it was a shortage of technical staff -- if this is appropriate.
I know from previous discussions that the ministry has representation on the Cancer Agency, but I wonder if the minister would comment on those issues around training and recertification It's something that still concerns me.
Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points in response. I'll deal with the specific first and then the generic -- the broader picture. The accreditation requirements for what the member has been talking about -- radiation and the technologies around it -- are set nationally. They are not set by the province. We work with the Cancer Agency in ensuring that they're delivered and that standards are met. Those standards are in place to reflect the changes that take place due to technology, the changes that take place in terms of therapy, and to ensure that we have a high standard of education and technical expertise when people receive accreditation and then go to work in a hospital or an institution in this province and indeed right across the country.
[1505]
I know that some people have wanted a shorter course, and I can understand that. But the rules around accreditation are set nationally, and we play a role, but we don't have the final say on that. So that, I think, is the specific case that the member's referring to.
On the broader question, though, we have a very serious issue that we need to deal with. It revolves around not just the retraining of staff or the re-accreditation of staff but also the recruitment of health care professionals into a wide range of positions, right from nurses and physicians to specialists and technicians in our health care system. That's something we have right across the country.
As the letter you read from stated before, this particular specialty has a worldwide shortage. One of the things we need to do in B.C. is train more people. In fact, all the
[ Page 15668 ]
provinces have to be doing that. That is something that we are working on within the ministry and are attaching a great deal of importance to.
One of the examples
With other technicians and other technologies, it's not quite that simple, because we're dealing with a national accreditation standard which has strict requirements. The bigger picture, though, is that we do need to start addressing the areas of skill shortages right across the health care spectrum.
J. van Dongen: In response to the minister, I know that the standards are set nationally. I tried to find the source of my information here. My understanding is that the motivation and the initiative for degree status is coming from British Columbia. That's my understanding. I would think, again, that when we have a shortage, (a) we would be careful about that, and (b) surely people who have already had five years of practice, plus the training they needed to get into that practice, shouldn't have to take a full course again to get accredited. That would be my thought. As I understand it, there is nowhere in Canada that people can be trained for recertification. I would hope that within British Columbia we would try to accommodate that.
[1510]
I only have one other comment on this. I'm going to send a copy of a letter to the editor that was printed in the Vancouver Sun on December 7, 1999. Along with some of the ongoing questions I have had, this letter caused me great concern. It's a letter written by a Robert Modrow, who is the head of the health and policy management division at the faculty of medicine at UBC. He writes a very strong letter, which I'm not going to go into, suggesting serious concerns about the cancer treatment that we have in this province and about the operations of the agency. I don't want to go into the details of the letter, but I'm going to pass a copy on to the minister, and I'm going to ask him to take a look at it. I don't know this Robert Modrow, but it certainly raises concern. He's a physician of some stature at the University of British Columbia.
My final question to the minister. I'm not up to date as to what the waiting lists are right now at the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre. But there certainly has been, as I said, a lot of evidence of concerns. I know that a new machine is supposed to come, I think, late this year, in December 2000 -- if the minister could confirm that. My question is: if the waiting lists continue to be as long as they have been, where they're causing very, very serious concern for people that are facing serious cancers -- prostate cancers, melanoma cancers -- wouldn't we consider sending some of these people to Bellingham, where the waiting list is seven to ten days? Wouldn't we consider funding that through our medicare system? I know that about five years ago, when there was a long waiting list -- I think the circumstance then was the start of the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre -- that was done. I wonder if the ministry would consider that, if these waiting lists continue to be as long as they have been in recent months.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the letter. I will certainly look into the issues that are raised in it.
I can tell the member that there are a number of things that are currently taking place. We work very closely with the cancer centre in terms of identifying where we need to have new facilities and in terms of bringing new equipment and new radiation machines on stream. The waiting lists are actually down to what they were two months ago, and we are monitoring them, as we always do. The radiation machine that the member talks about coming on stream this year is earmarked for Surrey, and it will be opening later this year. So that will help in terms of dealing with the issue around the ability to get treatments.
Second, we are actively working with the Cancer Society in terms of identifying those regions of the province where we need to have additional facilities. The planning work is currently underway. I think it's fair to say that probably the main area, if not the next area, that should be getting a facility will in fact be the member's own area, the Abbotsford-Matsqui area, to deal with the rapid growth in population in the Fraser Valley.
As well, next March we will have the cancer centre here in Victoria, which will be opening. That will also have a significant impact upon the ability to provide radiation therapy and cancer therapies to patients here on Vancouver Island and will reduce the need to send them from the Island to the mainland.
[P. Nettleton in the chair.]
So there are a fair number of
L. Stephens: I have some specific questions that I'd like to ask the minister as they relate to Langley. They are around the capital plan, the funding formula, long-term care, home care, emergency rooms and wait-lists and their shortage, and adult day care services.
I'd like to start with the capital plan and, first of all, say thank you very much for the $1.8 million that was announced about three weeks ago to renovate Langley Lodge. It's an old facility, but it's one that has served the community well. It does need some renovating, so that was greatly appreciated, as was some renovation money for the south tower up at the hospital. That's another area that is badly in need of a facelift. The announcement's there, but they don't have the cheque yet. They're very anxiously awaiting the money to be deposited, so they can get on with the repairs that need to be done.
[1515]
The other area in the capital plan that we are looking for and waiting for is to develop the shelled-in space that is at the hospital and also to have the planning funds to replace the south tower which is going to have to be done fairly soon. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what the time line may be for the development of the shelled-in space and the replacement of the south tower.
[ Page 15669 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: That particular project isn't in this fiscal year's capital plan, but the health authorities are submitting their requests for the next capital plan, and I expect it will be part of that. At that time it will be reviewed in the context of the other projects that are in there. I know that if the member lobbies as hard on this one as she did for previous ones -- the ones she commented about a moment ago -- that certainly helps.
L. Stephens: The minister can be assured that I will be lobbying very hard for these new facilities for the residents of Langley. I know the minister knows that the area is growing very rapidly. We're one of those communities that continue to find those pressures with health services, as a lot of others do. But ours is particularly acute and, I think, for one very significant reason. And that is the funding formula that the South Fraser region continues to suffer from, if I can put it that way. The per-population funding formula does not serve our area well, and this has been historical and ongoing. I know the ministry is struggling to come up with another way of addressing this issue, but the longer it continues, the worse it's going to get.
I want to let the minister know that we do have to have some resolution to that funding formula problem -- the sooner, the better -- so the region can plan for the kind of services that are required. They're being severely hampered delivering those services for that very reason. We just don't get the dollars that are required to provide the services to the expanding number of people in our communities.
That is an issue that I know the CEO of the region has addressed and that other members who have hospitals and services in the region have addressed to the minister as well. Perhaps the minister would comment on what his views are on the funding formula and when we might expect to see some changes.
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a few moments ago to the member for Abbotsford, I am aware of the concerns around the funding formula and the importance of trying to ensure that the funding formula is as equitable as possible, and there is work ongoing in the ministry around that.
There are a number of key issues that need to be resolved which have to be taken into consideration, not the least of which is what factors and how you weight those individual factors in the development of a funding formula. As I stated a few moments ago, part of the problem is that you and I may agree on a funding formula, but it has impacts on other parts of the system. We have to identify what those impacts are, which authorities are affected by a change to a new funding formula, for example, and then we have to look at how you mitigate that. I have said that what I would like to do, as much as is possible, is move to a consensus around what a potential change might be, because there are all kinds of variations that you can do.
I understand the concern the member has. It's a legitimate one, and there's a lot of interest in that. We have to make sure, whatever changes we do, that we know the impact of those changes and that we're able to address those areas that will be impacted negatively.
[1520]
L. Stephens: One of the areas that perhaps the minister could look at
Those are a couple of ways that the minister might like to look at solving this problem. It's going to have to get resolved, because in our area we have a need for another 400 long term care beds, and that's just to bring us up to provincial standards. After that we're going to need another 100 every year for the population aging in our area. Could the minister comment on how that might happen?
Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. The issue around long-term care and continuing care and home care is one that I think is of critical importance in the coming years, and it's one that we are devoting a lot of time and energy to -- to ensure not only that we do have the framework and the plans in place but that we can actually start to see results on the ground. That's why I think it's also fair to point out that the $62 million tower is coming on stream. That will have an impact on the south side of the Fraser and will help in terms of dealing with the issue that the member raises. I think it's important to note that.
The second, though, is that we have to build on our framework study, which was completed late this past year, and look at how we now start to implement that and develop the plans that are required to implement changes in terms of meeting the need for long term care beds. That's going to take place. In fact, I think it's about a couple of months away yet from that being completed.
On the bigger picture, I think that what we have to recognize is that the ideal solution -- the ultimate solution -- is to ensure that people are receiving the appropriate level of care at a particular time in their lives when they need it. That means yes, there are acute care beds when you need acute care beds; there are long term care beds when you need long-term care. You have sub-acute care. You also have home care and home support, and we are innovative and are able to look at different ways of ensuring that people as much as possible can remain in their home and receive the care they need on that basis. Then when they need to move to an institution or facility, it's there, available for them.
[1525]
L. Stephens: I know that it's a big problem all across British Columbia -- the issue about continuing care. I'll reiterate that Langley is growing rapidly. They have been able to make some calculations. They've come up with the fact that home nursing is 25 percent underfunded, community rehabilitation is 25 percent underfunded, and home support is 33 percent underfunded. We are way below the provincial averages and the provincial standards in any of the benchmarking rules that you'd care to look at.
I'd like to know if the minister is looking at private-public partnerships when it comes to long term care facilities, whether or not the government is moving down that road and whether or not we can expect anything like that in Langley.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue around P3s is one I've addressed a couple of times today. I can tell you that the
[ Page 15670 ]
ministry's had a conference call with the industry, in which health authorities participated. P3s are part of the solution, and they can look at doing them. I have said in the last couple of days that there is a role for them. They are not the whole answer; they are part of the solution. What we have to do is recognize the scope of the challenge and the scope of the pressures and ensure that there's a range of facilities, community services and the ability to meet those through innovation and, in some cases, funding.
I know that there are particular problems. There are pressures in the South Fraser health region. I can tell you that they have received extra consideration on the amount of funding for community services in their budget of the past year. That increase is some 10 1/2 percent.
L. Stephens: Does the minister know how many P3s have actually been approved and how many are in the process of happening?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm aware that there's one in Parksville. There's the one in Kelowna, which is nearing completion. I've also met in the last couple of weeks with a number of health authorities who have asked me about proposals involving P3s. They are coming to me with the details of them, and I have said that I would like them to do that.
L. Stephens: I'm going to sound repetitive here, but the lower mainland desperately needs long term care beds. I know the minister knows that it has a huge impact on the acute care hospitals. Just to give you an idea, at my hospital in Langley 1,300 to 1,400 people are on the wait-list for surgery. That's for eye surgery, orthopedic surgery, urology surgery. There's a nine-month wait-list for orthopedic surgery in Langley. I'm told that there's a three-month wait-list in Vancouver, but for Langley it's nine months for orthopedic surgery.
I know the minister knows that if home care isn't here, if continuing care isn't there, they're all backed up into the acute care beds in the hospital. It means there aren't any beds for surgical patients, and we end up with these wait-lists. I'd just like the minister to really put his mind to solving this problem of continuing-care beds.
I'd like to make a few comments about the home care issue. We're not seeing the funding for home care in Langley either. What is happening is that I'm getting a significant number of constituents who are calling the office. These are senior women particularly, who are having to look after their partners who have been discharged from hospital without any real follow-up to their continuing level of health care. What it amounts to is that home care is being, if you like, downloaded onto the backs of the women in this province. That's the effect of no funding and no direction to deliver the home care services. I wonder if the minister could comment on what may be in the plans to address that issue of home care.
[1530]
Hon. M. Farnworth: At the beginning of this year $6.7 million was put into the budget to go to community support home care and home support nursing. So that money's in the budget.
The issue is an important one, and it's one that I want to comment on briefly. It is very much part of where I see us having to go over the next year in terms of identifying where some of the key pressures on the system are and resolving the funding which is required for them. It's one of the areas that I want to work closely with the federal government on. We've indicated to the provinces that this is an area of interest to them as well, because -- you're right -- in terms of ensuring that people are not taking up spaces in acute care beds
One of the things that I want to put on the table
One of the things that we don't have control over is the fact that people also view British Columbia as a destination place to retire to. We know that we're going to see -- in fact, we already have seen -- a dramatic increase in the number of people who retire to communities throughout British Columbia, to the Okanagan or the Island or wherever, who are coming from other provinces. That places strains on our system here in B.C. We can meet those needs.
But I also think that it's not unreasonable for this province to ask, in discussions with Ottawa, if there's money coming in from the federal government into health care. In essence it's funding formula that we are talking about. We want to talk about it going to home care and long-term care -- that there's a recognition for those provinces that will be net recipients of retirees in this country. I think that's something that we have to start to deal with now and get the recognition from the federal government that if they're playing a role -- and we encourage them to do so -- those provinces where people like to retire to are not penalized because they're attractive destinations, but rather that that is also factored into funding decisions that are made.
L. Stephens: Yes, that is an area that I think the ministry needs to be looking at. My understanding is that part of the provincial, territorial and federal talks around the whole issue of health care across Canada is doing exactly that -- looking at ways of providing services to all of the areas of the country that will address the needs of those various parts of the country and the kinds of pressures that are present within them. British Columbia, of course, would fall into that category. I'm hoping
The nursing shortage is one I'm sure the minister has heard repeatedly, and I'm just simply going to say that this is a very big issue for us in Langley as well. It seems that the
[ Page 15671 ]
casualization of the nursing staff is a big factor in the difficulties that we're experiencing. I know the minister has probably heard this many times before, but the elimination of the LPNs and the aides and the other helpers that were on the wards, on the floors, has contributed significantly to the difficulties that we're seeing around the nursing staff.
[1535]
In Langley, for instance, six nurses have quit in the emergency ward over the last six months. Six of our nurses have left. It was just impossible. Our emergency ward is acting as a front end to get into the hospital, and that's for a bed; it's for long-term care; it's for the surgeries; it's for everything. We've had ours expanded, and as I'm sure the minister knows, it's a very, very nice emergency ward. But it continues to come under tremendous stress for all of those reasons that I've just talked about. Our nurses are finding it very, very difficult to continue on.
What they have found is that they're spending two hours doing non-nursing jobs during an eight- or 12-hour shift, because they just simply don't have the kind of resources there that allow them to do the job they are to do. I wish the minister could comment on what he plans to do to provide relief to the nurses in the hospital. I'm not talking so much about making sure we have more nursing spaces in our post-secondary institutions. But what is the minister going to do to try and alleviate the tremendous pressures that our nurses are finding in the wards today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a number of measures and issues that can be taken both in the short term and in the long term. One is that I'm actually meeting with your particular health region in the very near future, because they have undertaken some innovative changes in their management and their approach that have been very successful in dealing with some of the issues around staffing. I want to look at them, and I think they will in fact be at the innovation forum. I think that's a model that can be used in other parts of the province. They have actually taken a leadership role, and I'm very pleased with what we've seen from them and the work. So I'm meeting with them to discuss that; that's taking place in the near future.
There's a number of other options that we are working on. For example, there are issues around working conditions; those can be addressed in some way by the occupational health and safety fund, which is about $11 million. That has the ability to address some of the particular working and lifting concerns and the physical concerns that nurses and other health care workers have within the system. That's what it's there for, so that's in place.
The second -- or the third, as the member pointed out -- is to address the issue of nursing supply in the province. We have added the 400 new seats this year. We're working with HEABC, the Nurses Union and RNABC to look at ways in which that can be built on, and there are a number of ideas and a number of ways in which we are doing that. Those we are working on and can implement in the near future.
Finally, over the long term, I think it comes down to what I have said repeatedly, and that is to do more -- not only in this province but in other provinces across the country -- in terms of training the people that we need here at home so that we're less reliant on people from outside the country. There is a worldwide shortage of trained staff. It is only going to get worse as the baby boom population works its way through, not just here in Canada but in the United States and Europe, the Middle East and many other places. There's a big demand for people. So that's what needs to be done, and it needs to be done in concert with each other so that one province isn't out of step with the others -- and to try to avoid some of the pitfalls that we have had in the past.
[1540]
L. Stephens: The other area I want to talk just very briefly about is the adult day care services. We have a very nice Langley Senior Resource Centre in my community. It's always busy. It provides tremendous services to the seniors of the area. Right now they're serving 175 clients over budget -- client-days served over budget. We have 100 clients waiting for day care services. I wonder if the minister would comment on adult day care. It's another way to keep people in their homes and people in their communities. Is there anything the minister can tell us about adult day care services, particularly in my community?
Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the points that's worth noting at this time is that a lot of the decisions are made at the local level, where they should be. Adult day care is important. I think there has been a recognition by a number of health authorities of the importance of adult day care. I know that your particular health region has allocated, I think, $163,000 for this year to provide adult day care services. Clearly you can always provide more, but I think they have recognized the importance of it, and they are funding it. They're doing it on the basis of what they can allocate out of the resources that they have available to them. There was funding provided at the beginning of this year, which is annualized and goes into the base. They have that ability to do that.
Again, that also comes down to what we were talking about, I think, in a general discussion of where we're going in health care. We need to ensure that there are those levels. Different levels of support are required. It may be day care in one community and home support in another. It's part of that continuum of care that we need to see developed. It is an important issue, and it's one that I recognize is important. And so does your health region, because they are doing some very good work in that area.
L. Stephens: Just one final comment. Everything that we've really talked about comes down to the funding issue and the funding formula and the per-population base -- the way it is now -- and what it means to the South Fraser region and my community and all those others that make up that region, whether it's day care services, whether it's home care services or community care -- all these kinds of things.
That's really the nub of it. I just wanted to reiterate to the minister that that is a very serious problem for us in all of these areas and really does need to be addressed as soon as possible. I'm going to encourage the minister to do that. If it means that his consultations and his lobbying to the federal government are a large part of that, I encourage him to do that and to be successful as well. I'm sure that those of us on this side of the House would be happy to help, to assist in any and every way, to make sure that we get the kind of health care in British Columbia that we deserve.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for those comments, because they are important. It is important that we
[ Page 15672 ]
bring the federal government back to the table in terms of restoring the partnership in health care funding in this country, because they do have a long-term role to play.
If any members on that side -- and I know there are a few -- have influence with the Mike Harris government in Ontario
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that member, I know, but there are others. They could tell the Health minister or the Harris government to quit pointing fingers at Ottawa and to get on board with the rest of the provinces that are trying to develop a constructive plan that can see the restoration of health care funding in the country.
K. Whittred: I want to make a few comments regarding the health services from the North Shore region. At the risk of being repetitive, I will not comment on the area of home care and long-term beds. I think that that probably has been covered. I will simply put it on record that this is also an issue on the North Shore.
[1545]
Similarly, the cost to the region of training nurses runs the region something in the neighbourhood of $600,000 to $700,000 a year. This of course is all part of the ongoing crisis surrounding the nursing shortage.
What I really wanted to focus on today are some issues surrounding Lions Gate Hospital, particularly its status within the community of hospitals. Before I get too far into this, I should simply ask whether or not the minister has received the abundance of correspondence that I have received surrounding this issue. I simply want to have a notion of how much background I have to give on this issue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We receive -- and I receive -- a ton of correspondence. I know that I've received correspondence from Lions Gate in North Shore around trauma, for example. So I would not be in the least bit upset if the member wanted to focus on specific areas of correspondence or feels the need to give particular background. If it's helpful in moving our estimates along, I'm more than happy to oblige.
K. Whittred: There are really three interlocking issues that I wish to discuss, all of them involving the status of Lions Gate Hospital as a tertiary hospital -- that is, a hospital that offers a wide variety of complex services. The second is the absence of an MRI at Lions Gate to support complex procedures. The third is simply the status of Lions Gate Hospital as a neurological service hospital. These three things can be looked at separately; they can also be looked at as very much part of some very similar kinds of issues.
Let's focus first of all on the MRI, because that probably is the most useful. I can offer several opinions about why Lions Gate deserves to have an MRI. Amongst them is that it is designated among the community of hospitals as a tertiary hospital, and therefore it should have the support. I believe the government's own Hay report acknowledged that. It clearly advised the ministry that any hospital providing neurological and oncological services should have an MRI.
A second argument would be that Lions Gate is designated as a trauma hospital, and I believe that the designation of trauma is due to its proximity to major ski hills and so on. And it's also part of provincial emergency preparedness in the event of a major earthquake. Lions Gate is designated as the trauma centre to provide critical care to everybody who lives north of Burrard Inlet.
Thirdly, it is historical. For as long as I can remember, Lions Gate Hospital has offered a range of neurological, orthopedic and oncological services -- to name three of the more complex ones.
[1550]
Another argument I can give is that Lions Gate is involved in some very high-profile research. Amongst this is a trial regarding strokes. I'm just looking for the passage here in my correspondence about this particular study. It is something called HALT. Here it is: "Lions Gate Hospital is involved in a large clinical trial aimed at minimizing brain tissue damage after stroke and is the number one hospital in Canada, and number three in North America, with respect to patient numbers in the trial. Radiologists at Vancouver General have said that the patient referrals comprise the highest number of all their referring clinicians." That is, the highest number of referrals to VGH come from Lions Gate, a staggering total of about 25 percent of their total numbers. So that is one more argument.
A final argument I can give about the need of an MRI for Lions Gate Hospital is that it is one part of the province where demographically we have a very aging population. In fact, I believe that West Van is, if not the highest, the second-highest. About 25 percent of West Van's population, I believe, is in the senior category, and North Van is also above the provincial average. Given the demographics and the knowledge that an aging population demands greater services of almost every variety, that is simply one more argument.
With those arguments, I'm going to ask the minister for his comments as to where Lions Gate stands in the waiting list, if you like, for an MRI. I forgot to mention that of the five hospitals in the province that offer neurological services, Lions Gate is the only one that doesn't have an MRI.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's really unfortunate that in the course of a civilized debate around estimates, in terms of health care, there's always one in every crowd that can't resist the opportunity to make a comment.
What I was going to say, before the interjection, was that the member made a very good case for an MRI, particularly when she said "
Anyway, hon. member, what I can tell you is that the issue around MRIs is an important one. Every community in this province would love to have one. Everywhere thinks they're unique and special, and in many cases they are. We recognize the importance on the North Shore; they are on the list -- okay? They are not at the absolute top of the list, but neither are they at the absolute bottom of the list.
An Hon. Member: Somewhere in the middle, then?
Hon. M. Farnworth: We have a three-phase approach right now. I would say that they are at phase 2.
[ Page 15673 ]
Having said that, one of the areas we are focusing on
[1555]
They are expensive. I can tell the hon. member that, for example, in our area, the lower mainland, you're looking at a cost of about $2.5 million to get one. When you start to multiply that around the province, it adds up. If we were, for example, to see a 50-50 partnership between us and the federal government, we could do a lot more in terms of providing that type of equipment. That's something that we are working on; there's a very cooperative approach taking place in that regard. It's part of the BCR plan in terms of securing funding. In the immediate, we recognize the importance of it. I know the role that Lions Gate Hospital plays, particularly around trauma, neurosurgery and those types of activities. It is on the list, and it will get there.
K. Whittred: You have said that we will get there. May I ask: in what time line?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The speed with which we can get one depends upon two things. One is that in any one year the funds are available. That's why I'll repeat that we're working hard to try and get that partnership around an infrastructure program that would allow us to do more. If, for example, we were looking at
K. Whittred: The minister has said that this is a priority. I'm afraid that the people on the North Shore -- particularly the North Shore health region administrators -- do not feel this is a priority. The feeling of the people in the region is that the North Shore itself is really assuming a great deal of the cost of the neurosurgery. In fact, I believe that the region has said that the funding for the neurosurgical program costs the region something in the area of $600,000 a year, which the ministry isn't funding.
This is not just a North Shore issue; the North Shore is just part of a family of hospitals. My fear -- and the correspondence that I get from the doctors, from the health region people -- is that if this is not addressed fairly quickly, we're going to see a disappearance of services from Lions Gate Hospital which are going to have to be absorbed someplace else, either at VGH or St. Paul's Hospital or Burnaby or
[1600]
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is taken on a provincewide approach. Equipment and technologies such as MRIs and CT scans are done on that basis. It's not done on an ad hoc basis; it's done on an assessment of the needs in terms of the province and the ability to provide the types of services that are available.
I'd just like to point out, in terms of the list, because I know the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain said: "Well, if you're in an NDP riding, you'll get one; and if you're not, you won't
I'd also like to point out, because it's worth coming back to, these types of machines, they are expensive. You're looking at $2.5 million a machine in the lower mainland. In other areas of the province where we have the regional district funding that comes into place, and there's a 60 percent grant, you're looking at a cost of probably around $1.5 million. On top of that you have to add the operating costs, so that's a significant expenditure in any one year. And you have to balance those expenditures against the other requests coming from members of where to go.
Let me tell you, hon. member: your MRI is a priority. We view equipment and technology as a priority. It is on the list, and if we can do more with a partnership agreement, then I'm quite sure that we'll be able to meet the needs of Lions Gate Hospital sooner rather than later.
K. Whittred: I am very pleased, Mr. Chair, to hear his comments around technology and the importance of technology in this day and age as it relates to diagnosing and treating many illnesses.
I want to just read one of many instances that have been sent to me that sort of illustrate what the minister has been saying. It says:
It goes on to say:"The patient below had a known bone marrow disease" -- something I cannot pronounce -- " and was presented with progressive leg pain and weakness and with symptoms of bladder dysfunction and cord compression -- a medical emergency. He underwent X-rays which were unremarkable and subsequently, an invasive test, a myelogram, where X-ray dye is instilled into the spinal fluid. He required resuscitation during the procedure, as his blood pressure suddenly dropped. The myelogram revealed a block of the spinal fluid at the lower- to mid-thoracic level. A CT revealed a soft tissue mass, possibly a malignant transformation of his disease. An "MRI was subsequently required and confirmed the soft tissue mass as benign blood-producing marrow elements outside the bone marrow -- due to the patient's disease, and not cancer. This saved the patient unnecessary and dangerous treatment and allowed appropriate therapy."
[ Page 15674 ]
So there we have an example of the importance of technology. It also shows the importance of this technology and this diagnostic procedure being available to all people on an equal basis."If the patient had the most appropriate investigation to begin with -- the MRI -- he would never have needed the myelogram, which almost killed him, or the CT scan, which was misleading."
I'm just going to conclude this part of my questioning to the minister by asking
[1605]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of when and where an MRI should be done, that is, in part, a decision that the physician makes and is based upon the patient and done on that basis. In terms of technology and the issues around WCB, they operate under an act, and they are outside the Canada Health Act.
I think it comes back to our question around levels of technology and our desire to see more technology. This is an issue, as I have said, that I have raised as a priority within the ministry. It's one that we are taking a leadership role on with other provinces. I have spoken about this not only with health authorities but with the BCMA, for example. They are supportive of the approach to get more technology into our institutions.
In terms of discussions with the federal government, this is definitely on the priority list around getting more technology into the hospitals and getting more MRIs and more CT scans into the hospitals. There is considerable work being done on that. I know that the Canadian Medical Association, for example, is encouraging the federal government to do exactly the same, and I can tell you that I have been very encouraged by the response I have had back from Minister Rock on this particular issue. We are working very hard, because it is a priority for us.
K. Whittred: I will conclude my remarks there. I would thank the minister for his answers to my questions. I will conclude on a happy note by saying that the adult day care centre which was promised to my community four or five years ago is nearing completion, and for that we are pleased.
D. Symons: We go from the North Shore now to the south shore and the sunny climes of Richmond. I have a few questions relating to hospital care. In a sense it centres around Richmond General Hospital, but it really involves the whole hospital system in the lower mainland. I'd like to go through it with the minister quite quickly and give a thumbnail sketch of two incidents that will give the idea of what I'm leading up to.
If we go back to about the beginning of this year, a gentleman from Richmond was admitted to Richmond hospital. I believe he was diabetic. He was suffering from malnutrition and was in hospital for a while when it was discovered that he needed to have a dialysis treatment. They arranged with St. Paul's Hospital to have him transferred to St. Paul's for treatment. Just minutes -- within an hour, anyway -- of the time he was to be transferred to St. Paul's, St. Paul's phoned up to Richmond and said: "I'm sorry, we have no bed; we can't take him." They were told to look somewhere else. They basically canvassed all the hospitals around the lower mainland and couldn't find any.
They started going further afield and found a hospital in Bellingham that would take the person. But an order came
Another day had gone by, by the time they finally found a bed for the person in Kelowna. They medevacked the person up to Kelowna and got him on the dialysis machine. Unfortunately, the patient died a few days later. The relatives, the family, found that once he died, the medical system that medevacked him up there said: "The body is yours now; you can take him back to Richmond, where he originally came from." The hospital system took him up there but left the patient in the morgue in Kelowna, which was another shock to the family. That story had a not very happy ending.
[1610]
The other related story -- and you'll see in a moment the connection between these -- happened on April 13, I believe. A doctor about a half mile away from Richmond hospital had a patient start to hemorrhage in her office and sent the patient down by ambulance to the Richmond hospital, which I believe treated her for the hemorrhaging but said that they had no bed for her. Again, the situation was that they started looking around the whole lower mainland and could not find a bed for this patient. They were about to medevac this person out of the Vancouver region, as well, when a bed became available. I'm not sure in which hospital they found a bed.
My concern here is on this issue of beds. I live in the riding that contains Vancouver Airport. If we were to have an accident at the airport or if we had a bus accident or a car accident involving multiple vehicles, it seems that we have a hospital system in the lower mainland that at times can't handle one patient. It can't find a bed in all of greater Vancouver for one patient.
I'm really concerned, with the major transportation centre that we have in Richmond, that if there is an accident that involves multiple people, we are in a situation in Vancouver where there are not the beds to deal with these people. What you would have to do, I suspect, is simply ship a lot of people who aren't on life support systems out of the hospital to make space for those that are coming in under emergency situations. We're in a desperate situation. I don't know if the general public understands really how desperate the situation is. If you can't handle one patient without medevacking because there's no bed available, what do you do if you have an accident that involves many people?
The Chair: Just to bring to the attention of the committee, visiting today with us are 35 grade 6 students as well as ten adults from Bothell, Washington. These students are here today to observe our House as well as to have some understanding of comparative government and local history. Would all members please make them welcome.
[ Page 15675 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: In regards to the first part of the member's comments, clearly we are concerned about the level of care and the availability of beds. Part of that goes to the need to recognize and ensure that we have the appropriate levels of care in place at different points when people need it so that we don't have people blocking acute care beds. That is something that I think all of us are concerned about, and there are strategies in place to deal with that.
The second issue, also part of that, was the question the member raised about renal dialysis and the services that are available to people requiring it. There has been a significant increase in the last couple of years -- in particular in this year's budget. For example, there's new funding of $12.5 million to provide dialysis services, to buy an additional 40 new dialysis machines and to build another 30 dialysis stations.
Is it enough? Let's put it this way: it is one of those issues, one of those health concerns, that we notice
[1615]
I must admit, hon. member, that you seem to be having a little difficulty hearing, and if some members on both sides of the House could hush things up a little bit, we could get the message out.
The Chair: I'd just like to reiterate that for members who didn't hear. It is a little noisy in here, and members aren't able to hear each other. So if we could keep that in mind
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the second situation the member talked about -- what happens in the event of a major catastrophe or a major accident -- there is a community emergency response system in place that is designed to deal with emergencies. It's something that's done in conjunction with the airport, major hospitals, major trauma centres, and they have plans in place. That is a very important part of emergency preparedness and response planning.
We've just had, for example, Emergency Preparedness Week, part of which we were involved in here in Victoria and in communities right across the province. This type of disaster planning and the ability to cope in emergencies is something that we work on with communities and the private sector, to ensure that we are prepared and ready if and when an emergency happens.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm aware that there is an emergency plan there. But I guess, because of the two situations I outlined, it seemed that to put one person in was quite a thing. It's different from a disaster, though. I will admit that. I don't know if your disaster plan would basically involve setting up a MASH sort of arrangement somewhere to handle patients on the same basis that we saw happened in Korea on some of those programs.
We seem to have spaces in hospitals that are unutilized. The bed situation seems to be more a staffing situation in the place
A. Sanders: I have a number of letters from constituents that I would solicit the answers for from the minister. The first was a letter addressed to the MLA office asking about the wages for the CEOs and the COOs of the regional health boards. When the deputy ministers got a raise earlier this year, did that raise extend to the CEOs and the COOs in the health regions as well?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it did not.
A. Sanders: Is there a list of the salaries for the CEOs and the COOs for the regional health boards?
Hon. M. Farnworth: You can go to or contact the regional health authorities, and they can provide you with the financial statements, which would include the salaries for senior management and, in particular, the CEOs. It will also cost you $5 to get that, but it is available.
[1620]
A. Sanders: I have that information on my own regional health board. I was looking more for
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is public information, but it is held by the individual health authorities that are responsible for hiring their individual CEOs.
A. Sanders: I think Mrs. Paige will be disappointed to hear that it's not public information for all British Columbians.
I have a letter from Dr. David Naismith, and he makes three very important points that I'd like to bring up at this time. The first is that Kelowna has been given some funding to develop a service for therapeutic abortions. Vernon has been providing therapeutic abortion services for Kelowna, Kamloops and even as far away as Nakusp for quite some time, and there has never been any funding for that procedure in the Vernon hospital's operating budget. There still is no funding for it.
During the time when Kelowna is being given funding to develop that and Vernon has been performing the service for many other communities, what are the minister's comments to Dr. Naismith on the fact that there is an inequity in funding for this service?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to make a couple of points. First off, in terms of the hospital in Vernon, yes, they have been doing the procedure for in fact a great number of years, and so the funding for that service is built into their base. I see the member is shaking her head, but yes, that is the case. Apparently, it is built into their base.
In Kelowna it is a new service that they are providing, so therefore they are being funded for it. Having said that, one of
[ Page 15676 ]
the things that would be interesting to see, for example, is whether or not there is a lessening of the service being performed at Vernon now that Kelowna is able to provide the service. But I can tell the member that when we are looking at this, we try and compare it on an apples-to-apples basis. The funding for the service is built into the base of the Vernon hospital and wouldn't have been in the case of Kelowna, because they haven't been performing this service until recently.
A. Sanders: I think probably that I will not disagree with the minister that it may be built into the base for the people of Vernon to access. But it's not built into the base for the people of Nakusp, Kamloops, Kelowna and all the rest of the area to access, and that is precisely the point.
The second question is about a particular individual, Dr. Splewinski. He is a spinal surgeon. The hospital has refused to grant him privileges for cervical spine surgery based on the cost and the resources being unavailable. In other words, a money and a staff training problem disallows an individual who has special skills to use those special skills within the north Okanagan. This is exactly the kind of case that we find when we talk about "brain drain." We have an individual who has skills, who wishes to use those skills and who will not be able to do so. Is this good use of our highly trained specialists?
[1625]
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I would point out is that the health authority does the credentialing of the individual. The health authority has to take into account a number of things if they're credentialing a particular type of service. Clearly, when you have skilled individuals and the ability to provide a particular service, that's important. But what also has to be taken into account is the overall service level that's provided by the hospital and by the authority. And they have to take into account the impact. Is there a critical mass in terms of the need for a particular skill set, and is there the ability to fund that skill set? The issue is twofold: the type of service that's being provided at an institution or a particular hospital, and how that fits into the region's ability to fund that in terms of the amount of services that can be provided and what the impact is going to be.
A. Sanders: This is a good point to demonstrate the problem of regionalization and the balkanization of services. Vernon historically had a spinal surgeon, Dr. Van Pettegham, a gentleman who worked at the spinal unit at Shaughnessy Hospital before that hospital was closed. He made a lifestyle-choice change and moved his family up to Vernon. He literally could have gone anywhere in the world, but he chose Vernon because he wanted to bring up his family in the Okanagan. He offered a tremendous service to Vernon, but he offered it also to the province. His wait-lists were 18 months. They were full of people on WCB and with other kinds of injuries, and he helped people in the mid-years to get back to work and get out of pain.
Due to the same frustration -- we were basically telling this specialist that his services were too expensive for the region to afford in terms of OR equipment and training of staff -- he is now a professor in San Francisco.
We then had a young man come up who also was a spinal surgeon, and he offered his services to our community for a period of several years. He is now in North Dakota. We are looking at a four-year period, and we're on our third spinal surgeon. We're very fortunate to even have this individual.
Now we find that the regional health board, due to its own financial constraints, doesn't feel like serving the rest of the province, primarily because it doesn't have the funds to do so. We are probably going to find that this spinal surgeon goes the way of the two previous spinal surgeons, who headed for places where their work is appreciated.
Orthopedic surgeons have been mentioned. I would mention a Dr. Torstensen; he's our latest orthopedic surgeon. We have a number of them. It's a revolving door in almost every community. He has skills that, again, are highly specialized. They are skills in the revision of defectively functioning artificial joints -- specifically, knee and hip.
When people get an artificial joint, they often think that that's it; they've got it for life. Away they go and everything will be great. The downside to that is that these joints have a shelf life of around five to ten years, and you end up having to have a new joint. The people who are going to become very valuable in this greying of the baby boomers are the people who do revisions on joints that have already been replaced.
At this time, it's in the balance as to whether there will be any funding to enable him to carry this out in Vernon. If it doesn't happen, he has stated that he will not be able to stay, because again, if you develop special skills in your 13 or 14 years of training, there is a real impetus to go out and practise them before you lose them. I would anticipate Dr. Torstenson to be going somewhere else if we do not provide those services.
Has the minister looked at how regionalization is balkanizing services such as this? Whether they be therapeutic abortion or whether they be specialized orthopedic surgery, regional health boards are forced to make decisions not to fund those, because most of the patients would be coming from elsewhere in order for the services to be full.
[1630]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. One, in terms of the provision of services by the regional health authorities, I think one of the key issues that needs to be recognized is: is there a critical mass for that particular service? I think one of the roles of health authorities, in terms of regionalization, is to look at what the pressures are in their area. What are the demographics in their area? What changes are taking place in their area? Health authorities must recognize that those in fact are the types of services that should be offered in their particular community.
The member makes a very good point. We're talking about orthopedics and the need for -- as I am now learning, the correct term is -- orthopods coming into the system. Knees and joints are
The member raises a point about regionalization. At the same time, there have been, on the other side of the coin, a lot
[ Page 15677 ]
of people raising the issue that regionalization has worked. It is enabling us to realize significant savings that can then be targeted to services that are important in a particular region to help build -- whether it's orthopedics or in the case of spinal surgery -- that type of surgery to take place. I think you've got to look at the whole thing.
The final point I'd like to make is that when programs are designed, we've got to make sure that they're designed around a need and not around an individual. One of the problems that can happen is if someone decides to relocate, you have all the support services. Quite often when you're dealing with specialized skills -- or highly specialized skills as opposed to just regular specialized skills -- there's an expensive support service around that. Then you have to find somebody else to fill the place. As much as we'd like to say, "Okay, let's design a program around an individual," we really have to design a program on the basis of what is required in the health authority, what's required in the population, and ensure on that basis that we can attract the best-qualified people.
G. Clark: I'll be very brief -- very, very brief. I have a constituency issue that I'd like to raise with the minister, and it revolves around health care, so I'll just make a brief comment.
Most people who've looked at the health care system and at some of the challenges facing it recognize that additional home support dollars are critical to the long-term health of our medicare system. In fact, it saves a lot of money in the acute care sector.
Recently I've had a difficult issue to deal with, with a constituent. I live by a veterans' project, a project that was built after the Second World War. Still, many of the people living in the single family neighbourhood that I live in are veterans of the Second World War. As a result of being veterans, they have certain services provided to them.
I have an individual in my constituency, right across the street from where I live, who is very ill and gets extensive home support. Because of that home support, he's able to live at home rather than move into an acute care hospital.
His neighbour, however, is not a veteran. He's almost exactly the same age, in exactly the same circumstances, but he has been reduced to, I think, a few hours a week of home support. In all likelihood, in the next few weeks and months he will have to be admitted to hospital to stay in, probably, Burnaby General Hospital or Vancouver General Hospital. Because he's not a veteran, he's not eligible for the extra services.
When this individual is forced to move into a hospital for long-term care, clearly (1) he's removed from his community, and (2) he moves into a hospital, which is a very expensive proposition, much more expensive than adequate home support for that individual. So he's being forced -- will likely be forced -- to move into a hospital.
His neighbour, by virtue of the fact that he is a veteran, is getting extensive home support; I fully acknowledge that. But that is allowing him to live in his community, in his neighbourhood, in his home. It is saving the taxpayers the thousands of dollars that would otherwise be the case if he went into a hospital.
My simple question to the minister is, I guess, a series of questions, and I'll let him answer them all. Firstly, what is the budget for home support in the lower mainland, and how has it increased over the last few years? Secondly, it's clearly inadequate and needs to be increased further; perhaps the minister could make a comment. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for me, how do I answer my constituent who's going to be forced to leave his family home of 40 years and move into the hospital, while his neighbour is allowed to continue to live in that home because he has adequate home support?
[1635]
The Chair: Just to bring it to the attention of the committee visiting us in the precinct this afternoon, at this moment, are 40 visitors, adult Americans with the Elderhostel movement. Ms. Marchand is the coordinator from Duncan, British Columbia. These individuals are here to visit the precinct and also to get to know a little better something about architecture and comparative government here. I hope all members will make them welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to make a number of points regarding the member for Vancouver-Kingsway's question, because they're important, and they relate in large measure to the discussion that we've been having this afternoon.
In terms of the specific amount of the budget available for home support and home care, that's administered by the Vancouver-Richmond health board. We can get that information for the member and get exactly the amount of money that's being spent. In terms of the money that has been new money for the particular service, earlier this year there was an increase to the Vancouver-Richmond health board of, I think, $6 million. They allocated 10 percent of that to home support, so there's additional new money of $603,000.
Then I'd also suggest that in terms of accessing support and determining the level of support that's available, the health board has an assessment process in place to determine the services that your constituent requires. There's also an appeal process in place if they're not happy with the service. So that's what's there right now.
Clearly, in terms of where we need to go in the debate around delivery of health care services in this province and across this country, home care and home support is one of the key and crucial issues that we want to get more money for. It's very much a crucial part of discussions, in terms of extra funding from the federal government and getting them back to the table and restoring that 50-50 partnership in terms of health care dollars.
That money needs to go to home care and home support, because that is crucial in terms of ensuring that people can stay in their homes longer, that they can receive the level of care that is required to enable them to stay in their homes longer and that at the point that they're required or they require to move to long-term care or continuing care or acute care, the facilities are there, and they can deal with it at that particular time.
[1640]
G. Clark: Just one more follow-up. I appreciate the answer from the member, and I appreciate the need to secure more federal dollars. Perhaps the minister could explain to the House why British Columbia is the only province in Canada that does not support a federal-provincial meeting of Premiers and the Prime Minister on health care.
[ Page 15678 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, we actually in fact do. In fact, the position of British Columbia has been to try to work and play a leadership role with the other provinces in terms of developing a plan as to where money can go and in terms of how we get more money into health care and to recognize that it's not a question of saying: "Just give us the money."
Rather, there should be some sense of confidence from the public and a recognition, when the provinces agree to receiving funding, that the funding goes entirely into health care, and that we identify some of those key areas in health care where they have to go, that we're not just saying money goes to the same old things, but that we're looking at ways of targeting dollars so they're meeting the needs of appropriate levels of care which we just talked about -- i.e., home care and home support, long-term care -- and that we address issues around technology and information technology, and that with the dollars that are going into health care we are getting the best bang for the dollar. To that end, B.C. is playing a leadership role with the other provinces in doing that.
We are looking at ways in which health care costs are
G. Clark: I want to thank the minister very much for his answer. I'm certainly comforted by it. But I just want to, for the record, clarify what he said, because I saw the Premier come out of a meeting with the Prime Minister where he announced that British Columbia, alone amongst the provinces, would not support a Premiers' conference on health care with the Prime Minister. So is the minister saying that that's changed -- that the Premier now supports a federal-provincial meeting on health care of the Premiers and the Prime Minister to deal with this question? Or did I mishear him? I thought he said that British Columbia supported a Prime Minister-first ministers' meeting on health care.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the event that the member's talking about is a proposed meeting that would have taken place before the work that's being done by the provincial health ministers had taken place. In fact, British Columbia was not alone in that.
What has emerged as the consensus among the Premiers is that there will be a first ministers' meeting but that we also need work to be done. That work is currently being done, and it's being done on the expectation of trying to come up with an agreement. There is, I think -- as I repeated a moment ago -- the issue around how funds will get to the provinces, and there is not unanimity amongst the provinces on that, but a consensus is starting to emerge.
The second point is that that work needs to take place before any first ministers
G. Clark: So just to follow up, then, I wonder if the minister could advise the House which other Premiers did not support an early meeting of first ministers on health care. My understanding was that we were the only ones that didn't support a meeting at that time. Secondly, is the minister saying that effectively now, we -- "we" meaning the government -- would support a first ministers' meeting on health care? Or is more work to be done by Health ministers? If that's the case, when will the Health ministers' work be sufficiently far along for British Columbia to call for a first ministers' meeting on health care?
[1645]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not going to get into the details of a conference call between the Premiers which took place in confidence, and one which I wasn't party to. But what I will say is that the issue is one around timing. The issue is: should the first ministers get together with the Prime Minister and talk about health care when there has not been the work done to conclude an agreement? Or is the meeting just going to take place for show?
If a meeting's going to take place, it takes place to achieve something productive. That's what the public wants. The public wants action on health care. They want the provinces and the federal government to get their act together. In doing that, it means that the work has to be done around these: what are the key pressures facing the health care system? What are the cost drivers on the health care system? British Columbia is playing a leadership role on that on three out of seven items. There's no point in the first ministers getting together with the Prime Minister if that work isn't done. What's required is a sense that we're moving in the right direction, that the groundwork has been done. That's the role that's being done by the provinces and the provincial Health ministers. We're making considerable progress on that.
There have been two meetings already; it's my expectation that there will probably be another one at the end of this month. The goal is to try and get a lot of that work done by June, so that basically anytime after June the first ministers can in fact get together with the Prime Minister and that there is some sort of plan that has a reasonable chance of succeeding and being implemented. That's the approach that I certainly support and that, at the end of the day, will deliver the results that the public of British Columbia and indeed the public across the country expect us to achieve.
A. Sanders: Before I was interrupted, I was talking about orthopedic surgery.
Interjection.
A. Sanders: Before I was rudely interrupted, hon. Chair
Nevertheless, I want to comment on a letter from a Mr. John McCourt. The areas that we have problems in, in British Columbia, primarily are orthopedics, ophthalmology and cardiac surgery; all of the vascular surgeries are included in that. Mr. McCourt wrote to the MLA office:
[ Page 15679 ]
"I find it deplorable that in December 1999, I was third on a list for an aneurysm repair, and in January 2000, I'm now fifth. I feel that I deserve some answers and am going to complain to as many people as I can think of. As a taxpayer and retired military veteran with 33 years of service, six of those during World War II, I have paid my way in Canada and the province and feel that I, like other citizens, deserve a better health care system than your government is providing. When I see the amount of money wasted on frivolous spending like fast ferries, yet you cannot find enough funds to resolve the health care situation, but only offer band-aid help, I cannot help but feel very frustrated and resentful."Dr. Creel is our vascular surgeon. Very commonly we find that we are putting that particular specialist in a position of being more of a philosopher and an ethicist than a practising surgeon. We are asking the lifeboat scenario kinds of questions: who do you operate on first? The 45-year-old man, with two children and a wife, who has a lung tumour that's advanced? The 80-year-old man who has an aortic aneurysm of only five centimetres, not burst? The 60-year-old woman with a need for removal of a bulla in the lung?
You're asking these individuals to make philosophical decisions based on Cartesian logic rather than the training which they've been given. I don't think there are many people out there that are equipped to make those decisions, nor were they ever thinking that they'd be working in that ethically orientated kind of circumstance.
I wonder if the minister has any idea of the enormity of the serious concerns that are facing MLA offices across the province, with Mr. McCourt being a pretty typical example of the kinds of people who write to us.
[1650]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would answer yes, I am. I'm an MLA myself, and my office receives correspondence and health care concerns from my constituents the same as any other MLA. I might add that being the Minister of Health makes me a natural target for people who are dissatisfied. When they're writing to their MLA or communicating with their local MLA, they are usually copying or faxing me.
A. Sanders: Well, I would certainly urge the minister to be proactive with those letters. The things that I see in the MLA office I did not see ten years ago in a physician's office, in terms of the enormity of the circumstance and the horror of the families that have had to endure a number of health care problems. The balkanization that has come out of regionalization, where a patient goes to Sechelt, and they say, "I won't dialyze you, because you're not from my region, and it's too expensive a service" -- that is the kind of problem that does exist when we don't have some kind of overall umbrella to offer direction for programs that do affect the entire population, not just regions.
I have another letter from Dr. Henderson at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital. He wanted to know what percentage of our funding to the hospitals is spent on the computer and utilization personnel -- I guess the technology part. I would rephrase the question slightly, but I would like Dr. Henderson's question answered as well. What percentage of our hospital budgets are we spending on technology, and how does that compare to other provinces and other countries?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm going to phrase my comments in response to the member's letter in question in this manner: I am only too aware of the enormity of the situation and the enormity of the issue -- how complex it is, how large it is and how demanding it is in terms of the pressures on it and the need for action. To be proactive in terms of trying to deal with those pressures, I mean, is a daunting task. I'm only too aware -- and I realize it day after day -- how big a ministry it is, how it affects individuals' lives every single day and how important it is that we meet those challenges.
But they're not unique to British Columbia. It's something that's happening right across the country in every single province and every territory -- which is leading into my next comment, which is around the question of technology.
Within the global budget that health authorities receive, they have money that they can spend on information technology. Some health authorities spend more than others. But clearly we do not spend enough money on information technology. This is one of the key areas I've identified that we need to raise in terms of funding with the federal government. I'm not saying this critically. But if money is coming into health care, then where should it be going? One of those key areas, I think, is around information technology.
If we are to take the system to its next stage, we have to -- and we can have debates about regionalization, for example, and its benefits, and that's fine -- look at the fact that administration has been tightened. The amount of money that is being spent on administration has been squeezed. In terms of those administrative savings we've taken in the system, those have been ongoing.
[1655]
If we're to realize, I think, the full efficiencies that we can realize with new technology, then clearly what has to happen is a major investment in information technology in the system, so not only can hospitals within the same authority communicate with each other, but they can communicate with each other throughout the province. Physicians are then able to plug into that system. Then you have a much better accountability in terms of tests that have been done, when tests were done, what the histories are. All those types of issues will result in savings in the system that can be redirected elsewhere.
That's why this is one of the areas where I think that whether it's capital funding
My sense is that that is a priority for other provinces as well. In terms of how other provinces stack up, I would say that they're not spending enough money on information technology either. I think one of the reasons why, if you would ask me that -- and that's a follow-up question -- is that it's not sexy. It's not something that
But given the advances that have been made in technology and the ability in terms of good information, it's been proven again and again that good information allows you to measure inputs and outcomes and to do comparisons in a way that we've never been able to do before. Let's say, if you compare today to a decade ago, it's revolutionary what we can do now. I think there's a real recognition that information
[ Page 15680 ]
technology is required to take that next leap in terms of efficiencies within our health care system and make it not only much more accountable but able to deliver on some of the areas where we know that further savings can be achieved.
A. Sanders: Could the minister give me a figure as to what percent of the operating budget if it is the operating budget, or the capital budget if it is the capital budget -- I'm not sure what it comes under -- that a hospital of Vernon's size
Hon. M. Farnworth: The average is probably around 1 percent, and they should be spending closer to 3 percent. I know some health authorities are spending 2-1/2 percent and 2-3/4 percent, but that's probably where it is right now.
A. Sanders: I want to ask some questions about the AIDS Resource Centre. In Kelowna, the ARC, as it is fondly known, services all those individuals living in both the North and South Okanagan who have AIDS. Presently we have 96 men and 15 women who are on anti-retroviral therapy in the North and South Okanagan.
Dr. Andy Pattullo was the individual at the Kelowna General Hospital who serviced the HIV services from the anti-retroviral area. Dr. Pattullo has flown the coop; I think he's gone to the Emirates along with a couple of our orthopedic surgeons from Penticton and a few other folks. But Dr. Pattullo has not been replaced at the Kelowna General Hospital. It was understood that when he informed the regional health authority in 1999 that he would be leaving, and it was important for him to have a replacement found, none was sought after.
As a result, all of the individuals who have anti-retroviral therapy who live in our area have to transfer themselves and travel to Vancouver to receive HIV management at the centre for excellence. I'm all for the centre for excellence. But when you're sick, the extra stress and expense of clients from the interior having to go down to Vancouver, just for the expertise and HIV management, is a little bit much to ask.
What I'd like to know is: what action has the ministry taken to ensure that there will be a position for such an individual?
[1700]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I answer the question, I was going to suggest that we take a three-minute recess.
The Chair: Before we take a three-minute recess, I would just like to welcome 12 visitors in grades 5 and 6 from Days Creek Elementary School from Days Creek, Oregon. They are here to note our Legislature and learn some of our local history. I'd hope that everyone would make them welcome. I should say that Ms. G. Franklin is the teacher leading this group of young people. Please make these young people welcome.
Shall the committee take a recess? We'll take until five after five.
The committee recessed from 5:01 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raised an important question around the provision of AIDS services and physicians, in terms of Okanagan, Kelowna and the interior of British Columbia in general. In terms of the recruitment of physicians, that's done through the normal recruitment process. But certainly there is the ability there for the centre for excellence to be of assistance to the health authority in terms of identifying a candidate with the skill set and dealing with AIDS and HIV issues for that particular region of the province.
A. Sanders: The Okanagan does receive less per patient, I believe, for AIDS funding. I'm hoping that issue was looked into within the department following my asking them to do so. I look forward to their correspondence.
I want to touch on something called the Deloitte and Touche report, which was a third-party independent report that was commissioned by the North Okanagan health region. An independent accounting firm came in and reviewed acute care services in the North Okanagan. Local health experts have known for years that the region is undersupplied with long term care beds, a theme that's been very common in this chamber today. The question of how to validate that was undertaken by this report.
The acute care services review has made a number of recommendations to improve the efficiency of health care delivery in the North Okanagan. These include things like moving surgery day care procedures to the Pleasant Valley Health Centre in Armstrong, turning the Enderby hospital into a geriatric facility, recommending setting up a geriatric day care program in Salmon Arm and enhancing the programs in Vernon, Enderby and Revelstoke, and doing a psychogeriatric assessment unit in Vernon as well. So they looked at the recommendations and suggested a number of ways that things could be improved in terms of the service delivery.
Most of the recommendations, however, are window dressing for the reality that extra long term care beds are needed in the North Okanagan. What all of the individuals in the chamber have been saying today is that acute care beds are being occupied inappropriately by patients who require either intermediate or long-term care. As a result of those beds being occupied, those acute care beds are not available for post-surgical patients.
As a result, surgeries don't get booked. The surgical wait times grow, and what we get in Vernon is a circumstance where patients will wait eight months or more for hip and knee replacement. But that doesn't count the three or four months it took for them to get from the general practitioner to the specialist and all the tests and diagnostic procedures in between. So really, when you look at wait times, you have to look at initial contact all the way through, and it's certainly a year, and sometimes more.
[1710]
What's really bad about that is that I'm seeing more and more people doing things that I would have considered, ten years ago, to be malpractice. We have individuals so long on wait-lists for joint replacement, for example, that they need some kind of pain relief in order to go to work. As a result of requiring pain relief for a year instead of for a week, a month or a day, you now have young people who are still working -- because they have to -- on narcotic substances, as well as anti-inflammatories, to control their pain. As a result, often you'll
[ Page 15681 ]
end up with an individual who may, after a year, have their surgery and have their problem fixed. But now they've got another problem, and that problem is not only a problem for them; it's a problem for their family, it's a problem for their career and it's a problem for society. I see that more and more, as waiting lists have grown.
When we haven't got any acute care beds, then we get a flood of patients to the emergency department and people lying in stretchers in the hall, in the cast room, in storage rooms and broom closets. These are the realities of health care in British Columbia right now. When we do that, then we have unhappy staff -- nursing staff who have low morale and really wonder what they're doing. As a result, services to patients suffer.
Basically what the Deloitte and Touche report identified was that there were several things necessary for the North Okanagan. They were as follows: the North Okanagan health region did provide acute care services at a lower level than the provincial average; 17 percent of all days of care were consumed by what are notoriously called bed-blockers -- in other words, patients in acute care beds who shouldn't be there. The rate of bed-blockers in the North Okanagan was twice the provincial rate. The Enderby hospital should become a geriatric rehab centre for non-acute care; the regional health board did do that. The North Okanagan will require a minimum of $800,000 next year to implement the recommendations of the acute care review.
So what we have here, hon. Chair, is a third-party firm looking at the circumstances in the Okanagan and identifying the need for at least 100 intermediate care beds and a worsening -- as in many other parts of the province, but apparently worse than the North Okanagan in only one or two other places -- with respect to long term care beds. Is the minister aware of the situation, and what is he doing about it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The ministry is aware of the issues they are facing that the member has talked about. We're familiar with the report, and in fact, I'm pleased that the health region is implementing many of the recommendations of the report. They received a million dollars in new funding earlier on; a lot of that money went to start to deal with some of the issues the member has raised. For example, $472,000 went to home support, and $265,000 went to adult day care.
We will be meeting with them, sitting down with them, going over what some of the key issues and key challenges are. In terms of implementing these recommendations, it's not something that happens overnight. It will probably be a couple of years, a two-year process, in terms of doing everything that needs to be done. But they have started, and we are working with them. I think in fact that they are to be commended on the direction that they are going.
[1715]
A. Sanders: The North Okanagan has a pretty significant problem with respect to the long term care beds and the budget. I think it's important to recognize that the funding that was given at the beginning of the year, when we asked
When we look at the North Okanagan and look at possible solutions to the funding crisis, one of the things that has been brought up again by other members on this side of the House is: what's the government doing with P3s? We've now identified that there are two public-private partnerships in the province that are going forward. There are probably hundreds of them that have been brought forward but have not been accepted.
I think it's pretty common knowledge that the government of the day is unhappy with P3s, because they view them as another name for privatization. In the Policy Alternatives think tank, which is a favourite of the NDP government, the statement was made
Basically, the Centre for Policy Alternatives is saying that P3s shouldn't be considered, that they are basically another name for privatization and should be avoided by this government at all costs. Is that the minister's opinion of how the world should look?"The lack of public investment in long-term care means that within five years the majority of long term care facilities could be private, turning the clock back 30 years to a time when for-profit nursing homes -- and concerns about accessibility and standards of care -- were the norm. Privatization is neither an efficient nor an effective response to the shortage of long term care facilities. Some regional health authorities see P3s as an obstacle to the provision of well-coordinated and fiscally responsible care. Centralized administration of public health care provides both lower administrative costs and economies of scale. Indeed, the fact that health care costs so much more in the U.S. than in Canada
. . . is largely the result of higher administrative costs. . . . "
[J. Cashore in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: That's probably one reason why I don't rely on think tanks for my policy positions, whether it's the one the member mentioned or whether it's the Fraser Institute. I try to take a practical, pragmatic approach. As I said earlier on a number of occasions in the debates during today, on the issue that the member has raised, P3s are part of the solution. There are some projects that have come forward. We have spoken with the industry and the health authorities and have told them that that is in fact the case.
Having said that, I will also say -- as I have said earlier on -- that there is no magic bullet. The solutions to the problems and the challenges that are facing us are going to run the entire spectrum of ideas, in terms of resolving some of the pressures on the system. There is a significant not-for-profit sector in this province; I expect that to continue. We need to have considerable public investment in long-term care, home care, home support, all those things.
And we will see P3s in place as well; they have a role to play. There are some projects that are coming to open that are P3. As well, I have projects from health authorities that have suggested to me that they would like to go that route. I have said that I am willing to look at proposals, and I have not discouraged them from pursuing that model.
A. Sanders: I am pleased to hear that, but that has not been the reality for the regional health boards. Letters have been written, and there is almost a lack of acceptance of P3s, a lack of being able to even discuss them with the ministry. This report goes on, and it's interesting that even a left-leaning think tank will bash the NDP:
[ Page 15682 ]
"The area where B.C. has really fallen short is in its investment in health care infrastructure. The government has spent almost nothing on new buildings and equipment. Serious shortages in long term care beds have had ripple effects throughout the health care system -- the recent crisis in hospital emergency rooms is but one effect of these shortages. About 7,000 seniors are currently waiting for one of B.C.'s 24,707 publicly funded long term care beds."My question to the minister is: what is his plan for residential care in B.C.?
[1720]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll resist the temptation to comment on think tanks, whether they be left-wing or right-wing or whatever. Quite frankly, I don't think they live in the real world. I don't mind saying that, and I've said that publicly.
My view on things is: "What's the problem? Let's try and find out how we fix it and how we solve it." And part of what is involved in doing that means that you're going to see a range of solutions. There is no definitive answer; it's a range of solutions, and it comes from meeting the needs that exist right across the spectrum.
There are a number of projects that have opened up this past year, this year, and I'll just read some of them out: Priory Hospital, 75 new beds -- it's a new facility; Zion Park Manor, 52 beds; Bulkley Lodge, 50 beds upgraded and replaced and 23 new beds; Youville Residence, 127 beds, replacement and upgraded; Royal Arch Masonic Home; Taylor Manor; Richmond hospital, Minoru care facility. Opening this year are: Sunpoint, the Kelowna P3, 75 beds; Nanaimo Travellers Lodge, ten beds; Port Hardy, ten beds; Mill Site Lodge, 30 replacement and upgraded, 35 new beds; Success Care Home, 103 beds; Three Links Care Centre, 75 upgraded, 14 new; Keremeos, 25. And Normanna in Burnaby is upgrading 100 new beds.
So there are a lot of projects coming on stream. Clearly, though, there needs to be more. That is one of the areas that we're focusing on. That's why the review was done and completed this past year. That's why, as I have said earlier in the day, there's an implementation plan that is currently being worked on. That should be ready in the next couple of months.
It also fits in very much with the issues that I see as important -- that provinces have to raise with the federal government. I keep coming back to that, because it is important in terms of where we go, over the long term, to ensure, for example, with provinces that have an influx of retiring people from across the country, that there is some recognition of the cost that places on the health care system and the ability to provide facilities. But there needs to be considerable work done, and we're working on it.
A. Sanders: Well, those issues certainly do need to be addressed with the federal government, and while the minister's there, he can talk about ESL funding. I'm sure the school boards would be happy to have him pitch for them as well.
What's important -- the minister did define -- is what can't be undone and what can. What can't be undone is that there are limited dollars and a limited amount of GDP that people want to spend on health care. The way projections go, we could be spending 50 percent of our entire GDP on health care by the year 2025, which is a phenomenal and worrisome kind of statistic. So there does need to be a plan, and I'm hoping that this minister and his staff are working hard on looking at options.
If we can't change that and we can't change the aging, what we can do is start to facilitate some of these things like P3s. They're not the whole solution, but that really, to me, is irrelevant. If it is a solution or part of a solution, let's get on with it -- see how it works, even in a pilot study way -- so that we can move forward and look after our communities as best we can. This is a critical issue in our riding with respect to space in the hospital and trying to open up more space for clinical care, as opposed to laundry space and lab space, etc.
Hon. Chair, what my regional health board tells me are some of the following things. They're going to need a 12 percent lift in their budget this year just to meet status quo. Their LRB commitments and their new contracts in the community, with more unionized people coming under more agreements, with WCB premiums increasing 100 percent over the next three years
[1725]
I can tell you, hon. Chair, that people who get sick in the North Okanagan right now don't think that the service is all that great. They talk to me very well about the staff in the hospitals -- the nursing staff, the medical staff. But they aren't very happy with their waiting times for diagnostic procedures, surgical wait-lists, hospitalization stays and the availability of acute care beds. That doesn't even go into the long term care beds and all of that stuff. So I need to know from the minister: if this is just one microcosm in the province, what's the overall plan to move the province forward to be able to deal with what I see to be a crisis in precipitation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: In responding, I'm going to come back to a familiar refrain in these debates: the problems we face in British Columbia are faced right across the country. The solutions are going to be found in a number of places. They're going to be found at the local level through the local health authorities. I have met with them, and we have talked about what the key issues are. I think there's a general issue around what the key issues are, whether it is staffing, technology, information technology, access to equipment and the need for innovation. We can do those types of things here, within the province of British Columbia.
Second, there needs to be a coordinated effort between the provinces and the federal government -- that is taking place -- to deal not only with the short term, identifying the key pressures on the system right now and how to resolve some of that pressure, but also what pressures on the system we're facing over the coming decades and how we resolve those. A lot of those key issues can be addressed in part by restoring the partnership around the funding of health care, which we are working to achieve.
The second point I would like to make, though, is that we need to have a national discussion on where we are going with health care in the country. How are we going to deal with that? What are the issues that need to be addressed, and how do we deal with it for a longer-term perspective?
There is a two-pronged approach there, and it is taking the bulk of my attention right now, in terms of trying to move that forward. But I am confident that that will in fact take
[ Page 15683 ]
place and that we will also see the movement for that full national discussion in terms of where we have to be as a country.
A. Sanders: Just a couple of short questions, because my colleague is waiting patiently; I apologize for being verbose.
In Cherryvale last year I had the death of a baby born under the care of a midwife. At that time I found out that information on the midwifery demonstration project was not FOIable. Is that information now FOIable, as all other information should be?
[1730]
Hon. M. Farnworth: At this particular point I can't make any comments about what has happened or what will happen, in part because
A. Sanders: I have three other issues that I want to discuss, but I'm going to turn the time over to my colleague. These are questions that I am happy to have discussed tomorrow, and they will fit under other sections of the health care debate.
One is the status of hospice and what the plan is for funding hospice in British Columbia. The second is hospital fundraising and charitable foundations of hospitals, and the third has to do with -- and I mentioned it to the deputy minister -- the so-called blended nurse model and some concerns that I have about that particular issue. Those could all fit in under other sections. I thank the minister for his time.
B. Penner: I've got a question to the Health minister that has troubled me for a number of weeks now. Quite frankly, it reflects what is probably my own worst personal nightmare, and that is being told that you have cancer and then being told that you are going to have to wait in order to get help.
I am told -- and I can imagine -- that being told that you have cancer can be extremely stressful. What I can't imagine is being told that you have cancer and that you have to wait up to four months in order to begin therapy. In my view, that is absolutely unacceptable. It's appalling that that's happening today in British Columbia. And it does not appear to be an isolated incident. Within the last two months, I've had three different individuals come into my constituency office who've been told that they have prostate cancer and must wait up to four months to begin radiation therapy.
Now, in the case of one gentleman, after I wrote some letters, his date for treatment was moved up, but he suffered a heart attack. Now he's lost that date for treatment, and who knows when his treatment will begin, because he's in intensive care in Chilliwack hospital trying to recover from his latest setback. No doubt the anxiety of being told that he has to wait while living with the knowledge that he has cancer growing within him did not make matters any better for his overall health. Now, unfortunately I don't have a signed consent form from that individual, because he's in the intensive care unit at Chilliwack hospital. I've not been able to obtain one, so I won't use his name publicly here.
However, I do have a signed consent form authorizing the release of personal information from a gentleman named Joe den Bok of Chilliwack. Now, Mr. den Bok was diagnosed with prostate cancer some time ago, and I think it would be useful at this point for me simply to refer to a letter written on behalf of Mr. den Bok by his general practitioner, his doctor. As soon as I locate this letter, I will begin to read from it.
To begin with, I'll read from a letter written by Mr. Joe den Bok himself, on April 15 of this year, to the Minister of Health, asking for help. There's a headline that he's got across the top of his letter, marked: "Urgent appeal!" I'll cut to the chase here. He says he does not wish to lay blame anywhere. He says that he is sure that the physicians and specialists did their best and recommended the best treatment for his cancer. "However, the specialist in Chilliwack told me that my case was an aggressive case of cancer."
Mr. den Bok notes: "I came to this beautiful province in 1957, have worked hard all my life, never abused any system, including our medical system and have faithfully paid my taxes. I understand the state our health care is in and the tremendous load that presses on everyone in the health care system."
Now he goes on; I'll just skip a little bit: "I am pleading for my life, and I ask that you urgently consider this request and provide treatment for me. I would appreciate your kind consideration and assistance."
[1735]
As of this afternoon, Mr. den Bok has not had the courtesy of a reply to his letter, not even a short statement acknowledging receipt of his letter. I met his son on the weekend, and I remarked to his son Ken that if I were him, I would not be nearly as composed as this family is, being told that they have to wait indefinitely, because they haven't been given a specific date yet for the start of radiation therapy. Having to wait, knowing that you have an aggressive cancerous tumour growing within you
Now, Mr. den Bok has said that he'd be quite willing to travel to Bellingham if the provincial government were able to provide financial assistance to get him that treatment. According to his doctor, he could be in there within seven to ten days to start treatment, but in British Columbia he's told he's got to wait perhaps as much as four months. What's even worse than being told that is that he hasn't been given any specific date at all. There's no target date yet that he's received from the government.
So I've asked the minister to comment about how it is that our health care system has gotten to this sad state -- that people facing the most stressful occasion in their life have to wait almost an indefinite period of time before they can get what might prove to be life-saving treatment.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of comments. The first is that I understand the urgency and the importance of letters, and I would say to the member that if he is concerned about the response time for a particular piece of correspondence once it comes to his attention, he doesn't need to wait until estimates to raise the issue. He can come into my office. And if there's a concern about a piece of correspondence or the response to a letter -- if you're concerned about it -- then bring it to my attention, and we can get on it right away. You don't have to wait until the estimates process.
[ Page 15684 ]
The second point that I would make is that in determining when an individual receives treatment, that is up to the physician. If the physician feels, in the case of an aggressive cancer, that it needs to be treated, then there is the ability to determine where that treatment needs to take place, and that is something that is discussed between the physician, the patient and the oncologist. There are different parts of the lower mainland, for example, where the waiting time is considerably less. So it's the physician's duty and the oncologist's. Part of their responsibility is to prioritize their particular cases.
In terms of the overall situation as it relates to cancer -- we talked about it earlier -- the ministry is working very closely with the Cancer Agency in determining the need for the provision of services -- in particular, the types of equipment or radiation therapy that's required in treating cancer. As I said earlier, two new facilities are opening up in the coming months of this year: one in Victoria and the other in Surrey. So that will have a considerable impact upon the ability to treat patients with cancer in British Columbia.
The third point I would make is that we are currently in the planning stages to deal with the needs of growing communities up the Fraser Valley -- in particular, the area where the member lives. As I mentioned to the member for Abbotsford, planning is already underway in terms of where the next cancer centre will be. I think it's safe to say that it's the Abbotsford-upper Fraser Valley area that is the current highest priority.
[1740]
B. Penner: The minister said that I didn't have to wait for estimates debate to bring this matter to his attention, and in fact I did not. I wrote to the minister on May 2, 2000, following up on behalf of my constituent, who had at that time failed to get a response from the minister. I offered to try and help. My letter had a headline on it saying: "Wait-list for Urgent Cancer Treatment."
I regret to inform the house that I have yet to receive a reply to that letter either, on behalf of Mr. Joe den Bok of Chilliwack. I have found the letter written on behalf of Mr. den Bok by his personal physician. It's dated April 17, 2000, and is also forwarded to the Minister of Health. It is also still awaiting a reply. I'll quote here parts of the letter:
I have a letter from Dr. Saul Goodman, who is a urologist in the upper Fraser Valley. His letter is addressing the individual I referred to earlier -- who is currently in intensive care in Chilliwack -- who suffered a heart attack while waiting for treatment of his cancer. This letter is dated March 27, 2000, and it's addressed to me. I'll quote from the final paragraph:"Unfortunately, Mr. den Bok has resistant carcinoma of the prostate. He has been told by his surgeon as well as the Cancer Agency that the best treatment for him would be radiation therapy, but we are now told that he has a four-month waiting list. Unfortunately, we have been contacted by Dr. Kwan at the Cancer Agency, and there is nothing that could be done about this waiting list. In summary, Mr. den Bok has carcinoma of prostate. He requires radiation therapy, and he finds it very frustrating that there is such a long waiting list for treatment. We have discussed with him the priority list for treatment, but both he and I would like to express our concerns at the state of our medical system."
With that, I ask the minister to comment and tell us what kind of assurance he can give these people in Chilliwack waiting for cancer treatment that they won't have to wait four months."The situation in the Chilliwack area is surely suboptimal. I am the only urologist serving a catchment area of almost 100,000 people. This is twice the number suggested by the Canadian Urological Association. This is compounded by the lack of available operating time and beds at our hospital. I only have two beds at my disposal a week. There are currently about ten patients waiting for the same surgery as this individual, and they are general booked in order of presentation. We currently have an operating room that sits empty every day at Chilliwack General Hospital because of lack of funding. Opening this OR, as well as expanding the number of available beds within the hospital, would go a long way to helping solve the problem."
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points. First off, on the issue around cancer treatment, when and how treatment is delivered is decided by the physician and is prioritized by physicians. It is not done by government. We also use the entire system of cancer treatment available throughout the province to ensure that people receive treatment as soon as it can be made available. That means that if there is a long waiting list, for example, in the Chilliwack area and there is a five-week waiting list or a much shorter waiting list in Vancouver or another part of the province, then people are treated at that particular location. All those things are taken into account. They're prioritized by physicians, and they're the ones who make the decisions.
I'll also repeat what I said a moment ago in terms of the issue around facilities and the construction of new facilities. There are two new facilities coming onstream, one in Victoria and one in Surrey. The one in Victoria will now make it easier in terms of treating here on Vancouver Island, and it will reduce the need to send people to the mainland for treatment. The facility in Surrey will provide considerable relief in terms of that part of the lower mainland, and that will have a significant impact in your part of the Fraser Valley as well.
Thirdly, as I've already mentioned, we are currently working with the Cancer Society in terms of determining the needs for new facilities in other parts of the province. As I said a moment ago, clearly one of the priority areas -- if not the top priority area -- is the Fraser Valley. In the last number of years we have opened the cancer clinic in Kelowna. We're seeing the one opening up in Surrey; we're seeing the one opening up in Victoria. My expectation is that you will also soon see the work started to get one going in the upper Fraser Valley.
[1745]
J. Wilson: I have a few questions here that I would like to ask the minister. It would appear that every time this government tinkers with the system, it just sort of crumbles a little more. Instead of improving, it continues to deteriorate.
The Prince George Regional Hospital has been running at capacity in a lot of cases. In some cases they reach capacity, and then they say to the satellite communities around there: "We are not taking any more referrals at this time." Is the minister putting any more funding into the health care system in the interior to take care of the problem that we are faced with there?
We have bed shortages not just in the Prince George hospital but in the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital in Quesnel. Last winter there was one point when we were running way over capacity. We had people in photocopy rooms, in storage rooms. This in turn backs the system up. We have people who are regularly scheduled for elective surgery that gets cancelled. That just compounds the system.
Then we have a problem keeping physicians and professional staff in these hospitals, because they have to plan their
[ Page 15685 ]
workday. And when things are cancelled on them, there's not much incentive left to stay. So what is the minister budgeting this year to try and correct the situation of the bed shortage in the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points in regards to the issue the member raised, in particular about emergency rooms and beds this past winter. That's something that happens in British Columbia; it happens across every province in the country. It happens south of the border; it happens around the world.
We had a flu outbreak this year, this past winter, that caused significant stress on the system. I know that some people seem to think it only happened in B.C. One of the things that I remember earlier this year was having three newspapers, because I was coming back. I was travelling. I had a U.K. paper, a U.S. paper and a paper from back east. The headline in the U.K. paper said that the National Health Service was in crisis because of overflowing emergency rooms, because of people coming in with flu. The Los Angeles Times had the same thing about the overflowing emergency rooms in the state of California. The Vancouver paper said B.C.'s health service was in crisis. Of course they blame the government, and that's fair enough.
The fact of the matter is that when from time to time you get peaks in the system where you have a flood of people into the system, it results in overflowing into the hallways. That's not desirable, but it happens. We have to deal with that, and we have to ensure that the resources are there to deal with it.
In terms of the issue the member raises around Prince George, in particular
It involves the ministry working with the Prince George hospital authority. We have already met with them, and we have put together a committee, a working group, to look at what some of the key issues are. Specifically, there is the problem around anaesthesiologists and recruiting one to Prince George.
[1750]
The second one is to look at rural and northern health care, recognizing that Prince George is a major referral centre. Maybe what we have to do is look at how we provide services there, and there's a number of ways of doing that. The local area has come forward with some proposals which are currently being evaluated by the ministry. My preference is that any plan that is implemented looks at not just Prince George but all of northern and rural British Columbia. If it works in Prince George, then ideally what you want to look at is something that works outside there as well.
Thirdly, we are looking at how we work with the BCMA, for example. In terms of the provision of northern and rural services, there is the rural and northern agreement which has been negotiated, which is currently awaiting ratification. That gives us some flexibility in meeting some of the issues around northern and rural communities -- the ones that the member has raised. One of the solutions that I think needs to be investigated is perhaps extending that agreement, which takes effect outside Prince George proper. What would be the effect of extending that into Prince George? That is one option that we can look at.
Finally, as I said the other day, we need to have an interprovincial strategy in terms of dealing with rural and northern health care issues, recognizing that every province is impacted -- some to greater degrees than others -- in terms of attraction of physicians to those areas, attraction of nurses to those areas and the ability to provide services in those areas.
One of the things we need to do is look at -- whether through reciprocal agreements or on a more cooperative basis -- assessing rural and northern health care in a focused way, recognizing that there may be opportunities and that two or three provinces together can address some of those concerns in a way that individual provinces can't. I am very mindful of the concerns that the member is raising. We do have a plan and are working on a strategy to deal with them.
With that, I will note the hour, hon. Chair, and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Actually it's not necessary for that motion. I'll just recess tonight until 6:45 p.m. So we'll rise until 6:45 p.m.
The committee recessed from 5:52 p.m. to 6:49 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
V. Roddick: Delta South is most concerned -- as is, it seems, every region in the province -- that the formation of the regional districts has been done for large-P political reasons and has not taken the people of these regions into account. Delta South is on Highway 99 and has traditionally dealt with Richmond and Vancouver, and that is still taking place despite trying to get everyone to travel at great lengths over a circuitous cross-country route to Surrey Memorial Hospital.
We feel strongly that the family doctor is being taken out of the loop. Delta South only has four doctors that deliver babies, and they all use Richmond General. We understand that there is a move afoot to transfer ob-gyn, as it is referred to, to the Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock. These four existing doctors, family doctors, would definitely be left out of the loop. In fact, the Fraser region doesn't even figure in the regional chart that I received. I'm assuming that we are contained under the broad-brush stroke of Fraser Valley, which is all- encompassing.
The government of today states time and time again that they are for the health of children and families. Will the minister please consider the patients and families your ministry is serving, people who in most cases are long-term residents of Delta South, instead of serving administrators who move in and out of the organization on an ongoing basis?
[1850]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member's issues around Delta and why it's in south Fraser as opposed to Vancouver or Richmond. There are a number of reasons for that. At the time, there was a committee which heard presentations about where everyone would fit. The preference for everybody was to not have to do anything; it was just the status quo.
[ Page 15686 ]
Decisions were made on the basis of what were, in part, referral patterns which figured into things, as did what the growth patterns were going to be around services and the ability for there to be balance among some particular regions. So a decision was made to include Delta with south Fraser, in the sense that there was some natural affinity, but also in recognition of the fact that anytime you draw a boundary or make a decision regarding which way you go, there is always controversy. I would say that it would be no different for your particular area than for other areas that feel they should be in this region or in that region.
But at the end of it I think what's important is that, yes, we want to place the emphasis on patient care. We want to ensure that people have a sense that their region is functioning well. I can tell you that in the case of Delta and the South Fraser health region, they have just completed a review of the facilities in Delta. The Delta Hospital is going to maintain its current range of medical and surgical services and will continue to function as a community hospital with a 24-hour emergency service. It's expected that the volume of cases and the services at the hospital will continue to grow. So in answer to your question, Delta Hospital is going to continue to play a pivotal role in the community.
But in terms of decisions around regionalization and drawing of boundaries and why one is in one and why one is not in the other, at the end of the day decisions had to be made, and they were made. I understand that we don't always get, on those types of situations, everything that we ask for. But I do know, because of having chaired that committee, that it was not done arbitrarily. There was a lot of thought put into trying to ensure some balance and some sense of
[1855]
I'll be quite frank with the member. In the case of the lower mainland, there was a lot of concern from health regions that if you're doing an amalgamation with Vancouver, they not be too big to the point that they tend to dominate in the region to any great extent more than they already do. So there was a desire that if you were going to have a Vancouver-Richmond amalgamation, for example, there be some counterbalance.
We looked at all kinds of permutations around how big you could make that particular region. I can tell you from having chaired that committee that there was a sense that if you looked at Delta-Richmond-Vancouver
V. Roddick: Can I take it, then, from those words that the plans to move the obstetrics and gynecology for Delta South to the Peace Arch Hospital is not something that is being undertaken at this present moment?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what it's fair to say is that those decisions are made by the health authority. But what the review from the health authority is saying and what we're hearing from the health authority is that they intend to maintain a full or significant range of surgical services at Delta Hospital. Whether or not that will continue to include obstetrics and orthopedics
An Hon. Member: Ob-gyn.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, ob-gyn. That will be a decision that they have to make. But I expect that when they make that decision, they will look at referral patterns, the demographics. All those types of things need to be taken into account.
V. Roddick: Could I ask that the ministry work with the health authority under these circumstances so that you do look at the demographics and the referral patterns, so that we are not caught unawares?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely.
V. Roddick: A perfect example, unfortunately, of how Delta South has been let down by regionalization: I have been dealing with a single mother whose daughter has attempted suicide twice recently. A travelling team from Surrey Memorial is supposed to fly in and attend such problems in the emergency ward. No one appeared; she was discharged with an appointment in three weeks with the psychiatrist. Her mother had to stay home from work to look after the child, with no support systems in place whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask why this family -- or any family, for that matter -- would have to turn to their MLA for medical service. Why is service not forthcoming until someone like myself has to start making telephone calls to appropriate departments? Again I ask: will the minister consider patients first, please, with your ministry? Make sure that the patients are served instead of
[1900]
Hon. M. Farnworth: We're always concerned that health care dollars go where they're needed most, which is to patients. One of the areas that we have been particularly concerned about is in the administrative costs. We have, I think, over the last number of years gone a great way into addressing issues around administrative costs and bringing those down. In fact, recent studies show that we are, in terms of the provinces, nowhere near being at the top of the pack but are somewhere in the middle. I think that has been a significant improvement over the last several years.
In terms of services that are available for the particular child that you are talking about, we have made some significant improvements in this year's budget around funding for mental health as it relates to children and the services that are available to them. So part of your question can be answered within the Ministry for Children and Families' budget. I don't mean to be sloughing off. I'm just saying that's where those services will be provided, and there has been a significant increase in the budget to meet those needs. Those will be put in place this year.
The second is within my own Ministry of Health. There has been an additional million dollars made available for early intervention, and that will also have an impact. It's also one of the crucial reasons why the mental health plan
[ Page 15687 ]
But certainly the key issue is that patients and the people of this province, whether they are in Delta South or Port Coquitlam or Parksville-Qualicum, should be able to access services when they are available. I mean, that is our primary goal. So there are some things that are taking place, as I pointed out to the member. We always can provide more. That's one of the reasons why we have to, I think, constantly be working at improving the system.
V. Roddick: I appreciate your concern and the fact that there is the money available from the ministry. The problem is that this just took place last week. It wasn't a question of lack of money; it was a lack of coordination. I feel and Delta South feels strongly that this is a problem of the regionality -- of trying to get something from this Surrey Memorial into Delta to cope with this. So I would really appreciate it if the ministry could check into this and make sure that the response
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would be happy to work with the hon. member in doing follow-up. Certainly one of the things that we're trying to ensure is that we have, if you like, best practices. That's one of the things we're working on in terms of mental health, so that all the authorities know what best practices are in terms of the services that are provided and how those services are delivered, because no one health authority has a monopoly on that. That's coming together, and that hopefully will be of assistance -- not in this case, unfortunately. But it's the type of thing that we can look at in the future.
Secondly, I'll use as an example around best practices. There are areas in the South Fraser region, which Delta is part of
So it sounds to me that what needs to take place is that
[1905]
V. Roddick: In closing, there is one other local problem that
It goes on, describing her life and what it has been all these years."Dear Mrs. Roddick:
"I am on the waiting list to have surgery for morbid obesity at St. Paul's. I am 21 years of age and have been fighting obesity all of my life. I have tried every kind of diet imaginable and have had no success with any.
"When I learned of this program through my doctor, my first instinct was: this is too good to be true. I was scheduled for a consultation with Dr. Birmingham and Dr. Polyakov in St. Paul's. Finding out that I was a candidate for this surgery was by far the best moment of my life. I was truly happy for the first time ever."
Would the minister care to comment on this morbid obesity surgery at St. Paul's? Is it in jeopardy?"This surgery is the most important thing in my life right now, because with it I know that if I have the surgery, I will live for more than a few years. This surgery is my last hope at life. I have just found out that this program for morbid obesity at St. Paul's is in jeopardy of being cancelled due to lack of funding, and I may not get a chance to have the surgery. So please help to ensure that this surgery is not cancelled. This program is giving people like me a second chance at life and saving their lives."
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the hon. member that the program is not in danger of closing. In fact, it is being looked at as to be expanded. So that is good news for your constituent.
J. Reid: My area of Parksville-Qualicum and north Nanaimo, which is served by Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, has its share of concerns, and we'll address some very specific ones here this evening.
I'm sure the minister is aware of a review that was done last year. There were a number of crisis points that happened in the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital last summer: lack of beds, overflow in emergency. The ministry had a study -- perhaps better defined as a review -- that was commissioned in October of last year, and it certainly cited a lot of the different problems. It was a well-documented review, talking about the overcrowding in emergency, the lack of beds, the surgeries that were cancelled, the waiting lists that are backed up, the frustration on the part of doctors and frustration on the part of nurses. Certainly it spills over to the frustration on the part of patients. With this review, it certainly expresses an awful lot. It's a benefit for me to be able to come today rather than estimates last year, because we do have this review, and it has laid out the problems.
I'm going to quote from a few parts and direct my questions to the minister as far as what is being done and the progress that has been made. It says that the region faces many significant challenges; I think that's a bit of an understatement for this review. Certainly the Central Vancouver Island health region is large and geographically diverse, spanning the central portion of Vancouver Island. The region's population of approximately 245,000 is growing at a rate of about 2 percent per year, somewhat more rapidly than the provincial rate of population growth.
[1910]
Perhaps the most significant part is that the region has a large number of older persons, about 16 percent of the region's population. This number is growing at a rate substantially greater than the provincial average. These factors have combined to place significant workload pressures on the delivery of health services in the region. Listening to my colleagues, realizing
The report was broken down into five categories, and these are the areas that I'm going to be asking for a reply to. The first issue looked at was developing an effective regional approach to health service delivery. The next was addressing service pressures; the next, ensuring adequate funding levels.
[ Page 15688 ]
The next was planning for the future; and the last was establishing positive working relationships. Since this review was done by the ministry to help both the region and the ministry, it will be interesting to see what kind of progress we have made with this.
With the concerns with the service pressures
Before I go on to the details, I would just ask if the minister would like to comment, on a broad basis, on this review and the progress that's being made.
Hon. M. Farnworth: What's important to remember is twofold. One, the ministry didn't pay for the review; the health authority paid for the review. So I don't expect that to be a problem in terms of determining how much they paid for the review. We can find out that information for the member. If you contact them, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't provide that figure.
The member raises the issue about "Why do a review?" -- the worthwhileness of doing a review that didn't achieve anything other than to recognize what everybody else had said already. I think it's important at times, when there are issues being raised, that a thorough review is done. It may confirm what many people are saying.
But it also may confirm or find out that some things are unfounded. It may also turn up new things that perhaps had not been raised. If you want to examine the problem and find out what the root cause is, it's helpful and constructive to look at the overall picture from all the different points of view. If it confirms, fine; that's not a problem, because you're looking to find solutions. But if it also turns up new things, that's also important. And if it debunks some criticisms, that's also valid, because it then allows you to focus on what the real truths are or where the real problems are. Quite often, people are asking for a review to take place because it gives them the opportunity to do some thorough investigation around concerns that have been raised.
So I don't view it as a waste of money. In fact, I view it as a base from which you can move forward in a constructive way and say to parties, who may often hold different points of view on what an issue is or what the solution is, that there are common agreements on what the problem is. It makes it much easier to go forward when that has been done. So I view the review as in fact a solid foundation on which to move forward, as opposed to a waste of time.
[1915]
J. Reid: Well, that's great. Let's get our money's worth out of this review, then. The review is done and has some suggestions. So we can certainly make sure that we take a look at its suggestions and see where we're at with the ministry; that's great.
This review recommended that "the Central Vancouver Island health region and the Ministry of Health set the highest priority on moving ahead with construction of the planned multilevel facilities," as one of the primary recommendations of the review. Would the minister like to comment on how we're getting our money out of the review, and where this is at for this region?
Hon. M. Farnworth: While we're getting some information that's relevant to the member's question, I would like to make a comment in terms of the recommendations and value. Again, the member seems very concerned, as she should be. Are we getting our money's worth for the review?
I would like to point out that the ministry is working very closely with the health authority and in terms of the management team. In terms of addressing some of those issues, some of them are monetary; that is one set of issues. Others are non-monetary, and those issues are being resolved as well. The sense of things is that there is better cooperation between the two areas than there has been in the past. So that is moving forward.
Around the issue such as funding, they have had, I think, a 50 percent increase in funding over the last several years. So there has been money going into the system to address concerns that the member has raised. As well, around the issue, we've had the general discussion around long term care facilities. The concerns in part around the Island are ones that we're trying to address in terms of the long term care study -- the continuing-care study that was completed this past fall -- and in terms of the implementation strategy around that. That will be out in the next couple of months. That's the type of thing that is going to have impact, as well, on your particular health authority.
J. Reid: As we're waiting for some more details here, going on to quote from this review in "Ensuring Adequate Funding Levels," it says: "However, data available appears to support the contention that this region faces additional pressures because of the significant population growth in its area. This problem has been reflected in the ongoing historical financial pressures at both Nanaimo Regional General Hospital and the Cowichan District Hospital."
They're concerned about deficits. Certainly in the Central Vancouver Island health region, they're looking at a projected deficit this year of $3.4 million. Would the minister like to comment on how this is going to be worked out and what advice he is giving to the regional health board on this projected deficit?
[1920]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The ministry is currently in the process of sitting down with individual boards and looking at what the current service levels are, what their run-through rates are and what the pressures are for them in the coming year. We are working with them and working with them very closely. If we have not met with your particular health board, we will be doing so very shortly. We are working with them as closely as we possibly can to resolve the issues that they're facing, and we're well aware of what they are.
I want to come back to the question that you raised around specific recommendations in the report, in the review. We would be quite happy to get a copy of the review and go through some of these specific recommendations and what has happened to them. We don't have a copy of that review here today, so I would be quite happy to provide that information to the hon. member.
[ Page 15689 ]
J. Reid: With the projected deficit and the minister's comments about working with the health board, what exactly does that mean? Obviously if there's a projected deficit, there are a couple of choices: somebody has to pay it, or else services have to be cut. So if the minister would like to elaborate on what working with the health board actually means in this case, it would be much appreciated.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The final budget isn't set, so saying that there's a projected deficit of this or a projected deficit of that is speculation. What we are working with in terms of setting those budgets is what the pressures are that the different health authorities face and how we go about determining what the pressures are. That involves looking at what the service levels are, what the run rates are and where the pressures are anticipated over the year. In doing so, we get a good idea of what the particular issues facing each health authority are, and that goes into helping to address where the budgetary process is heading.
J. Reid: Certainly with the review that the minister has, the concerns that the health board has and understanding the commitment of being able to work with the health boards and resolve these deficit situations, we certainly look forward to the good news of funding in our area.
I just want to quote from this review that was done. Even though, as the minister has said, the health region has paid for this review, it certainly was done under the direction of the former Health minister who was quite enthusiastic in budget estimates last year about looking forward to the results of it. So just a quote from this, again on ensuring adequate funding levels: "In this regard, the principal opportunity for the region is the implementation by the Ministry of Health of some type of regional population-based funding model which should, over time, achieve equitable funding across the province."
It goes on to say that this is certainly one region that would stand to benefit from a different funding model. If the minister would like to comment on a funding model and how far he is in being able to apply that to this area and certainly to the demands on Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, I think that would be something an awful lot of people would like to hear.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of facilities, the scheduled opening of the Central Vancouver Island health region's P3 is in May of next year, which will provide 125 new beds. That's the question we were talking about before. In September of this year there is a smaller facility in Nanaimo -- the Traveller's Lodge, which is ten beds -- which will also be opening. So those are some of the projects that we'll be opening in your particular region that will help in terms of dealing with some of the pressure, though not all of it.
On the issue around the funding formula, I understand the member's interest in this. There has been considerable discussion today around funding formulas and moving to a population-based funding formula. I'll repeat for the member what I have told other members in this House, and that is we can design all kinds of funding-based formulas, and we could probably come up with one that you would be very happy with.
[1925]
The issue is the effects that has in other areas of the province. It's not uniform right across the province because of differences in demography, differences in incidence of disease and illness, for example, and socioeconomic factors. All those things come into play in terms of the funding formula. If we make one that you like, it can have an effect somewhere else over there in, potentially, a reduction of services and a negative impact. That's not helpful.
What we need, if we're to change the funding formula, is to understand what all the implications are, then work around that to try to come to some consensus in terms of a population-based funding formula that everyone can buy into -- and work is being done around that -- and understand the implications of a switch to a new funding formula. If there are areas that are impacted negatively, for example, you know what those impacts are going to be.
Everyone's happy if an error turns out to their benefit. No one complains. But if a change results in a decrease or a negative impact, you're going to hear about it big-time. So if there are changes being made, let's find out what those are. Let's have a thorough understanding of how those are. Then we're also able to address those impacts so that any change does not have an adverse impact. And, hopefully, you can get a consensus to move to a formula on that basis.
I understand the member's concern around that. She does represent a fast-growing area of the province, as I do and as do members from a number of parts on both sides of the House. There's work being done around it, but it's not a simple, straightforward thing. There are a lot of complex questions that need to be answered. The key thing is to make sure that you have the answers to those questions.
J. Reid: All the factors that the minister suggested might affect that funding formula certainly apply to the area of Nanaimo: the economic factors, the social factors, the disease factors. It's all there. It certainly is being stretched to its limits. Again, being on this thin edge of the wedge -- and I know the minister is aware of that -- and the concern of how to deal with the other areas
One other aspect of this review that I just want to emphasize is the repeated emphasis within the review for improved communications between the board and the ministry. I've read this review quite a few different times and have talked to the board about this, and it still puzzles me, because it's not clearly spelt out. There's something suggested in this. I do not understand what the problem is that the ministry is having in communications. Certainly in wanting to support the regional health board and certainly wanting to make sure that they're getting whatever dollars are available
Another comment in the review is that the CVIHR needs to investigate and pursue funding opportunities at this level wherever appropriate -- suggesting that there might even be more dollars out there that they weren't accessing. It comes back to this problem that the board needs to somehow communicate with the ministry; the ministry has to communicate with the board. If the minister wouldn't mind commenting on what the problem is with communications
[1930]
[ Page 15690 ]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that in terms of communication, what we have to ensure is that there is solid communication between ministry staff, senior staff and the senior staff in the health authority. Communication can also take place between the board and the political staff in the ministry, which is myself. My door is always open, and my phone is always available for boards who wish to talk to me. I don't see that being -- it should not be -- either a problem or an issue. Certainly, if there needs to be more discussion and contact between senior staff in the ministry and the health authority, I don't see there being a problem in that taking place. My understanding is that there has been considerably more contact and communication, in fact, since the review has taken place.
J. Reid: While we're talking about the facility at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, I know there have certainly been plans put forward for expansion of the facilities, for operating rooms, for more beds. I'm not going to go into those details; I know the minister is well aware of that. But there is another issue with regard to the facility that I did want to raise, and I want to ask a question with regard to future placements of MRI units in British Columbia.
It seems that there is statistical data that has somehow gotten lost in the process or is being overlooked, on the need for MRI on Vancouver Island. A lot of the statistics around MRI on Vancouver Island talk, in whole, about what's going on in Victoria and the numbers of people using the unit per population base, but when it's broken down to the people who live north of the Malahat and the use in Victoria, the numbers say something else.
On Vancouver Island, 51.6 percent of the population lives north of the Malahat. With reference to the MRIs performed at the Victoria-based scanner, only 22.9 percent of the scans are done on people north of the Malahat. So almost 52 percent of the people live north of the Malahat, but they're getting only 23 percent of the scans. That actually means that the people north of the Malahat are being very, very poorly served. I'd like the minister's comments as to the possibility of locating an MRI unit at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital in the future.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the statistics, that's one of the things we're trying to get access to right now from the authority. Apparently they don't keep those statistics independently, so we're having to look at the referral records and referral patterns. That work is being done -- okay?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it's not done to what it needs to be, hon. member. There are some issues there that need to be resolved.
Second, in terms of the facility itself -- in terms of the issue around the hospital and what the future plans are -- certainly the plan is for the operating rooms that the member mentioned: 17 new labour-and-delivery-postpartum suites and a new ten-bed, level-2 nursery. Right now, the project is awaiting the decision about the cost-sharing of the regional district, which is the 60 percent. That work is being done.
The total value of the project is projected to cost somewhere around $23.8 million, which is a significant increase in the scope of the project as it was originally envisaged. The preparatory work and the planning work is being done around that. There are some decisions that have to be made, or some information
[1935]
As regards the MRI, I can tell you that, yes, there is considerable demand for an MRI. It is on the list. You, my colleagues from Nanaimo and the MLAs from North Island are all wanting to see an MRI in Nanaimo. I think there are some issues that need to be resolved around that, not the least of which is in terms of funding. As I've said earlier, I would like to see a technology program between ourselves and the federal government, which would allow us to do more with the dollars we have in terms of providing technology and equipment. I want to see the standard of equipment in hospitals in British Columbia increase. In fact, it's something that we need to address right across the country, and we're working on ways of doing that.
J. Reid: There has been considerable speculation about new MRI units in British Columbia. Perhaps the minister could clarify what criteria will be used in making those decisions. Going back to the stats that I mentioned initially, when we asked Victoria for the statistics in use, we were told that they're put together, that they're not distinguished. But we were able to get it separated out. So you can do that in a more formal process, but I believe that these truly reflect what is going on. Perhaps the minister would like to elaborate, then, on what criteria will be used by the province in locating MRI units.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of criteria that are used. One is the availability of neuro services, and cancer services are critical. The second is that they must be based in regional centres. Thirdly, it's based on the volumes of scans that can be performed. All those play a key part -- and then also, of course, available dollars. Clearly the more money you have available to spread around, the more equipment and machines you can supply. If we are able to supply three new machines in, let's say, a two-year period or a three-year period -- for the sake of argument -- and we have a program that's on a cost-shared basis, a 50-50 basis, with the federal government, then we can provide as many as six. So that is also a factor. But those are the criteria that are key in determining, that the ministry uses in determining, the needs around MRIs.
J. Reid: Those are certainly the criteria laid out in the Hay report as recommendations for the placement of MRIs. With the situation in Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, it certainly is regional. As far as the number of scans per thousand people, what is suggested north of the Malahat is that we are looking at 4.2, whereas the lower mainland can expect 6.7. That definitely puts us in the running.
I have a question with regards to the third point. In the Hay report it states that neurosurgery and radiation therapy only make up 10 percent of the MRI cases. My question is: why are those given a large significance when those applications are only 10 percent of the total uses of the MRI?
[1940]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The importance around cancer and neurosurgery is dependent
[ Page 15691 ]
factors is in terms of the importance of the MRI in identifying, in the case of neuro services, a very clear and sharp image -- which is required -- and in terms of cancer, in determining through the imaging the stage the cancer is at. That is important -- critical, actually -- in determining the type of treatment or therapy that's required. So there's a very important connection between the two, even though it's not necessarily the greatest component of the use of the particular machine.
There is a point that I want to correct. I made an error earlier on, and that was that I said the health authority paid for the review. In fact, the Ministry of Health did pay for the review. It was estimated at around $40,000, but we can get the exact dollar figure for the member.
J. Reid: With reference to the Hay report and certainly the criteria established, once again I am sure that as more study is done, the ministry will find that the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital fits these criteria. As we're looking at where these units should be placed, there should be a full and very transparent process on exactly what the reasons are for where they're going to be located. I expect to see Nanaimo Regional General Hospital on that list.
Still looking at facilities -- going away from the hospital right now -- the mayor of Qualicum Beach had an opportunity to have a brief chat with the minister with regards to a health facility in the precincts of Qualicum Beach and the need for that. I would just like to give the minister a little bit of background. In that area we have no 24-hour clinics outside of Nanaimo. So for an hour's drive away from the hospital, there isn't access to any dependable place that anybody can go, whether it be for an earache in the middle of the night, a welding flash or anything else that happens.
It definitely puts the pressures on Nanaimo and their emergency services, because something as simple as being able to access doctors just isn't available. The mayor certainly talked about this proposal with the minister, and the mayor suggested that he was quite encouraged by the minister -- that the minister said that this was a direction that he would like to see. If the minister would elaborate and share as to what direction he would like to see and how we can move in that direction, it would be appreciated.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, I think the mayor and I had a very constructive meeting; the member for Alberni also raised the issue with me. I think what's important is that the mayor has, I think, a very creative idea to use the facility in Qualicum -- to try and expand it -- so that it's not in competition and not duplicating services that are provided elsewhere but is in fact building on the strengths they have in Qualicum. I said that's definitely the type of thing I'm interested in and that I want to work with him to see if we could make something like this work. So I am expecting a formal proposal from them, and I'm quite happy to do the work in the ministry to see how something could evolve.
This is something that I've told elected officials I meet with on a regular basis: if they've got a good idea that's creative, I'm more than happy to try and see if we can be innovative and move things along. Quite often a lot of solutions are ones that can be developed locally, particularly if they're building on resources that we already have in place and services that are already there. If it's the addition of something that strengthens what's there, then that's an approach that we certainly should be encouraging, to see if we can make it work. We may not, at the end of the day, but I certainly don't believe in ruling things out in an out-of-hand way. I believe in looking at things. My approach is that if we can make it work, then let's try and do that.
[1945]
J. Reid: The facility is Eagle Park Lodge, and it was built with the idea of being able to be expanded. It certainly is a facility that's well located and has those attributes.
I was speaking with the regional health board about this issue, and they are ready to present the minister with a plan from the region, not specifically on this but taking into account the growth of the area and realizing that there are a number of facilities that require a stat plan. That will be coming to the ministry very shortly. I will be encouraging the mayor to follow up. I look forward to developing these innovative community-based solutions, because I think there is the will there to see something happen. There are lots of possibilities once we try to remove some of those barriers and encourage people to find those solutions.
With the plan that the regional health board is going to be putting forward
What advice would the minister care to give as to how we get from the planning stage, the paper stage, into actually starting to see these plans happen? If we had implemented our 15-year plan 15 years ago, we would not have the shortages of beds and the problems that we see in our area, because the plans were there, and they predicted exactly the problems that we have right now.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises an interesting point, and I want to take issue with the comment. If we had fully implemented the 15-year plan 15 years ago, we would be in big trouble right now
An Hon. Member: Bigger trouble.
Hon. M. Farnworth:
The opportunity five years down the road is to be able to say: "Okay, where are those things now? Are we still on course in dealing with them? Is it still the same issue, or has it changed?" At that point, you're in a position to refine a plan to take into account new advances in technology and changes that may have taken place in demographics. All those things are evolving.
Long-term plans are just that: they are long-term. But they evolve. The five-year time frame gives us the ability to
[ Page 15692 ]
take into account that constant evolving that is happening, whether it's in technology, labour or skill sets within our health care system or whether it takes place in the demographics in our health care system. All those things need points along the way where they can be assessed and plans adapted and changed. I think that's the key message: to recognize that you look at a 15-year plan as a short-, medium- and long-term vision of what's happening in your particular community or your particular health authority.
[1950]
J. Reid: Great, but at some point you have to start on the plan.
I want to finish up with a few fairly quick questions here, talking about funding. There's an example of funding pressures: mental health. We have a project called Forward House that exists in our area, and this agency does wonderful, practical work meeting very real needs of people in a psycho-social rehabilitation program. It's a day program, and it is wonderful; it is really a wonderful, cost-effective program. There aren't the dollars to continue the support. As it has proven its success, there is no additional funding. The regional board has no additional funding.
This comes back to the mental health plan. The region is looking for dollars to come. The request is that when these dollars come, they not be targeted, in that there's
The Ambulance Service in Parksville
Hon. M. Farnworth: We're currently analyzing the situation in your particular area, with the communities of Parksville-Qualicum. There is work that has been underway to look at things such as call volumes and current staffing levels, and that work is expected to be completed in about the next two weeks. That will give us a much better ability at that time -- once that work is complete -- to look at the situation and see what changes we may have to make, if we have to make changes. There's work ongoing; it will be finished in two weeks.
Just a quick answer to your previous comment about the mental health funding: I'm really interested in that, so I'd be interested in that particular program. If you've got the details, I'd be quite happy to look at it.
J. Reid: I'm glad to share the details. Hopefully, the minister will come by for a visit. That would be great.
Last question. This is a bit of a puzzle. It's a very general, broad question. People who live in long term care homes -- their homes -- and have run into the problem where there are people who have requested massage therapy, and their doctors have agreed to it
[1955]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't see why you shouldn't be able to access the services if they're available. I mean, there are budgetary constraints, but certainly the fact that you are in a long term care facility shouldn't preclude you from being able to access these services. If there's an issue in terms of how it's applied provincewide, or some are doing it and some aren't, I'm quite happy to look into that.
J. Reid: We will also follow up on that one, because there are some problems with it, and we hope to resolve those.
I. Chong: Again, I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in the health estimates and to raise issues of particular interest to Oak Bay-Gordon Head residents but not restricted to just Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I do hear from people throughout the capital health region on issues that are of concern to them. I know, and I apologize to the minister right at the outset, that he may have heard these questions from other members as well, because we are all obviously experiencing the same difficulties in our areas. So if I do venture into those areas that have already been responded to, then I'll take the minister's response as quickly as he is able to provide it. In addition, I will try to focus on specific facilities that I'm concerned about.
There is one area that I would like to touch on to begin with, and that is the issue of home support. The Home Support Action Group is a group that was organized here in Victoria in the capital health region, because they particularly wanted to focus on the various aspects of home support. Those who are involved in this, as I know the minister is aware, are people with disabilities. They are people who are seniors, family caregivers, non-profit advocates and other allies. It's a group that essentially evolved in response to the reductions in access to the subsidized home support services. Obviously this group has been very active in contacting all the MLAs in this area and has been stressing very much the need to deal with home support.
I am aware that the minister met with the Home Support Action Group in April. One of the concerns that they expressed to him at that time was the fact that there was a provincial average -- as I understand it -- that has been calculated for the number of home support hours that would be available. The difficulty in this area, and in this region in particular, is -- perhaps because there is so much more opportunity for home support or family caregivers -- that the hours for home support are greater, because people stay at home longer. Rather than in an area where the provincial average may be calculated for a person 70 years of age who enters a facility and stays there for three or four years, we have people who are at home at 70 years of age and are staying at home for perhaps five years before entering a long term care facility. Naturally the hours that they need at home would be skewed. They would need five years of home support versus three years.
[ Page 15693 ]
The first question I would like to ask the minister is: are there any plans, or can the minister share with us if he has any plans, to change the funding allocation decisions to reflect this obvious disparity that exists throughout the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I mentioned earlier in terms of the continuing-care plan, the renewal plan that was done and completed this past winter -- and then the implementation framework -- will be ready in a couple of months. Using that sense, it is a living document. So I am quite happy to tell you that if we have to make adjustments around how health funding and home care funding are done, we're quite happy to do that.
[2000]
As I have said throughout the day, I see home care and home support as very much part of that continuum. I see them playing critical and crucial roles in our ability to provide services to people in the manner in which they require them. You can have people at home because they want to be at home, because they're receiving the necessary services -- whether it's a couple of hours a week or whether it's something much more intensive that is more effective than putting them in an institution when they don't want to be there and, in fact, all that's required is some level of home support that will allow them to stay at home. Then, as part of that continuum, you have the facilities and the institutions in place, so that as people progress or as they require that higher level of care, it's there for them. So the answer to your question is that I'm more than happy to try and be flexible and to look at ways of making the delivery of services such as home care and home support improve and work better.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. What I've heard is that there's a possibility, anyway, of looking at changing the funding allocation discussions. But in particular, I note that in the meeting that the minister had with the Home Support Action Group, he in fact had stressed -- or this is the impression that the people he met with got -- that there was need for health care funding to be restored to the 1994 levels. Can the minister share with me what he meant by that or elaborate a little bit more on what he meant by "being restored to 1994 levels"? Is that in terms of dollars and hours, or was it strictly dollars?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to see us get to the hours that we had in '94-95. I'd like to see an improved level of service in the province. Part of that is the discussions that are currently taking place with the federal government, for example. That's one of the areas that they have expressed an interest in, and I have said that that's something that is very much on my agenda as well. That is an area where we're trying to cooperate and look at ways in which we can make improvements to service.
Again, like most things in health care and throughout government, it comes down to funds and resources. If we can get the federal government back to the table and restore that 50-50 partnership, in terms of the funding between the provinces and the federal government, I think one of the key areas that we need to focus on -- and I've outlined some of them here today -- is information technology, infrastructure. But clearly, in terms of dealing with the pressures on the system, the ability to provide home care and home support is very much up there. If we get money in there, I want to see that if we can allocate some of it, it is targeted to these particular levels, to these particular types of service.
I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that the minister recognizes that, clearly, the demographics of our population aging are going to put a tremendous stress on the health care system. All members on this side of the House acknowledge it, and I'm sure all members on that side of the House acknowledge it. It's just very, very prominent in all of our minds, because we all have aging parents, and we all see the baby boom age catching up. So I know there will be a real demand.
I am concerned, however, that if we are looking at the solution for restoration -- I'm sure the minister is not looking at the entire solution -- as a sharing of health care funding with the federal government, we are also not looking as far ahead as we, as a province, need to. As I understand it, the sharing of health care services can be restored to this 50-50 level the minister would like. But there are other looming problems that each province perhaps will develop for which you can't expect the 50-50 funding to work. I see the minister nodding, so I know he can appreciate it.
[2005]
I did want to just mention that I did have a constituent who was very affected by the capital health region cutbacks to the transitional care program. I had the name of the individual, and I did check with the spouse that we could mention it. His name was Mr. Gibbs. He had Lou Gehrig's disease and was requiring up to 210 hours of transitional care each and every month. When the word came down that he would be cut back from 210 hours to 120 hours on March 31, clearly that was close to a 40 percent reduction in the number of hours. Someone with a debilitating disease such as that could not possibly cope, nor could the caregiver, being his wife. Eventually -- and I have to thank the capital health region people; they were very helpful -- we were able to restore some of the required hours.
But certainly this is just one example -- of many I'm sure the minister has heard -- of the panic that goes through a family the moment they hear of their hours literally being cut in half , the caregiver being well into their senior years, caring for someone else in their senior years. The ability to care for them is just not there.
[G. Robertson in the chair.]
So I just wanted to mention that. It's a looming problem. We're still going to be faced with that, and each and every one of us, as elected officials, as MLAs, will get those one-off calls every now and then. It's unfortunate that we have to deal with them one at a time, because it's only those who contact our office that get the help they really need, and there's many, many more out there. So I just wanted to mention that. I don't need the minister to respond, so we can keep on time.
The other area I want to ask about, again, is about long term care beds in this capital health region area. Some time age, when I spoke to the CEO, Mr. Closson -- who is no longer going to be our CEO -- he mentioned that in this region particularly we were going to be looking at quite a severe shortage. I know there are capital plans in place.
But I wonder whether, for this particular region, we're going to stick to that plan or whether it will require him to look at it more frequently and change it as we go. As he
[ Page 15694 ]
indicated earlier, a 15-year plan doesn't always work, because you're always having to modify, given the changes. In this area, in the capital health region in particular, we have such an increase in our aging population that what was determined even six months ago will change three months from now. I just would like some assurance that the ministry is working with the CHR to ensure that we don't fall that much further behind in the area of long term care beds.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raises some very valid points. I think this particular area is an example of what other parts of the province are going to face in the coming decades in terms of the aging population. I think it's either 23 percent or 32 percent. I may have the numbers transposed. One of those two figures is the average of people over 65. In my community, the average of people over 65
So the member is quite correct. We need to assess and review our plan on an ongoing basis. On the issue around the 15-year plan and the importance of reviewing it every five years, let's say
I would add that we have seen such changes in medical technology
I. Chong: Speaking of long term care beds or a facility that provides for long-term care or multilevel care, there is a facility that is not in my area, but I have been contacted to raise it with the minister. That is, the facility in Chinatown -- the Chinatown care centre facility, run by a society. I understand that recently, due to some changes in its operations, there is a real threat of possible closure, partially because of a funding issue.
[2010]
Just in a nutshell, the care centre has decided to organize. There are costs involved in that. They were previously a non-organized facility, and there was more flexibility. Now that they've decided to organize, there are some costs associated. There are training costs, there are new staffing requirements -- all those kinds of things. I haven't heard that the ministry has provided additional funding to deal with those one-time costs.
I'm wondering whether or not the minister is aware that there has been a notice filed of possible closure a year from now, and if in fact the minister has final word on whether or not that closure will take place. It's not unlike school closures -- you know, the Minister of Education has final word. I'm hoping the Minister of Health also has final word, even though this facility is in the capital health region. If he isn't aware of it, perhaps he could look into it. If he is aware of it, perhaps he can advise me whether or not he will see whether or not a facility such as this, which provides very specialized care to its particular patient group, will be allowed to continue, given the financial crises that it's now facing.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the hon. member for bringing that to my attention. I will look into the matter for her and advise her of what's happening and what developments are taking place. You have my commitment on that.
I. Chong: I very much appreciate that commitment from the minister and his staff.
One quick area I'd like to touch on has to do with the Vancouver Island Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, which has been actively pursuing, with the Ministry of Health, funding the cost of the PSA. I know this was raised last year by my colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. Subsequent to that, many people called my office and asked where we were on that. I recall the Minister of Health stating last year that in order for the PSA test to be paid for, the B.C. Cancer Agency had to be a player here. They had to agree that this was a necessary and recommended test. That, as I understand it, was stated, and it was in the Hansard, because I was able to send that out to many constituents who called me on that.
We're still at a standstill, it appears. It's a year later, and it's still not worded in the B.C. Cancer Agency manual as being a necessary or recommended test. Perhaps the minister can
Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the concern around the PSA test and around prostate cancer. There is a considerable amount of research that's being done and activity in the province on the subject, not the least of which has been the gift of Jimmy Pattison of $20 million into research here in British Columbia. So there is considerable interest, a lot of work. It is an important health issue.
About the particular test the member is talking about, the PSA test, yes, it does have significant value. However, it has to be done in the context of a series of diagnoses and those sorts of things, because unlike some medical tests, it can just by itself reveal a significant number of false positives, which result in you being put on a course of treatment that is unnecessary and in fact won't help you. So there are still some significant issues around the PSA test. If it's determined by your physician that you require it, it is indeed covered.
But it is not yet used as a general screening application because of the significant number of false positives that continue to be a problem. My expectation is that, like many things, as science and technology advance the ability to deal with those issues, false positive tests become less and less, and they are eventually eliminated. Then something like that can be used for a general screening application.
I. Chong: Still on the lines of cancer and cancer research, I know the minister is all too aware of the wait-list for radiation treatment. I received a number of calls and a number of concerns over the past year. I wrote to the former Minister of Health not to chastise her and not to criticize, but more to just again indicate, as all MLAs should, that the radiation therapy department at the Vancouver Island cancer clinic just could not handle the demands on it and that, while we are waiting for the completion of the new cancer clinic, there had to be some measures considered in the interim. What could those be?
[ Page 15695 ]
[2015]
I'm wondering if the minister has taken a look recently at the wait-list for radiation treatment here on Vancouver Island, whilst we are waiting for the cancer clinic to be completed, and whether they have provided some interim measures, or are looking at doing that until the completion of the cancer clinic here in Victoria.
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I mentioned earlier, in terms of cancer treatment there are a number of things that are being done. Prioritization is done by physicians, and decisions around treatment are made by physicians. We employ the entire provincial system in treating cancer, so that if there is ability for a referral that is deemed to be a critical case, that can be done to a facility where there is a shorter wait-list. Currently there are, I think, about 197 people on wait-lists for cancer treatment here on Vancouver Island.
What we are anticipating is that once the new facility is open, which will be March-April of next year, that will have a significant impact on wait-lists here on the Island and in the ability to deliver treatment, so that we're not having to send people to the mainland for treatment. They will be able to be treated here.
I. Chong: The minister mentions 197 people on a wait-list here for radiation treatment. What would be the acceptable level? I know that's a difficult question. But what would be the level that we can try to reduce that down to, prior to the completion next March or next April, still a year away? I know there are many constituents wishing to hear what the minister has to offer on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the real issue is not necessarily the number of people waiting but rather how long they wait. Very soon we will be expanding the service hours at the facility from ten to 13, and that should have a good impact in terms of reducing the time that people wait and in the ability to provide more service until the new facility is up and running in March-April of next year.
I. Chong: I would agree with the minister that it's not always the numbers, but the length of time. That is an important measurement when anyone is waiting for health care services. It is very important, if someone is waiting a year or ten months, that there is a mechanism in place -- in the computer system or whatever system that's available -- so that after 3 or 4 months the system continually brings up that person's name, saying: "This person has now waited three months," or "This person has now waited four months." Then and only then can we truly measure that we are trying to effectively deal with those who are wait-listed.
Which brings me to another wait-list issue, and that has to do with hip replacement. I don't expect the minister to answer this particular case now, but I just want to put it on the record. Perhaps the staff can take this information down and then look into it. The name of the constituent is Barb Lort. She's a 38-year-old single mother who had a stress fracture to a hip in 1996. Due to a number of complications, it was determined in 1998, two years later, that a total hip replacement was required. She had been scheduled for surgery three times, each time it being cancelled. The reason being given, that it could be cancelled, was that she was still functional, even though she was required to take many pain medications daily. She could not otherwise move around that much.
Her doctor has indicated that his hands were tied. She has consulted a U.S. doctor, who advised that the operation would cost approximately $30,000 (U.S.), which obviously she cannot afford as a single mother. So she's still waiting. As I say, the assessment in 1998 was that she should have a total hip replacement. This is a young person 38 years old, a single mom.
[2020]
My point is that if a person was put on a wait-list for hip replacement, and if every six months their name came up -- and after three times, it would be a year and a half later -- surely that might be a way to deal with those cases before they become absolutely critical. I'm hoping that the minister and staff can take that upon themselves -- to look into this case, perhaps. If he would like to provide that assurance, I don't need a detailed response at this time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I will look into that particular case and also give the member a quick answer that I have given a couple of times today. Built into the base funding of last year was the ability to do an extra thousand procedures. One of the things we are doing is reviewing that to make sure, in terms of the allocations, that they're going to areas of the province that may be experiencing pressures which are above the average. So yes, I will look into it.
I. Chong: Also, a number of issues that had arisen in my area, as well, have to do with the Pharmacare issue -- I know other members have probably raised it -- where in order to finally get a non-benefit item approved, they have to go through doctors. I'm just wondering. I could check the Hansard if the minister already responded to that. It seems to be an extra regulatory step for doctors to go through to prescribe certain medications that eventually are going to be permitted in terms of coverage. In the meantime, many of the patients and their families go through a significant amount of stress wondering why they're going through various medications that aren't working, that aren't being effective.
If the minister has received a number of complaints about Pharmacare, perhaps he's got something in the plans that he can share with us or, at least can give us some assurance that he's looking into this area.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess one of the challenges facing us right across the country in terms of pharmaceuticals is a dramatic growth in the cost of drugs. We could get into quite a discourse on that, and I know that's going to be another part of the Health estimates.
So what I will say is that one of the things we try and do in terms of keeping costs under control in Pharmacare is to look at either generic drugs or drug substitutions that do exactly the same thing but are significantly cheaper. You may find that for 85 percent of the population that works fine -- to substitute either the cheaper same-chemical-makeup drug or a drug substitution that treats exactly the same symptoms and is also significantly cheaper. That may work for 85 or 95 percent of the population. But you always find some people whom it doesn't work for, and what's required is another drug. If it's on that list, and the physician says to Pharmacare, "Look, this is the drug they need," they will approve it on that basis.
[ Page 15696 ]
Anyway, that's the short answer. I know there's going to be considerable discussion around Pharmacare in another part of the estimates debate. We can expand on that at greater detail.
I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's response, because, absolutely, I just raise it for his awareness. Certainly it has been a concern in this area that I represent.
The last question I have, and the last area, has to do with the Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health, which again is in my constituency. I am sure the minister is aware that it went through this amalgamation agreement process where an agreement was supposed have been signed. Last year the minister advised that the agreement was about to be signed. I just want some assurance that the agreement that was in place, where the capital health region would lease it for a dollar from the society or the foundation, has finally been signed. It has been about two to three years in the works. This was based on the study and the recommendation by the arbitrator, Miriam Gropper, who had recommended this be the process to follow.
[2025]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I will check into the status of that agreement for the hon. member, and I will get back to her as quickly as I can.
I. Chong: In the area of the Queen Alexandra Hospital or the Centre for Children's Health, it's an anomaly, because it provides services that would rightly be under the Ministries for Children and of Health, and yet the facility is through CHR, and it's considered a health facility. I'm concerned about some things that I hear are happening there, and that is that some of the parts of the facility are being looked at for conversion to uses which are not direct medical uses -- office space, storage space, things like that. This is a centre that was originally agreed upon to be for children's health. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of that occurring and whether he would agree that minimal space, if any, should be provided for those kinds of purposes, that kind of use. Again, this is a children's facility, and it was designed and intended to be that in perpetuity.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an interesting question that the member raises, because what it comes back to is the previous question, which was about the sensitivity around who owns the land and who gets to say what happens on it. That was one of the issues around regionalization. The desire to have everything operating under one authority, as opposed to several authorities, was that you could deal with issues around that.
My understanding of what is taking place in the facility is that those facilities that were geared to service -- that were put in place to provide services -- are in fact doing that. There isn't an issue around conversion of them. Rather there were some, I guess, in residence. It's my understanding that that function may have changed, and there's space around that.
That's where the capital health region and an agreement with the particular facility that says who can do what and make those decisions come into play. So as much as I may want to
I. Chong: I appreciate that cooperation and that the minister will undertake to provide me with that information. It is a very serious concern. The ultimate goal, of course, is to ensure children's care is provided for in this facility. I think we would all agree with that. His looking into it would very much satisfy, I'm sure, a number of concerns we have. With that, I'd like to thank the minister and staff for providing information to me this evening.
J. Wilson: I've got a couple of questions left from before dinner. The people in the Cariboo are sort of watching their hospitals become band-aid stations, basically because there is always a lack of professional help -- doctors, nurses, radiologists. We cannot seem to fill those positions. I would like to give the minister a few examples.
Right now and up until sometime in June, if you're an expectant mother in the Cariboo Memorial Hospital district, you can expect to travel to a hospital outside the region, because they cannot deliver babies; there is no one there to do it. Should there be any complications or emergencies arising from it, they have to go to either Kamloops or Prince George or another centre. When you consider the fact that this hospital serves roughly 25,000 to 30,000 people, it's beyond my understanding how they could not have enough people on staff or enough staff in the hospital to be able to provide these services. They're not really anything special; they're something that people expect in these hospitals.
[2030]
With the shortage there
Some of the other things that we're looking at in the Cariboo Memorial Hospital
Is there anything in this year's budget to try and fill some of the shortage that we're facing in the Cariboo region in our professional staff?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a follow-up to the issue that was raised earlier on before supper. It is a crucial one. So I'm going to deal with the broad and the specific, as the member talked about. The ability and the challenge of recruiting rural
I didn't know you'd crossed the floor. When did that happen?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The ability to recruit and retain staff into rural and northern regions of British Columbia is a chal-
[ Page 15697 ]
lenge. It's a challenge not only in this province but right across this country and in the territories. In fact, it's a significant challenge and problem south of the border, because we have a global shortage of the trained staff and technicians that we require to fill key positions in rural and northern parts of the province. I don't disagree with you at all.
We're undertaking a number of steps to try and address that. I've outlined on a number of occasions today what I think some of those steps are. I outlined them to you in terms of Prince George, and I think those same principles apply for other communities in northern B.C. and rural B.C. -- that is, more training in-province, recognition that in that training process
I think one of the ideas that I would like to examine is that we have a focus in our medical training programs on rural and northern health care, so that when you go into the program, you know you're being trained with a specific focus in mind. You're going into the program recognizing that part of your program is focusing on the issues around rural and northern areas and the problems associated with that, whether it's distance medicine, dealing with aboriginal populations or dealing with the different incidences of illness that occur in rural areas of the province.
Second is that we expand the scope of our training not just in isolation by ourselves but also in recognition that other provinces face the same problems. There has to be a more coordinated approach so that we're not poaching off each other and one province is not getting out ahead of the other in filling the vacancies in those provinces -- so some cooperation there to address the people being trained.
Third, we need to ensure we recognize that in terms of training the types of people we want, we're looking at the skill sets that are going to be required five years down the road, ten years down the road -- recognizing that there are advances in technology that can deal with a number of things but that they require specialized people to train them.
Finally, we have to work in-province in terms of solutions. We're doing that specifically for your particular area -- for example, in the case of physicians and specialists -- with the BCMA in the rural and northern agreement, which is to be ratified and which gives us flexibility in this coming year and in future fiscal years on how we can target and look at different ways of dealing with attracting, for example, physicians, whether it is alternative payment methods or salaried positions.
[2035]
One of the challenges we also have to deal with is in terms of ensuring, when you get a specialist to your area or a GP with a particular skill set, that there is the critical mass so they can practice the skill they're trained for -- that there's enough people there that can support that.
So there's a whole range of things, from the specific in terms of particular locations, working with the agencies that are here in British Columbia -- the BCMA is an example; the nurses, in terms of dealing with nursing shortages; then education; and then working in conjunction with other provinces to ensure that there's a much greater degree of cooperation and recognizing that the challenges that face northern rural communities, the small communities in this province, are significantly different from communities in the lower mainland.
J. Wilson: I'm really glad to see that the minister has a fairly good grasp on the problems that exist but no answers and no solutions that we need to deal with in the immediate future, in the next six or eight months. I think that kind of lines up what I have to say tonight. Tomorrow there's a couple of other issues that I'd like to pick up on.
Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a couple of points I want to mention in terms of the specific so that the member knows that there are activities taking place within the province. We have HealthMatch B.C., and we're looking at ways we can expand that.
Second, if there are particular issues unique to certain health authorities or particular problems facing communities in attracting skilled specialists, we in the ministry are able to work with them, meet with health boards and with the hospitals themselves in terms of identifying what those people are. Then we can help to look at attracting or going out to find a specific individual to fill a particular position. That we can do and are in fact doing.
Current negotiations are underway around the master agreement that governs physicians' services. That, hopefully, will also give us additional flexibility this year in terms of meeting some of the needs. I think one of the crucial things that we can do is to get that agreement ratified -- the rural and northern doctors agreement. If we get that done quickly, it will also give us increased flexibility.
A. Sanders: I'd like to wrap up the mental health discussion, but I can't resist my colleague's questioning of the ministry on northern health care. That's for a couple of reasons, not to mention that I delivered this gentleman's children as part of the northern health care regime. And they were smart children as well.
In 1991 this NDP government came into power, and they came in with their interpretation of the "Closer to Home" document from the Seaton commission. When I would deal with the press as a doctor in Quesnel, which is not even the centre of the province, let alone the north, I made a number of predictions about what would happen in that particular hospital. I predicted the loss of specialists' services. I predicted the decline in beds from a 72-bed hospital to something considerably less. I think there are 38 beds now. I predicted the overturn of general practitioners at a level that people would be completely intolerant of and much more with respect to loss of services. That was the target. That was the template that was set in 1991 by the Harcourt government with respect to how they interpreted "Closer to Home."
[2040]
When I talked to the press in 1991 as someone who had no interest in politics whatsoever, I told them what the predictions were for the Quesnel community. And the press said: "You're way over the top. You have no idea what you're talking about." It was very interesting being one of the
I talked to the newspaper reporter three years later. He phoned me at my medical office in Vernon, and he said: "I hear you're going into politics, and I'm phoning you because you've made your first lie." And I said: "Oh, that's very interesting. What might that be?" He said: "When you were here, and you talked about the changes in health care that
[ Page 15698 ]
would come to the north, you said they would come in five years. They've come in three. We're down to 38 beds. We've got one surgeon. We've got one internist; the other internist is on stress leave. We've got GPs from South Africa. We've got nobody who used to be here before, and it's three years later."
When we look at the government's view -- "How did this problem happen?" -- I can tell you that I know how this problem happened. It happened from the NDP interpretation of what they decided to do with Closer to Home and regionalization. I hold the NDP government completely responsible for now trying to look at the north and figure out how to repopulate it, when we have lost a number of people who loved to live in the north and who found it intolerable to work as nurses, as physicians, as mental health consultants, as a whole lot of other people. That is the reality of Quesnel, and my colleague and I have shared that experience both firsthand and from a political point of view.
Notwithstanding that -- not to get the soap box out for too long -- there were a couple of things I want to talk about in mental health that we did not have the chance to discuss. Over the weekend there was a walk for schizophrenia. In many of the communities across B.C., people with schizophrenia and their families participated in that walk. The thing that was interesting to me -- for people who are seriously mentally ill and feel isolated in their own communities -- was that they did not recognize that there are 60,000 British Columbians who have severe mental illness. Of those 60,000 who have severe mental illness
We also have one in five British Columbians who experience, along a spectrum, some degree of mental illness, whether it be substance disorder, conduct disorder, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder or eating disorder -- any number of disorders that affect an individual. If we look only at the people who are influenced and affected by mental illness once per year, we're looking, in our population, at around 800,000 people who are touched in some way by mental illness. If you add that to the 60,000 who are chronically and severely mentally ill, there is no one in this room who does not know or has not experienced some form of mental illness. That is the reality of this particular part of the health care system.
Tomorrow night, when we come to Pharmacare, there will be a very concentrated and vigorous debate on access to medications related to schizophrenia. Tonight I would just like to follow up on the things that were left undone, from my point of view, with respect to the mental health plan and the advocate's report and look at some of the things we need to in mental health.
The first thing I'd like to look at is early intervention programs -- something that is desperately needed and is well documented as being therapeutic and scientifically validatable. I wonder what the minister knew, or what his understanding was, of first-episode schizophrenia and its treatment.
[2045]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Now, the member makes a very good point in terms of the need for early intervention. You'll find no disagreement from me. I don't view mental health as being any different from any other illness, in that the sooner you catch the symptoms, the sooner you're able to treat the symptoms. Clearly it's common sense that the outcomes for long-term improvements are vastly higher than if you waited and didn't treat it.
In terms of the first contacts with the system, we have allocated $1 million in one-time funding for a project that is currently ongoing. It looks at early invention in the early psychosis initiative in terms of diagnosis. We recognize that probably one of the most important single thing, if not the most important, that government can do is to improve our early intervention programs. The first episode of schizophrenia, as the member referred to it, is one of the highest priorities that the advocacy groups have been telling me, as minister, when I have met with them, in terms of what improvements they want to see in the mental health system.
Clearly the focus is that a person's first contact with the system should be a positive one, so that we can get them into the system and get them on a treatment path that is beneficial to them and shows results. So we've got the current project underway, and there's been an additiona1 $150,000 allocated to it this year. I view it as being extremely important.
A. Sanders: I want the minister to hold that thought for tomorrow when we talk in Pharmacare about new drugs. What I want to see come out of this set of the estimates, after three years of looking for it, is unfettered access to all of the drugs that have to do with schizophrenia. We are the only province that does not have that. We are viewed in this country as one of the provinces of wealth and sustainability, and we treat our mentally ill as second-class citizens.
The minister has said that he understands the concept of first-episode. Let me give you an example. A young person comes into the emergency department or the constable's office in the local RCMP, with first-break schizophrenia. Family have noticed that this young man in grade 8 or grade 9 or grade 10 has suddenly developed no interest in being clean. He doesn't comb his hair, doesn't brush his teeth, doesn't have a bath and doesn't care about any kind of personal cleanliness. There's been a marked deterioration in the ability to learn: an A student goes to D student.
There's been a shortening of the social crowd; he doesn't want to see anyone anymore. He doesn't want to see his friends; he has paranoid feelings about his friends doing things to him or about him.
He is in a circumstance of not being able to sleep. He is now doing dope, because he says the dope makes him feel more normal. He starts hearing voices through the telephone wires of the telephone in the family room. He doesn't know what's going on, doesn't know what's wrong. He starts getting messages through the telephone wire that what he should do is kill his mother with a ceremonial sword.
[2050]
We have this circumstance in Victoria. This is the kind of circumstance that Aaron Millar lived under. Aaron Millar killed his mother in this city as a schizophrenic not on appropriate medication. Now, the minister may come back and say that he was on olanzapine, and that's great. But the fact is that he wasn't on medication at the time. He wasn't properly looked after; he wasn't being monitored. Whoever was looking after him did not have unfettered access to all of the medications we have for the most vulnerable members of our society.
So what do we have? You have someone come in, and they make a first contact with a condition that they don't think is abnormal. You know that their relationship to normalcy is not okay; they don't know that. And you're going to treat them.
[ Page 15699 ]
You put them on a drug that makes them constipated, have dry mouth and dry eyes, sleepy, hypotensive -- you can't stand up without feeling light in the head. That puts them through two and three and four and five sizes of clothes changes. You'll notice that a lot of people on schizophrenic medication, the old medications, are very fat. It's not because they have impulse control problems; it's because of their medication. They may be purple because of the medication. They may have sexual dysfunction because of the medication. They may find that they have visual problems because of the medication. There is not one aspect of their life that will not be affected by taking the medications that we call first-line drugs -- things like haloperidol.
In Davos, in February, leading psychiatrists from across the world looked at first-episode schizophrenia. Their recommendation, along with the Aaron Millar recommendation in the inquest into his mother's death in this particular city and any number of other inquests, has said: "We need open access to all medications to treat schizophrenics so that we can make their lives tolerable." The whole thing is that if you treat people properly on their first episode, on their first break, on their first contact with medical therapy or nursing therapy or whoever it is, you have the opportunity to have them come back.
We have case after case of people who were treated on something they could not tolerate -- that made them feel worse, that added to their paranoia, that resulted in them never coming back for treatment -- and instead using substance abuse, alcohol abuse, 53 percent of schizophrenics have a secondary drug addiction or alcohol addiction. We've lost them, and then they get into very serious problems.
Fifty-three percent of the people at Riverview have some kind of criminal charge in their background. These are individuals who are not more criminally motivated than the average population. In fact, they're exactly the same. But if we are not treating them properly, and they have a secondary substance abuse, then we get into a problem where they commit crimes. In fact, we know right now that more people with schizophrenia are in jail in the United States than are in mental institutions and mental care.
So to go back to well-tolerated therapy and the idea of early intervention programs, which is well-documented in the mental health advocate's report as well as the report of the Mental Health Coalition, could I please have from the minister his idea of what early intervention programs in British Columbia will be, how they will be implemented, and what the time line will be?
[2055]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I will be brief in my answer. If the member wants more in-depth, I'm more than happy to go into it, because I recognize her interest in it, and it is an important issue.
1. There are the issues around the mental health plan and implementation. The framework strategy that is coming out in a month will deal with how we move forward in terms of implementing recommendations.
2. We've talked about first contact and the ability of the medical therapies and the importance of the medications that are available. Some of that we will discuss further in the Pharmacare debate, as the member said, tomorrow.
3. One of the key areas is around education in terms of the patient, in particular around the family and the support network of the person with mental illness, whether it's aggressive intervention in terms of taking the medication or whether it's in making sure that there are good education programs in place so that the support systems around the patient -- the family, people around or just outside the family, friends and that -- are in place, so that the individual can get the treatment they require.
And as the member points out, the early intervention should be a positive experience, in the sense that the person comes back. As much as possible, we try and recognize the problems that the member has outlined, and if we can resolve them, then that's the direction, clearly, that we should be heading.
Anyway, I know that this is a very important subject, and it is one that I am quite happy to have further discussions with the member about. I'm looking to find solutions, I'm looking to implement them, and I'm quite happy to meet with her to discuss these particular issues.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House do now adjourn, after a very long day.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:52 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
(continued)
On vote 19: ministry operations, $828,499,000 (continued).
B. Penner: Just before we broke for lunch, we had been discussing the issue of new regulations pertaining to U-brews and U-vin operations in British Columbia. Before that, I'd asked a question or two about the performance plan or busi-
[ Page 15700 ]
ness plan for the liquor licensing branch of the Attorney General. I know that there is a summary plan contained in the overall 2000-2001 performance plan for the ministry. But I wonder if there are any specific plans at this point to bring in an individual business plan for the LCLB.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it's anticipated that there will be generated a fuller and more specific performance plan for the liquor licensing division, following the final decision-making regarding the sources required, etc., for the implementation of the Surich report. I think the member can anticipate, once those decisions have been made and the direction is clear, that a performance plan will be then generated based upon that.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister is able to provide us with a target date and whether or not there is a draft plan available at this time.
Hon. A. Petter: No, I'm not.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister has a time line in mind or a goal that he wants the liquor control and licensing branch to work towards.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, it's really going to be a function of decision-making in respect of resources and finalization of plans. I really don't want to tie myself to a specific date, when some of these matters are beyond my control. But I would say, hopefully, that over the next three or four months at the outside we would be in a position to have those decisions finalized and be able to undertake the work on the final plan.
[1455]
B. Penner: I think we can leave this topic. But I'll just add this. The minister is no doubt aware that Bill 2 has been tabled in the Legislature, having to do with budget transparency. When that act becomes law, assuming it gets passed, the minister will not be able to say he doesn't know or doesn't have a specific date in mind. The minister will be bound by an act of the Legislature -- at least, I hope -- to meet certain targets set in advance in terms of preparing business plans for the ministry.
I would like to move now to the topic of sponsorships for events. One of the recommendations coming out of the Surich report was that the requirement for preapprovals of sponsorships from businesses in the liquor industry be done away with. I know that again last June the NDP cabinet said they accepted the recommendations. I wonder if in fact the preapproval process has been done away with altogether and whether or not there is still some threshold that's applied in terms of requiring preapprovals.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, preapprovals have been discontinued. In their place there is a reporting requirement where the amount exceeds $1,500.
B. Penner: Do I have the minister stating it correctly that those sponsorships in excess of $1,500 do not require preapproval, but merely reporting after the fact once the event has concluded?
Hon. A. Petter: That's what I said.
B. Penner: That seems to be at odds with a government news release issued last year, which indicated that preapprovals were going to be retained for sponsorships in excess of $1,500 in value. Perhaps there is a miscommunication on the part of the communications branch or something. Certainly I wouldn't believe it would fall to Mr. Gagliano to account for that. But I had it in a government news release, I believe, from June of last year that $1,500 is going to be retained as a threshold for preapprovals.
Hon. A. Petter: If the member wants to send the news release over, I can take a look at it. I'm informed by staff that preapprovals are discontinued; however, if the news release is at odds with that, I'm prepared to look at that.
B. Penner: In fact, the news release was dated November 8, 1999, and is entitled "The New Liquor Laws Regulate Hobby Brewing, Advertising." I'll quote the paragraph in question: "Preapproval of sponsorships will no longer be required, except when the sponsorship agreements are for more than $1,500. Outdoor advertising will now be permitted in all venues except
Hon. A. Petter: We'll follow up and get back to the member on it. The advice I received from staff was that preapprovals are discontinued. I agree with the member that the news release seems to be at variance with that, and that creates a bit of a conundrum, so I'll have to seek further advice from staff as to which is correct.
B. Penner: I'm just curious. Before the requirement for preapprovals was apparently done away with, how many preapprovals were there for sponsorships in the last fiscal year? How big an issue is this?
Hon. A. Petter: Apparently there's been no tracking of those figures, so I don't have them here. Staff doesn't have them for me to relay to the member.
B. Penner: Were any sponsorships ever rejected, when approvals were sought?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
[1500]
B. Penner: I'll look forward to receiving clarification from the ministry on the issue about the preapprovals.
I'd like to move now to a different topic, so-called -- this is clearly written in bureaucratese -- non-beverage alcoholic intoxicants. I think it's not a shorthand version but a longhand version referring to rice alcohol. One of the recommendations coming out of the Surich report was that steps be taken to remove rice alcohol from the shelves of grocery stores and that those items be located, rather, in government liquor stores. Has this recommendation been fully implemented? Is it safe to say today that if I went into a grocery store, I would not find rice alcohol on the shelves?
Hon. A. Petter: I think there was a tolerance level so that if the alcohol content was in excess of 9.9 percent, it was to be removed from the shelves. That means that there should be no such alcohol on the shelves; and if there is, it would be in violation of the requirements. But if it's below that limit, then indeed there is still the possibility of such alcohol being stocked. In fact, I understand that it is still stocked by some sellers at levels below that.
[ Page 15701 ]
B. Penner: In the government's news release dated October 22, 1999, entitled "Rice Alcohol Controls to Take Effect December 1," there is a commitment that the government will compensate store owners who have remaining supplies of rice alcohol at the date that the regulation came into force. I wonder if the minister is in a position to indicate whether or not store owners have in fact been compensated and, if so, for how much. What is the total tab to the taxpayer?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, that program to compensate was administered by the LDB. The member might want to take that up with the minister responsible for the liquor distribution branch.
B. Penner: Do I have it correct that it's now illegal for grocery stores and other convenience stores to sell rice alcohol products that have an alcohol content of greater than 10 percent by volume?
Hon. A. Petter: Greater than 9.9 percent -- yes.
B. Penner: What is the ministry doing to monitor whether or not illegal sales are taking place?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, this regulatory change was brought about in large part because of concerns expressed within the community itself by the community, the police, local government and the like. So the mechanism for monitoring would be with those agencies, particularly with the local police, and it would be for the police to take action should illegal sales be continuing. Obviously, I'm sure, the community itself is monitoring and informing the police should there be any illegality.
B. Penner: Have any charges been laid in relation to the sale of rice alcohol?
Hon. A. Petter: Not that I'm aware of, but I don't have that information at hand.
B. Penner: Obviously this is touchy on the subject of enforcement, which I intend to get to a little bit later. I'm just debating with myself whether or not I should ask the question. I think I will.
What plans does the government have to dedicate more resources to the whole issue of enforcement? We just touched on a couple of topics now that require greater regulation and oversight from the liquor control and licensing branch. I'm curious as to whether or not additional inspectors are going to be hired to conduct this work.
[1505]
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, Mr. Surich recommended that we increase the number of inspectors by about ten. We're looking at that. That's one of the issues that will have to be resolved before we make final decisions on moving ahead -- but something like ten to 12 enforcement personnel.
In addition, there are a number of other strategies being pursued to strengthen compliance and enforcement, including training initiatives and the like. I'd be happy to provide the member with additional information on those, should he be interested in them. But on the inspection side, we're looking at an additional ten or maybe 12 inspectors.
B. Penner: So I have the minister correctly then, stating that there will be an additional ten to 12 inspectors hired. What is the current complement of inspectors?
Before I take my seat, I'll just ask the minister to comment on the following. There's been some speculation out there in the real world that the branch is having difficulty in recruiting and hiring the necessary additional staff to do the enforcement. I invite the minister to comment on that rumour.
Hon. A. Petter: Currently there are five senior and 29 regular inspectors, as I understand it. There has not been any recruitment of additional inspectors, because the decision to hire the additional inspectors has not yet been taken and cannot be taken until plans are finalized. So I can't confirm the member's suggestion that there's been difficulty in hiring or recruiting, because such recruitment has not taken place.
B. Penner: What was the correct number?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, for the member's benefit, the current number was 29 regular inspectors and five senior inspectors, for a total of 34.
B. Penner: I thank the minister for that information. While we're on the topic of enforcement, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many on-site inspections were conducted by LCLB last year.
Hon. A. Petter: There were 24,000.
B. Penner: Does the ministry track what percentage of those inspections would have been conducted at night or after regular daytime business hours?
Hon. A. Petter: No.
B. Penner: The reason for that question has to do with inspections of nightclubs and such, which occasionally raise concerns among members of the community who feel that perhaps they aren't abiding with some of the strict regulations set out by the ministry.
I wonder if the minister is in a position to advise us as to the approximate value of the illegal sale of alcoholic beverages in British Columbia. There's been some talk in the press over the past year about liquor being imported improperly from either south of the border or east of our provincial border. I wonder if the LDB has specific plans to combat this problem.
[1510]
Hon. A. Petter: Just to touch on three things raised by the member. First of all, it is contemplated that as we move forward with the new approach -- based on the Surich recommendations and additional inspectors -- there will be more night inspections. Secondly, it would be simply speculative to try to guess at the value of the illegal importing of alcohol, so I won't engage in trying to do that. Thirdly, yes, there have been efforts targeted at the illegal importation and sale of alcohol. In fact, I understand that the police, the LDB and liquor licensing have worked in concert in the past on a project to deal with this and that the process continues. Such projects may well be undertaken in the future as well. Obviously the police likely have their own initiatives as well.
B. Penner: One of the recommendations contained in the Surich report related to allowing wineries to sell food on site
[ Page 15702 ]
to people coming for wine tours. I believe the recommendations call for something called a J licence in order to permit wineries to sell both wine and food to people coming onto their premises. Is the J licence similar to that of a restaurant liquor licence? Is there an actual application that must be completed by the winery before they can do this?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the J licence is the current procedure that is available to wineries that choose to apply for such a licence. If they gain one, they can serve food under that licence. What is contemplated is the replacement of that procedure with a different regulatory procedure for wineries that would allow wineries to sell wine and food through an endorsement procedure. That is one of the changes that have been contemplated and that hopefully will proceed in the near future.
B. Penner: Am I correct in assuming, then, that that process is not yet in place?
Hon. A. Petter: Yeah. The J licence procedure is, but the latter procedure that's coming out of the Surich recommendations is not yet in place. Hopefully it will be shortly.
B. Penner: Is there a time line on this recommendation, or does it fall in the general time line of 12 to 16 months that I think the ministry has set for at least the first part of the Surich report recommendations?
Hon. A. Petter: It falls into the general time frame, but it's my hope that this particular component of the regulatory change can be achieved sooner rather than later. Work has been underway to try to make this change within the very near future.
[1515]
B. Penner: Well, I for one look forward to that change. I think it's one example that most of us can agree on, where regulation is somewhat excessive and doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense to most people who like to go and have tours of wineries.
I'd like to move to a different issue here -- somewhat different, not wineries per se. In reviewing recommendations, I noted a statement that the plan is to reduce the ten licence types currently available to two: an A licence for businesses that mainly serve liquor and a B licence for those that mainly serve food. Where are we at in terms of accomplishing that goal of reducing the ten different types of liquor licences down to just two?
Hon. A. Petter: I think what the member is referring to is in fact the most fundamental component of the change that's contemplated in trying to collapse the licensing structure into a more simplified structure. Everything else that is being done in the time frame of what I think was a three-year time frame -- now I suppose we're down to something over a two-year time frame remaining -- was designed to set the stage for that collapsing of licences in an orderly way. So that is indeed the goal. But I think, unlike the previous reform the member raised, this is one that the member can anticipate will take place towards the end of the process, once all the other steps have been implemented.
B. Penner: The recommendations from the Surich report were accepted in June of 1999. Is the government satisfied that it's going to be able to meet the target date objectives in terms of implementing the recommendations?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
B. Penner: One of the significant commitments was a goal to simplify the licensing approval process so that processing time would be closer to six to 12 weeks rather than, in some cases, up to 18 months. How are we doing in terms of meeting that goal?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that work is progressing very well on this. There are a number of working groups involving stakeholders in the UBCM that are trying to work on the best and most efficient process for approving licences under the new system so that we can in fact not only simplify the system in terms of the number of licences but also make the administrative apparatus work in a far more efficient and timely way. That is part of the implementation. Work, I am told, is progressing well in that regard.
B. Penner: One of the recommendations in the Surich report had to do with changing the appeal process so that persons who were dissatisfied with the decision made by the regulatory authorities had some more confidence in the appeal process. Where are we at in terms of implementing a new appeal board structure or process?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, it's one of this range of changes taking place on a continuum. This particular one hopefully can be achieved sooner rather than later, which is to say over the next six months or so as opposed to the further two years. Work has been underway to try to set the stage for that change within that kind of time frame.
B. Penner: So for now the current appeal process remains in place.
Hon. A. Petter: That's correct.
[1520]
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister is able to shed some light on the recommendation that there be no additional refrigerators or coolers in liquor stores. The government has adopted these recommendations, including this particular one. I'm wondering if the minister can shed some light on the theory behind it.
Hon. A. Petter: I think that would be a question better addressed to the minister responsible for the liquor distribution branch. It's really an LDB issue.
B. Penner: I will endeavour to do that.
I'd like to touch briefly on an issue having to do with advertising. One of the recommendations, again, of the Surich report -- I think it was recommendation 6(a) -- says that advertising should be deregulated. I think, for the most part, the recommendations envision that the province of British Columbia will allow the federal regulations that apply to media advertising to hold sway.
However, there is one little bit here that the government seems to be holding onto. This was the subject of a BCTV
[ Page 15703 ]
news story a month or two ago, which certainly caught my attention. It has to do with the whole issue of advertising on glassware -- glassware being the terminology for the glasses that are used to serve customers with pints of beer. It came as a surprise to me, and I'm sure to many others, that the liquor control and licensing branch takes the view that it is improper to put an emblem on the outside of a glass noting the manufacturer of the product contained within that glass.
I happened to be just outside of a licensed establishment last night and noted all sorts of advertising on the walls inside that facility. I'm told, although I wouldn't know directly, that on the taps which dispense cold beverages, there is often advertising attached. Evidently it's still not apropos to have a logo or corporate sign of any kind actually emblazoned onto the side of a glass that contains the beverage being sold. Can the minister tell us whether his government considers that an acceptable regulation and, if so, why?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is no, we don't regard it as an acceptable regulation, and it is one of the regulatory areas being targeted for deregulation. It's one of those that I hope can be removed in the very near future, so the member can gaze fondly upon all sorts of corporate logos as he slugs his beer.
B. Penner: Of course I would never do such a thing; I only watch it from afar.
I noticed a recommendation pertaining to training for servers. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the status is of the proposal to require all servers to obtain a licence to serve alcohol by taking the Serving It Right program.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd say that there are a large number of recommendations in this report, and they are being addressed and phased in, in an orderly way. We could spend a lot of time, although I think it might be more efficient, if the member's really interested, to arrange a further briefing for him to give him some sense of the sequencing that's planned. However, I will endeavour to keep answering his questions if he keeps asking them. This is one that is again within the report and will be considered. It's one that is not high on the list in terms of time, so it's one that I do not think will be addressed this year -- certainly not in this fiscal year. It is something that clearly is there, as the member has noted. But I expect that it will be something that will be held back for the second -- which is to say the final -- year of implementation.
B. Penner: Perhaps the minister will indulge me here a little bit. I'm curious. Has it always been the case that people serving liquor products had to be licensed? Is this something new that will be brought in, or is it the current practice in British Columbia that servers need to be licensed in order to work in a restaurant and serve their customers?
[1525]
Hon. A. Petter: There is, as I understand it, a certificate that is currently required in drinking establishments for beverage servers. The intention is that a certification program will be extended to all beverage servers as part of the collapsing of categories and the levelling of the playing field to ensure that there is at least minimal certification provided to all those who serve alcoholic beverages.
B. Penner: None of us missed the controversy in the past year around the Workers Compensation Board regulation dealing with secondhand smoke in the workplace. It probably affected nobody as much as people that fall under the purview of the liquor control and licensing branch -- that is the licensees. I've heard from many people, as I'm sure the minister and his staff have over the past number of months.
One little bit of controversy relating to his ministry arose from a memo that was attributed to Bob Simson, indicating that separately ventilated smoking rooms may never be licensed by the LCB. I spoke to Mr. Simson on the phone, and if I have it correctly, the rationale is that his inspectors must be able to go into those smoking rooms without being exposed to secondhand smoke. Obviously if people are smoking in there, that wouldn't be possible. This has caused some distress amongst private restaurant owners or bar and pub owners who have spent some money to modify their premises in anticipation that a smoking room would be an acceptable way to both provide a service to their customers yet meet the requirements of the Workers Compensation Board.
I heard last week that the WCB's efforts to come up with a set of regulations that will withstand a court challenge will perhaps contemplate allowing smoking rooms within facilities, provided that customers keep their food and drink in that place, and go to acquire the food and drink outside of that separate room. Presumably, then, servers would not be required to wait on those tables. Rather, it would be more of a self-service facility. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether that type of arrangement would be satisfactory to him and his staff, and whether such an arrangement would meet the requirements of the liquor control and licensing branch?
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly it's my view that it would be desirable to facilitate inspection where establishments have established rooms that meet WCB requirements for smoking. It wouldn't make much sense to have those rooms and then not allow for inspection, which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.
I do understand, for the member's benefit, that there is a new draft regulation that the WCB has produced for the purposes of discussion. Our interpretation of that draft regulation is that it would allow flexibility for inspectors to enter smoking rooms for the purpose of undertaking inspections. I guess we'll have to await further word from WCB as to how that regulation comes together. But certainly that would be our interpretation of it, and that's something that we would be very pleased to work within to come up with an appropriate balance.
B. Penner: Let me just encourage the minister to keep trying to find a solution that will work for British Columbians. I am in no way an advocate for exposing people to secondhand smoke -- far from it. I certainly have concerns for the LCLB staff, who would have to enter a facility so that they could do their job, which is monitoring the consumption of alcoholic beverages and making sure that the people doing so are entitled to do so, and that the facilities are complying with the regulations in every way. That said, I think we need to try and find a way that businesses can stay in business and continue to serve their customers in a comfortable fashion.
[1530]
With that, I think I've just about covered most of what I want to say about liquor licensing. I'd like to just summarize by saying that I realize that the Surich recommendations, which I spent a considerable time reading, are considerable. I
[ Page 15704 ]
know it's going to take awhile for the ministry to implement them. I wish them every success in that regard. I think it's important for industry as a whole in British Columbia that we are successful in implementing the Surich recommendations with as little inconvenience as possible and as speedily as possible. I think, taken as a whole, they are to be commended and will hopefully usher in an era where we have something less, in terms of regulation, than we currently have.
I can think of very few industries in British Columbia that are as heavily regulated as the sale and consumption of liquor products. I suppose that goes right back, historically, to the era of Prohibition, when we prevented the sale or consumption of liquor in any form. Perhaps, to put it on a continuum, we started with Prohibition many decades ago, and we're working our way to a somewhat less regulatory scheme every year. I encourage the work of the ministry in that regard.
With that, I feel I've concluded my role here in terms of liquor estimates. I believe my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head may have some questions to address to the Attorney General.
I. Chong: The areas that I'm going to be canvassing are the Provincial Capital Commission as well as the B.C. 2000 community spirit grants. If that requires a change in staff, perhaps I'll give the minister a moment to do that.
B. Penner: Perhaps just before the change is undertaken here, while people are settling in, I'll just ask the minister to comment briefly on one last thing that I did not ask -- and that's my fault. I'm just wondering if the minister can tell us how things are proceeding in an effort to develop a consensus with municipal governments, who are going to be playing a much more significant role in the future in terms of regulating the sale of liquor in their communities. The Surich recommendations envision a time when municipal governments will have much greater say in determining whether or not liquor licences should be granted in their communities. I for one welcome a greater role for municipal governments in this job. I'm very interested seeing it proceed. I wonder if the minister can tell us just how things are proceeding in developing a consensus with municipalities.
Hon. A. Petter: There is input and representation from the UBCM. In fact, there's a UBCM working group that's working on implementation issues. I had the privilege recently of meeting, along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with the justice committee of the UBCM and Lynn Kennedy, who has a strong interest in these issues. I was informed at that time that they felt that the process was going well and that they appreciated the fact that they were getting an opportunity to provide meaningful and constructive input and participating. So to the best of my knowledge, based upon that and what I'm told by staff, the involvement with municipalities has been very constructive and is assisting in the orderly implementation of these issues.
I. Chong: Before I ask those questions, my colleague the member for Chilliwack's raising of this topic about the work that's being done with municipalities has actually brought up a question which I would like to ask the minister. I acknowledge that the licensed establishments or the number of licences that will be distributed to restaurants and hotels, etc., is being reviewed or changed. I'm not sure where we are in that process. It brings to mind a situation where a municipality or a neighbourhood specifically is not in favour of the granting of a particular licence such as a pub licence.
With the controls having been available through municipal governments
Perhaps the minister can just enlighten me on that. I realize it is in his constituency. But oftentimes there are people in the constituency that I represent who actively frequent those particular premises.
[1535]
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it -- and this is one of the issues that no doubt the UBCM and those who are involved on behalf of the UBCM and who are engaged in the consultation process will be assisting us on -- there will in fact be opportunities for municipalities to be involved in the approval of new licences, certainly. The history has been that where municipalities have opposed new licences, those licences have not been granted. Even in the modifications of restaurant licences that are proposed, if those modifications result in a high impact on the community, the municipalities will have opportunities to raise those issues and those concerns, and have input on those as well.
I share the member's concern. I am very aware of the particular situation she references. I have raised it myself as an example of a situation that
I. Chong: I only bring that up just to help the minister become aware that there are areas that while we are intending to allow for more, I guess, control in our autonomy in our municipalities, in some cases we end up going in the reverse. I know he's aware of that because of this facility in his particular constituency.
Now I would like to briefly ask some questions on the Provincial Capital Commission. If I don't get all of these questions answered, I would be more than willing to follow through on a briefing, which originally was scheduled and which unfortunately did not occur. But for the record, I would like to ask just a few questions.
I thank the minister's staff for providing me with information on the Provincial Capital Commission, particularly the strategic plan. I note in reading it that there are some points I'd like to raise. First of all, there's mention of a "critical mass of assigned properties," and I'm just wondering if the minister has in his documents or reports, etc., what that would be. What is the "critical mass of assigned properties" that the Provincial Capital Commission is referencing here?
Hon. A. Petter: Let me just reference the presence of Larry Beres, who is the executive director for the Provincial Capital Commission, to assist me at this stage.
[ Page 15705 ]
The Provincial Capital Commission in fact holds, I think, about some 60 properties. I think that's the "critical mass" of properties that the member's referring to. We can provide her with a list. I don't happen to have one here, but they range from well-known properties like the Crystal Garden and St. Ann's Academy through to highway rights-of-way that the Capital Commission has acquired in order to protect the viewscapes on critical components of the highway system -- entering the capital, for example. They include fairly small and strategic parcels of land contiguous to highways and fairly large and significant parcels of land that house heritage sites in the city.
I. Chong: Yes, I would appreciate a listing of that "critical mass." As I say, I've read through previous reports of the Provincial Capital Commission in past years and had never seen it referred to as being essential to the Provincial Capital Commission, this, as I say, "critical mass of assigned properties."
Also, I just want to ask the minister whether these would include private properties or whether this "critical mass of assigned properties" would be strictly public properties or publicly acquired properties.
[1540]
Hon. A. Petter: The member may want to refer me more specifically to the page reference and the words "critical mass," but the assumption that I have and staff has is that what she's referring to is that critical mass of properties that the Capital Commission currently owns -- unless it's somewhere else in the report. If she's thinking of a particular reference that's at variance with that, she should draw it to my attention. Certainly the commission does own some strategic properties, ones that are important -- the ones that I was referring to. They are all publicly held properties.
I. Chong: For the minister's benefit, it's page 5 -- and I'm not sure if that's the same page that he has -- of the strategic plan, wherein we're talking about the mission statement. There was a comment about the primary role of the PCC being that of trusteeship and stewardship and to carry out the role the commission considers important -- to be able to continue the award of greenways and enhancement grants and then to manage a critical mass of assigned properties. That's where I wondered, because that was the first opportunity that I saw that.
I don't require the minister to elaborate on that. Knowing now what I'm referring to, perhaps he can have staff look that up and supply it to me at a subsequent time. I'm quite happy with that -- also the acknowledgment or the statement he made that they're all public properties that the Provincial Capital Commission manages.
One other component, however, is that in reading the report, there was mention that due to some sensitive aspects of public properties, this is why the Provincial Capital Commission becomes involved. I was curious as to whether that would include public properties acquired through other commissions or other forms of trustee stewardship organizations.
In particular, what I would like to refer to is the Abkhazi Gardens, which was recently acquired by the nature -- I don't even know the full name -- or land conservancy trust, which in fact acquired that property. Whether the Provincial Capital Commission sees itself having a role in helping to manage that or in providing any other support to that, because it is in fact a sensitive aspect of what many would view as a public property
Hon. A. Petter: The reference here, I believe, is
This is referring specifically to public properties. That doesn't mean the commission is disinterested in critical privately owned properties. In fact, from time to time the commission has worked with the community, through greenways funding and the like, to assist in the acquisition of privately managed properties. I think of Glencoe Cove, a property that's well known to the member, where the commission played an instrumental role in plans regarding the transfer of that property to the public domain. But the particular reference in the mission statement here refers to a particular mandate that the commission has to provide input on public property development with respect to properties that affect the character of the capital.
[1545]
I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's response. As I say, I know I can get much of this information from staff subsequent to this estimates debate.
The other aspect of the Provincial Capital Commission that I want to quickly refer to was made mention of in the strategic plan -- that is, the difficulty that I see and that the Provincial Capital Commission has acknowledged, which will happen with the divestiture of the Inner Harbour. I acknowledge that it would mean that some compensating operating grant or some other kind of arrangement is made. I know it's hard to predict, but if in fact there is no opportunity to receive any compensating operating grant -- or if the amount received is substantially less than what the commission would hope for -- would the minister then see that the Provincial Capital Commission, the PCC, would actually be discontinued? Is that a real threat? If so, what is the board or the minister looking at to further that? Is there going to be a change, where what was once a line item in a ministry is now going to go back to that status?
Hon. A. Petter: There was a time some years ago when the Capital Commission did receive some funding for beautification grants. But because it has been successful in managing its properties and deriving income from them, that ceased to be necessary, so the commission is in a sense self-funding from its own property base.
Certainly it is not in my thinking in any way, shape or form that the Provincial Capital Commission would be discontinued -- far from it. I think the commission plays a hugely important role in the life of this community and in maintaining the character of this community as a provincial capital. If anything, I would like to see its role broadened and strengthened.
[ Page 15706 ]
The question of how that is done at the same time that one moves towards perhaps a new form of harbour governance is an interesting one, and one that I've spent a considerable amount of time on. The answer is that the commission is very much involved, as government, in working with the municipality and the federal government on a new form of harbour governance that would not jeopardize the mandate or income of the commission. It would have the commission work in concert with a new harbour governing authority, with the commission maintaining its mandate and the new authority taking on responsibilities with respect to the working harbour and the management of lands that are transferred to it by the federal government. Perhaps it would also take on responsibility for the management of lands that are owned by the province, including the commission, where the case can be made that the harbour authority is in a better position to meet the management objectives.
But all of that is designed, in my view, to provide a new harbour management structure that coexists with the Capital Commission and does not jeopardize in any way, shape or form the continuance of the Capital Commission. You would find me a very strong opponent of any initiative that threatened the future of the Capital Commission.
Fortunately, I think we worked to the point that the proposals for a new harbour governance structure do not do that. I'm hopeful that with goodwill and the federal government's cooperation -- and a commitment by the federal government not to use that as an opportunity to download costs but rather to empower a new governance structure around federal lands -- we can move forward on that front without in any way jeopardizing the role of the commission.
I don't want to go on and on on this, but a good example of how the two can work together is the commission is pursuing a Belleville terminal redevelopment, which could ultimately become managed by a new harbour authority. That would be a very nice partnership if it comes about.
I. Chong: I thank the minister. I was just trying to get to the heart of the matter, that there is something in place and that there is planning to ensure that the Provincial Capital Commission does continue in whatever form -- even if it were not to operate on its own under its act and were to be rolled back into, I guess, government as a line item through a particular ministry, in whatever manner or shape, that there would still be a role for a Provincial Capital Commission per se to protect what has been established. That is just really what I was asking the minister, given that the comments were made in the strategic plan that there was a real threat that's there. That's all I really wanted the minister to provide some assurance on.
The one other area in the Provincial Capital Commission that I wanted to touch on quickly was St. Ann's Academy, which has gone through some major upgrading. There is a cost related to that every year -- expenditure versus any kind of revenue generation. However, there was an incident that occurred over a year or so ago, and that had to do with a resident whose property was adjacent to the Provincial Capital Commission. I believe there was a tree-cutting issue -- vandalism, etc. I'm just wondering if the minister can advise whether that has now all been resolved or whether in fact the Provincial Capital Commission is in court on this matter -- just where we are with that.
[1550]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I appreciate that within the plan there are identified certain potential threats to the commission. I just want to reinforce that the purpose of identifying those threats is to make sure that they do not occur.
I do want to go on record as saying that I think that any proposal -- and I'm not sure if the member is suggesting this is her proposal -- to try to continue the commission by bringing it into a line ministry, for example, would be hugely counterproductive, in my view, and would undermine the whole function of the commission, which is to act at some distance from government and involve municipal representation. I would hate to see this commission become a supplicant to a ministry's budget or lose its character as a commission that is very much of the community. I just want to make sure that is clear, at least from my point of view. I hope that view would be carried on by others who succeed me in this role. I think it's easy to lose sight of the importance of this commission, and the community would suffer if we were to do so.
The question the member asked about the tree-cutting: yes, there was an incident in which a property owner removed or cut down some trees on commission property at St. Ann's Academy. The commission did pursue legal action and succeeded in that action. A judgment was rendered and assigned against title of that individual, and payment has started to be made in satisfaction of that judgment.
I. Chong: I thank the minister for his response, as well as for making his position clear. Not to belabour the issue, I want to make it clear for the minister as well, and for the record, that I was not suggesting anything in terms of a structural change to the way the Provincial Capital Commission will take place in the future -- just to find out where this minister was headed, whether there were any plans to get it on the table in this new era of openness and transparency. Just to have the minister provide that openness and transparency would be welcomed at this point. Again, not to suggest anything, because at this point, this side of the House actually
Those are all the questions I really have on it, in the sense that there are other questions I know I can ask of staff. I know staff are willing to do so. So not to take up too much more of their time, I would like to just ask some very brief questions, as well, on the B.C. 2000 community spirit grants, acknowledging of course that much of this will be dealt with through the Small Business, Tourism and Culture ministry. However, there are the grant sections here that I would like to ask the minister on. I see that he has staff, so I'll continue with this.
I've taken a look at the budget for '99-2000 and 2000-2001, comparing the two years, and there doesn't appear to be much difference. However, I do note that there is one major cost in the administration: it's $4,062,000, consistent in two years, for professional services. Could the minister elaborate more on what those professional services would entail? Were they contracted out? Being that the amount is consistent in the two years, I'm wondering if this went to tender and they were a two-year tendered matter or item, or whether they were just chosen as budget items that B.C. 2000 was going to keep and stick to.
[1555]
[ Page 15707 ]
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I'd like to make note that I'm joined by Jane Burnes, who is the director for B.C. 2000 and is assisting me in this component of the estimates debate.
Let me just start by clarifying something, and that is that the member referred to raising questions in the estimates of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In fact, the entire budget for B.C. 2000 is located within this ministry. So if she has questions, they should be raised here. I say that at my peril, but I don't want her to be mistaken in that regard.
The amounts that I think the member's referring to relate to expenditures that took place with respect to some of the events. There's a grant component to B.C. 2000, as the member is well aware -- both community spirit grants and some arts grants.
But there are also some provincewide events. Three in particular come to mind: the homecoming event to encourage British Columbians who live within the province, or indeed who've left the province, to return to their hometown or to invite people back to one's hometown to celebrate the millennium; also the B.C. Book Tour, which has been very successful and travelling the province; and the third, which actually was in Victoria only recently and will be travelling the province, I think, particularly in rural and remote communities. It's visiting about 41 communities around the province. This is going to be quite an exciting event; it's the B.C. Exhibit Tour, which will essentially bring the best of the museum and a glimpse of B.C. history to communities right around the province.
So the amounts that she's referring to went to services in relation to those three events, principally. All were tendered and awarded based upon those tendering arrangements.
I. Chong: It may also be useful to get a breakdown, if possible, from the staff and from Ms. Burnes at a future date. But what I was referring to, this $4,062,000 -- in the estimates book, if you look in the supplement -- with STOB 60, which just had professional services
Noting the minister's comment that it referred to three items, it would seem strange, because one of those items -- the homecoming, for example -- would primarily be in the year 2000-2001. It raises a question of how you can determine that this cost occurred in the fiscal year '99-2000, when in fact much of it won't occur until the following year. You would expect the first year to show a lesser amount and the subsequent year to be a greater amount. But when they're equalized over two years, it just seemed strange that they were the same amount.
Certainly some expenses like rent are expected to be the same amount each year consistently. You expect your estimation of your travel, your public servant travel, to be the same amount each year. But your professional services, which are related directly to contract services for these three specific items that he refers to
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, now I understand that the member is referring to STOB 60 in the Supplement to the Estimates -- not that the answer is markedly different. What this refers to is the variety of professional services that have been required in relation to the three activities I outlined and others -- staff associated, for example. We've hired, I think it is, ten or 11 young people to accompany the B.C. Exhibit Tour. Indeed, some of these activities last fall were centred around ramping up and getting ready for the homecoming event and the B.C. Book. The Exhibit Tour -- much work went into its preparation, but now there's a continuation of that, as the tour winds its way around the province.
I'm not sure whether the expectation would have been more in the first year or less in the first year. But as it turns out, there is this fairly even flow, because the events do span the two fiscal years.
I. Chong: An honourable mistake, I'm sure. Thank you to the minister again. Perhaps he can indulge me and provide me with a list of where these contracted services were and a breakdown of the $4 million. As I say, it just seems odd that it would be the same amount. If he's able to provide that; if not, then I'll just have to do
[1600]
I see that the grants and contributions that will be distributed over 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 amount to $7,760,000 one year and $10,900,000 the second year. I just want to ask the minister if that's, in the two consecutive years, $18,550,000. Is that the maximum that it will be? Are we going to find that the grants and contributions will in fact be less than that -- because, as I understand it, all the applications and all the approvals have been submitted by now? Or will we in fact exceed that amount? Can the minister just confirm, yea or nay?
Hon. A. Petter: In respect to the previous line of inquiry, I will certainly try to get the member a breakdown of those numbers. I just want to correct her misapprehension that this is administration. This is in many respects services for delivery of some of these events; it's not administration at all.
In fact, for example, I use the example of the ten or so young people that are accompanying the Exhibit Tour. They are an integral part of interpreting and delivering that tour to communities. They are hardly administrators. I encourage the member to go visit the tour when it comes around or when she happens to be in the area where it is, because she'll find it's quite an impressive use of talent, employing the B.C. museums' talent with private sector partners and some young people helping out along the way.
On the amount the member refers to: yes, something over $18 million is allocated for the community spirit grant. I think it's $18.25 million for that. There is, however, an additional $2 million for arts and heritage allocations. That brings the total to something over $20 million. There's also a small amount, $250,000, for B.C. book awards -- awards to publishers through a purchase of their book for distribution to school libraries and the like -- for noteworthy books.
If you put all those together, the total of grants and awards would be something over $20 million -- about $20.5 million. That would be the total for the entire program in those three categories.
I. Chong: Can the minister advise me whose budget the additional $2 million would be coming out of? Obviously it's not in the books. As I say, I've taken a look at the estimates for 1999-2000 and the estimates for 2000-2001. There's very clearly
[ Page 15708 ]
$7,650,000 for the first year and $10,900,000 for the second. I don't see where any $2 million has shown up. Perhaps the minister can just provide that clarification.Hon. A. Petter: There is a third year. In the phasing of some of these projects, there will be some cash flow spillover into the third year. I'm giving the budget projection for the complete program, some of which will tail off into the beginning of the following fiscal year.
I. Chong: Can the minister advise, then
Hon. A. Petter: The final year will not be activities as such. It'll simply be the remaining cash flow for the community spirit grants. So where communities, for example, gain a grant for a facility that is being constructed, some of that cash flow may carry over into the following fiscal year. Our projection is that about $5 million will occur in that final fiscal year. It has to do with the way in which reports are submitted and then cash flow is approved to the program. It will not be a continuation of activities as such; it'll simply be the cash flow.
[1605]
I. Chong: I thank the minister for his response. I'm sure I can receive additional details. I did receive a package recently and have not concluded detailing questions I have there and will do so after.
I want to thank the minister for the information that he has provided. I would like to thank Ms. Burnes for attending here today and providing me with this information, as well as thanking Mr. Beres from the Provincial Capital Commission, who left earlier. I look forward to receiving the other data that I requested in due course.
R. Neufeld: The Exhibit Tour. I don't know whether the minister is aware or not, but I had written a letter to the minister on the communities toured. It came to mind when he made remarks about travelling to rural communities that
The minister was very clear in saying that this was for rural B.C., yet I see the comparison to rural B.C. and Vancouver Island as not being quite fair to what I think
I think it's sad that we see something like this. These things are unavailable to most people that live in the north -- not just my constituency, but the constituency of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Those communities just get missed because of
I'd like to know if the minister was able to change the direction of where that tour was going. There is a natural route to go up the Alaska Highway to visit all those small communities and come down Highway 37 and visit every one of those small communities -- those places that never get an opportunity to see the things that will be in that tour, which people on Vancouver Island have quite readily available at their fingertips.
I'd like to know if the minister has been able to do anything with that.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's concern. If he looks at the schedule, clearly it does reflect what we've tried to do -- that is, to try as much as possible to take this to communities away from urban centres. However, it's a question of cost and distance. I appreciate the member's point that some of these distances in the north are great.
R. Neufeld: Explain Vancouver Island, then, compared to the rest, Andy. I can't ask any more.
Hon. A. Petter: The problem with the tour is that if the travel time is too great, then it starts to make it impossible to deliver the tour within a schedule. Some trade-offs had to be made. There were a number of areas left out. The Queen Charlottes were left out. The Sunshine Coast has been omitted to an extent that
R. Neufeld: You sure kept Vancouver Island in it, though, didn't you?
The Chair: Member, through the Chair, please.
Hon. A. Petter: In respect of the northeast part of the province, there was an attempt, and Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Pouce Coupe. I appreciate that Fort Nelson isn't there. I think what we were going to try to do in those circumstances was work with schools and try to encourage trips to the nearest centre. Pouce Coupe, I take it, was included because there is a particular regional celebration on July 1 which a number of people come to. It was hoped that would cover off some of the pressures.
This is simply a matter of trying to come up with the best tour schedule that can meet the budgetary pressures and the time pressures of trying to deliver this to as many communities as possible in the time frame. I would have loved, believe me, to have delivered this to 80 communities instead of 41. But at the end of the day we weren't able to. I've had to explain that not only to MLAs on the other side of the House but to MLAs on this side of the House.
B. Penner: That concludes the questions from the official opposition with respect to this vote. The minister may now wish to call the vote.
Vote 19 approved.
Vote 20: statutory services, $50,028,000 -- approved.
Vote 21: judiciary, $44,019,000 -- approved.
[1610]
The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.
[ Page 15709 ]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH
On vote 11: ministry operations, $1,682,444,000.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The first thing I'd like to do, hon. Chair, is introduce the staff who accompany me at this moment. To my left is Gerry Armstrong, my deputy minister for all but the ISTA part of my portfolio. Behind me is Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, management services division, and to my right is Kerry Jothen, the chief executive officer of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission.
I have some preliminary remarks that shouldn't take too long. I'd like to begin by thanking all of the skilled professionals whose hard work and dedication drives the success of this ministry and our related agencies. They're united in their efforts to provide the best services they can to British Columbians. Their efforts are inspired by the desire to build a better future for British Columbians, whether it's providing education, growing the new high-tech sector, providing programs for youth or building the new transit links to clean the environment and improve the quality of life in the lower mainland and around the province.
These estimates bring together post-secondary education programs, the Information, Science and Technology Agency, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, as well as the B.C. Youth Office, the rapid transit project -- which is the SkyTrain extension project -- and B.C. Transit. I propose now to give a brief overview of each and then move into the debate.
[1625]
In post-secondary, our continued investments in higher education put resources directly into British Columbians' skills and knowledge, which are the keys to opportunity, we believe. To fully realize these opportunities, higher learning must be both high in quality and accessible to all. Here in B.C., I'm proud of our achievements in both quality and accessibility. We've chosen a unique direction and, I believe, the correct direction. For the past eight years this government has increased funding to the post-secondary system, unlike other jurisdictions in Canada, which passed on cuts that were made at the federal level.
In this year's budget we are continuing to enhance the quality of post-secondary education in this province. There's an $85 million increase in funding for post-secondary institutions -- that's operating funding -- plus $133 million for capital projects and an increase of $117 million for research in the knowledge development fund.
There is $39 million to create over 5,000 new spaces for students. This means that our government has created over 20,000 new spaces since 1996-97 and over 40,000 since 1991-92. This year's new spaces include 400 for nursing, 800 for high-tech and 300 for apprenticeships and workplace-based training. For the past five years British Columbia has frozen tuition fees. We're proud that our province has gone from having the second-highest university tuition fees in Canada at the beginning of the 1990s to now having the second-lowest tuition fees in the country.
The freeze and the new spaces have meant that enrolment has grown faster in B.C. than anywhere else in Canada. Enrolment is growing throughout the province, resulting from our commitment to providing quality education and opportunities in all of our regions. Statistics Canada figures show that as of last year, full-time university enrolment was up 18.4 percent in British Columbia over 1992. That's a growth rate that is nearly ten times the national average of 1.9 percent in the same period.
We can also celebrate the fact that students in B.C. are graduating ready to succeed rather than being overwhelmed by debt. The expansion of our student grant system, the tuition freeze and expanded co-op programs, which allow students to work in their field while they study, mean that B.C. students are graduating with some of the lowest debt levels in the country.
I'm also responsible for the Information, Science and Technology Agency. The first thing I'd like to highlight with ISTA is something that was announced in late April, and that is that ISTA is leading the coordination of InfoSmart, which is a cross-government initiative to change the way government works and delivers services using information technology.
A second priority of ISTA this year is the implementation of the high-technology strategy. This strategy will ensure that B.C.'s high-tech sector continues to be one of the fastest-growing sectors in the British Columbia economy. Our strategy is designed to help that industry along as much as we feel we can. This year we are making sure that British Columbians throughout the province benefit from the development of high technology by supporting eight regional innovation councils, by continuing the three-year regional high-tech development program and by completing the provincial learning network. ISTA will also continue to support B.C.'s newer areas of high-tech strength, particularly new media and fuel cell technology through research and public-private partnerships.
A third major responsibility of ISTA is freedom of information and protection of privacy. This year a special committee of the Legislature will make recommendations for the protection of personal information in the private sector. This is timely, given the public concerns that are emerging over this issue and the federal government's recent legislation in this area.
Our government's commitment to youth issues remains strong, and I have responsibility for youth issues. The 12 programs under our Youth Options umbrella will provide over 17,000 positions for young people this year. This is the same number of youth positions as last year, but increased experience of running the programs has meant increased efficiencies as well. With a total budget of $32 million, we have realized savings of approximately $2.5 million compared to last year.
Youth Options also provides a youth web site. Its growth has been exponential in terms of the use of that site. Last year more than a quarter of a million visits were made to the web site, more than triple the total in 1998-99 and more than eight times as many as in 1997-98.
Since the assignment of responsibility for youth to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology last summer and since my own arrival in this portfolio in February, we've been working to integrate resources and the efforts of those in the ministry to have the Youth Office and
[ Page 15710 ]
the ministry working better together. The emphasis has been on building on our successes while maximizing efficiency. This is the direction that I want to take in the current fiscal year with our Youth Office, and I've asked the work being done through the Youth Office in coordinating various programs across government to focus on increased efficiency.
[1630]
I also have responsibility for ITAC, which is a very important part of our province's post-secondary training system. This is a three-year-old partnership between business, labour and government, as well as the college system, that provides workplace-based training to over 20,000 students and workers in more than 150 trades and technology-based skills. It's ITAC's goal to more than double the number of British Columbians in apprenticeships and industry training programs by 2005. This year's budget continues the agency's progress towards this goal.
This budget will increase the resources provided to ITAC, which means over 2,000 new training spaces will be delivered this year by ITAC for a total of 25,000, which represents a 9 percent increase over last year. The budget also provides for a 150-space increase in the secondary school apprenticeship program, from 500 to 650, which represents a 30 percent increase. The budget also provides for 1,800 more workers completing skills upgrading programs, from almost 2,400 to 4,200, which represents a 75 percent increase.
Through ITAC, we are helping British Columbians to find good jobs in the new economy. I'm proud of the way that ITAC is increasing the diversity and scope of its programs to help workers upgrade themselves and to help others gain certification and technical skills.
Finally, hon. Speaker -- or I guess second to last -- I have responsibility for the SkyTrain extension -- the capital project. In 1998 Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. was formed to plan, design and construct a 21-kilometre SkyTrain line that links New Westminster, Burnaby and Vancouver. The Millennium Line has an approved budget of nearly $1.2 billion, and I'm pleased to say that we are on track to meeting this budget target. This fiscal year, Treasury Board has approved further spending of $355.5 million, or about 31 percent of that total budget of $1.2 billion.
To keep British Columbians as up to date on the project as possible as it moves ahead, we've been dedicated to an open and transparent reporting process. Since construction began, RTP 2000 has enlisted independent agencies to review financial and project management information on a regular basis. All these reports will continue to be posted on RTP 2000's web site for everyone to see. The web site includes the SkyTrain performance plan, a financial review by KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers' recommendations for project management. As the recent Deloitte Consulting review of capital projects provincewide points out, RTP 2000's reporting and risk management measures are in place.
As a further example of our commitment to accountability, we've been working in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act at RTP 2000. This is prior to the project actually coming under the act, which is scheduled to occur next month.
The thousands of people we consulted told us what they wanted in a new SkyTrain line, and with this information we've carefully designed stations, making them safer and more secure. The new SkyTrain cars will also be more spacious and more comfortable, and they'll be built right here in British Columbia. Bombardier, the manufacturer of the new vehicles, will officially open its centre later this month, and the first Mark II vehicle should roll off the line by this fall.
By providing a service that people want and by making the new line, along with its stations, a part of the community they serve, we will encourage more people to get out of their cars and get onto transit, specifically SkyTrain. Work continues with communities to define a future SkyTrain line that serves Port Moody and Coquitlam, as well as another line that moves west of Vancouver Community College in Vancouver.
RTP 2000 represents an enormous transportation investment and a big step forward for all those in the lower mainland -- commuters, residents, businesses and tourists -- and it will be a major element in achieving the vision of a livable region.
Finally, hon. Chair, I have responsibility for B.C. Transit on the operational side, as it applies to the rest of the province. The provincial contribution to B.C. Transit's operating budget for 2000-2001 is approximately $44 million. This will fund requested transit services in more than 50 municipal and regional areas of British Columbia. The local service plans, which are developed in partnership with municipalities, regional districts and, in the case of the Victoria area, the Victoria regional transit commission, call for delivery of almost 1.6 million service hours this upcoming year, using a fleet of 700 vehicles carrying an estimated 34 million passengers, which would represent a 3.5 percent increase over last year.
[1635]
Included in the operating budget are the resources for a number of system improvements that will benefit passengers, their communities and the environment. Noteworthy are 11 new state-of-the-art double-decker buses with more than twice the seating capacity of standard buses. Worthy of mention as well here are the provincial funding shares for expanded services in Whistler, the Kelowna region, the Cowichan Valley and Williams Lake, plus startup funding for new systems in Pemberton and Cranbrook. In addition, new transit operating centres are being developed in Abbotsford and Whistler to accommodate growth in the transit systems in those communities.
This vote also includes approximately $136 million for debt servicing and amortization or prepaid capital advances for the existing SkyTrain line, West Coast Express infrastructure and the provincial share of all existing vehicles and facilities in Victoria and for the municipal systems program. With this overview of the key elements of my portfolio, I'd like to move into the debate.
J. Weisbeck: Thank you to the minister for his comments. I would first like to thank the deputy for his help in the briefing and the information he supplied to us. It was very informative. Thank you very much, also, for the follow-up questions that we asked. They were also helpful.
There are a number of issues I'd like to canvass during this debate. First of all, I'd just like to make a few very brief comments -- sort of my impressions of where we are and where we're going. There's no doubt that in this budget post-secondary education was the big winner. It was a very, very positive budget for post-secondary education. At least it has reversed the trend of decreased funding that has been occur-
[ Page 15711 ]
ring since 1992-93. We still have a long way to go to restore funding to that level, but at least we're headed off in the right direction. My one concern is that it's sustainable under this current policy.
I attended a breakfast -- I'm sure the minister was there as well -- of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. I thought they outlined the problems and challenges that we're facing in post-secondary education very, very well. They talk about lack of access and lack of funding. Obviously the ministry has listened to their concerns, because as I said, we have moved into the right direction here, and the budget certainly reflects that.
One thing that I noted was this unmet demand -- the wait-lists. One of the slides they showed there showed a couple of items. For example, the wait-list at Camosun College was 1,404 students. There were attempts to register in accounting at Douglas College by 1,149 students, and only 373 students succeeded. There were 1,379 students who could not access courses they wanted at Malaspina College. We have a huge, huge challenge out there to try and meet this unmet demand. I hear stories all the time about five or six students lining up for various spots in programs.
At this breakfast they talked about participation rates -- how, with the increase in population and the increase in need to have education, 7,000 additional seats by the year 2003 would be required. We do have some huge challenges to try to meet that demand.
The second issue, of course, is funding. As I mentioned, the funding per FTE has fallen steadily since 1992, and only this year has it reversed that trend. So we still have not reached the 1992 levels.
Historically we've always relied on importing our university degrees from elsewhere. There was a report done by the university presidents of B.C., and they showed very, very well that a huge problem exists in university degrees. They talked about, relative to the average of the other provinces, the rate of degrees awarded in British Columbia is 94 percent of the average at the doctoral level, 72 percent of the average at the master's level and 63 percent of the average at the bachelor's level. To bring degree output to levels comparable to the average of the other provinces would require the creation of approximately 30,000 additional student access spaces in our universities.
[1640]
In the same report they talked about the lack of core funding and this investment gap. As I said, we certainly have closed that gap somewhat, but it does still exist. They talked about some of the results of this growing investment gap, and there were things that I've heard when we talked to students out there and people in the post-secondary system. I'll list a few of them: inadequate spaces for qualified applicants, overcrowded classes at all levels, a rapidly deteriorating student-faculty ratio resulting from unfilled faculty positions, course cancellations and reduced course availability, and decrease in library acquisitions. There are a number of others. I won't go into that.
There's no doubt that with the change in the demographics in our province, there is going to be an increased demand as we carry on. We have some huge challenges that we have to meet over the next few years. We are going to carry on into ITAC, and my colleague from Delta North will continue with that debate.
R. Masi: First of all, I would like to congratulate the commission and the CEO of the commission for the document here on the year 2000 business plan. I think it's very well done and well laid out, including the five-year strategic plan. I think we need more of these things in government. To me, the direction is clear, and the mandate is clear. I think we're off in the right direction in terms of looking at this plan. I was interested in this particular document, and I will have a number of questions on it. If you want to focus on that one, it might be helpful in moving the debate along here. It's the 2000 business plan, January 2000 to March 2001.
I'm interested in the start of this: "Changing from" and "Changing to." When you look back from an historical perspective -- and this is no reflection on the makeup of the old Apprenticeship Board -- the move from the Apprenticeship Board to a more vibrant approach here with ITAC certainly will be best for British Columbia and British Columbia's young people. Looking at an integrated system here, as you pointed out -- "industry-driven
I would like to look down here, though. Looking at page 3 under the mandate of ITAC, it indicates that we would like to "create an industry-driven training and apprenticeship system that is relevant, accessible and responsive." I think the word "relevance" is a very easy word to toss off. I just wonder if the minister could comment on what ITAC might mean by relevance in this case.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There's a total of 16 business and labour representatives on the board. What we mean by relevant is that they're there to be responsive to the people they represent. The point of ITAC is to be at arm's length from government and to be responsive to those sectors which they represent when they're appointed to the board.
[1645]
R. Masi: Looking further in that list, we look at No. 4 there: "Increase the proportion of members of underrepresented groups in designated trades and occupations." I wonder if the minister could perhaps give us some further explanation in terms of what we're talking about there in terms of underrepresented groups.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There are four recognized groups that we recognize -- I have recognized this -- as being underrepresented. They gear programs towards first nations people, people with disabilities, women and younger people in particular. So those are the four that we try to reach out to through ITAC. There's a number of programs that we engage in to do that.
R. Masi: In terms of the next comment here, "integrate education and training systems," you're talking about transition from school to workplace. I just wonder: is there any significance in the order here in terms of why the underrepresented groups would be ahead of the proposal to integrate school and workplace?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There's no significance. This is the order that they appear in in the act, but there's no significance in terms of priority.
[ Page 15712 ]
R. Masi: In looking at No. 7, I don't think there's any question that we need expansion in terms of credentialing in this province. You talk here about "laddering". I'm just not sure what the
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it's fair to say that laddering would be another word
R. Masi: In looking at that, I somewhat sensed that laddering would represent a movement through various skill levels. From my experience, laddering
Hon. G. Bowbrick: An example of this would be in apprenticeship, for example. There might be someone who has eight to ten years of experience in a trade but isn't recognized as being qualified to practise that trade necessarily or as having gone through an apprenticeship. There are processes in place through ITAC which allow for recognition. One example would be if the person with that amount of experience could, through ITAC, challenge the exams that an apprentice would go through.
[1650]
R. Masi: Looking on further, then, you have a topic here called "Strategic Challenges." We talk here about demand. I'm interested here in this statement: "Obtaining employer commitment and meeting labour market needs." I wonder if we could just examine that term, "employer commitment."
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In order for apprenticeships to succeed, there has to be buy-in by employers. There can't be apprenticeships without
A number of weeks ago I was at an announcement where
R. Masi: I'm glad the minister indicated the union component in there, because that was my next question. I can certainly understand where you would have to have an employer commitment. What I would like to know is: is there a firm commitment from the labour movement and the union movement in British Columbia today, or is there a sense of historical blockage there?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The labour movement is a leader in advocating for apprenticeships. They are leading advocates for having the most highly qualified workforce possible, so they're strong supporters of ITAC and apprenticeship generally and do whatever they can to support that.
R. Masi: I've no doubt that there's strong support in the traditional areas. I guess what I'm concerned about here is: does that support extend beyond the traditional areas, or is it limited to what we have historically known as the apprenticeship areas?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think there are a few examples of this. One that immediately comes to mind is the high-tech sector. Right now there is work going on in developing
[1655]
R. Masi: Looking at the next topic here in terms of increasing youth and underrepresented group awareness, in terms of progress here, what steps have been taken in these areas, and what sort of measurable progress can we see here?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There's no question that this is an enormous challenge. What we have to overcome are some stereotypical ideas that exist about what trades and technical training are all about. In my first media interview around skills -- or education, actually -- after being sworn in, I deliberately highlighted the issue of trades. I think we have to get out as much as possible the notion that trades provide
There are a number of things that we do through ITAC. One is the Skills Canada competition that I attended recently, and it's working with the federal government. They sponsor skills competitions amongst high school students and, I think, some early post-secondary as well -- some of the programs in post-secondary. We have the secondary school apprenticeship program, and we also have the career technical centres that have been opening up around the province in partnership between local post-secondary institutions and high schools. In fact, just a number of weeks ago the Minister of Education and I announced five more of those provincewide. There's a lot of work to do to dispel the myths about trades and technical training, and we have a long way to go, but we're trying to make some headway.
R. Masi: There's no doubt about that in terms of dispelling myths about trades and technical and technological training. The minister commented on the development of the training centres, and the minister said there would be five more opening. I wonder what the total number would be.
[ Page 15713 ]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It would be nine. With these five, it would be nine.
R. Masi: Looking forward here in terms of funding, "Obtaining a greater share of public and private training funding
[1700]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: About 96 percent of the funding from ITAC goes to public institutions. There is very little that goes to private institutions. It tends to go to private institutions that have an excellent track record in providing the training they do. Obviously government does whatever it can to increase funding. ITAC does look for private sector funding wherever it can find it and, in particular, is trying to leverage private sector funding in areas of high demand. We know that there are certain trades in this province where employers are having a great deal of difficulty finding qualified workers. So ITAC, in that instance, would certainly look to see if employers in the private sector -- particularly, I would think, larger employers that would have a little more funding -- might make some contribution towards the training of the employees they need.
R. Masi: I wonder if the minister could give me an example of a company or a training institution that's benefiting from this funding.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In the past year the Roofing Contractors Association of B.C. made it clear that they required more qualified workers, so spaces were increased in that area of training. They did make a contribution; we don't have the exact figure. In the general skills upgrading program for a lot of existing employees, the employers in that program are contributing 60 percent of the cost and ITAC the other 40 percent.
R. Masi: Looking further ahead here, under "Strategic Objectives," I notice that there have been some slight revisions based on experience. That of course is a very normal process in the development of any organization; I can appreciate that. But there were some identifications of overlaps and gaps. I'm sure that no organization likes to say that it has overlaps and gaps, but it is in this report. I wonder if the minister could give me some indication of what we're talking about here in terms of overlaps and gaps.
[1705]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Perhaps the member may have some other more specific example of what he's looking for, what he has in mind, in terms of the gaps. But an example that comes to mind for us is the entry-level trades training programs and apprenticeships and the gaps that can exist between those two programs. So what ITAC is doing is working with the colleges, which provide so much of the entry-level trades training, as well as the industry advisory committees. They're planning on doing that work over the next year, trying to eliminate any gaps that exist between the two programs. This is in an area or a trade where you have both ELTT and apprenticeship coexisting.
R. Masi: Looking further in terms of the four priorities, the awareness, of course, is very important. As indicated in here, it's critically important for ITAC to increase awareness among K-to-12 students. I think this theme will probably run throughout this session that we're having here, because it's one of the most important things that ITAC can do -- to establish the importance of trades, technical and technological training for the vast majority of students that leave our schools. It's around 50 percent that don't look to go on. I believe this may be one of the main functions of ITAC and probably the primary one, the most important one.
What I'd like to look at here, in terms of this awareness, is: what are some of the implementation steps that in fact have been put into place to readjust this attitude toward trades training?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: ITAC has a promotions and awareness committee. What it's trying to do, of course, is increase awareness, as the name suggests. So there are a number of things it's doing. It is trying to identify high-profile champions. Just as an anecdote and an aside, at the Skills Canada competition I attended, there was some reference made by one parent to how enticing trades can seem. If you show a 16- or 17-year-old a successful tradesperson who is driving around in an expensive car, for example
There are a number of groups that ITAC is reaching out to through its promotions and awareness committee, groups that represent youth, parents, administrators in the K-to-12 system, counsellors in the K-to-12 system and media as well. There seems to be an increasing appetite in the media for stories about trades training. I guess it's fair to say that this committee is trying to do work through earned media, as we call it, as well as reaching out to all of those groups in the K-to-12 system to make sure there's a level of awareness and that students at a reasonably young age are being told about the opportunities. The great tragedy is that often they don't know the opportunities exist at all.
[1710]
R. Masi: I certainly concur. The difficulty now, of course -- and I've probably pointed this out before over the last few years -- is that change usually takes place in the parental attitude somewhere around grade 111/2. Then the scramble begins. It's unfortunate. I believe that's where the press has to be in terms of parental attitudes -- to establish those early. Perhaps the furthering of the training centres will be a good initiative and probably something that should be carried on in the future.
In terms of measurables, do we have any indicators that might indicate progress in this field, in this area?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We have a secondary school apprenticeship program that I mentioned before. Last budget year we saw about 498 students in that program; this year we're trying to get 600. There is a problem with trying to get students interested. But the fact that the numbers are increasing would be an indication that we are having success in increasing awareness and getting more students interested in these programs.
R. Masi: What, in the minister's opinion, is holding the school apprenticeship program back? I'm happy that the tar-
[ Page 15714 ]
get is 600, and I'm happy that we're moving ahead -- that we're not going backwards in this thing. But in fact I would expect more. Are there local issues or school issues? What seems to be the holdup?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Broadly speaking, I think the problem is cultural. As the member referenced earlier, there is the issue of parental attitudes. When we were growing up, our parents just expected we would go to university, and that was it. There was nothing else to consider; there were no other options.
There's not a lot we can do about that as government, other than to try and continue to promote these programs. What we have to do is do it through our high schools, and to that extent, as I said, we have people working with representatives in the K-12 system. In particular, we have to get to high school counsellors, so that high school counsellors are making every opportunity known to students before year 111/2, as the member referred to earlier.
We've made progress in the K-12 system -- which is really where we have to get to young people and make these opportunities known, as I say -- because now, 54 out of 59 school districts provincewide are participating. Only three years ago, that number was in the twenties, so we had a significant problem within the system itself in terms of school districts buying into apprenticeship technical-training programs for students.
R. Masi: I guess that's the nub of the question. Is it the dollars in terms of school districts, or is it the lack of coordination between the school district and the local college in place in whatever school district it might happen to be? Is there a financial consideration here that's blocking the expansion and development of these courses?
[1715]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: When I referred a moment ago to the number of school districts that were involved in promoting these programs
R. Masi: In looking down further here, we're talking about speed of response and flexibility. It's interesting that ITAC points out that it needs "to develop more flexible, responsive training through new delivery methods, innovative training models and curriculum revision." This is a very broad topic when you get into it. I wonder if the minister could provide me with some examples of the concerns in this area -- the lack of response and flexibility.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: A few examples of areas where we haven't been as responsive as we could have been and are now making progress particularly relate to smaller businesses, I think it's fair to say. One of the programs that's designed to be more responsive in that case is what we call Tech@Work, which is a small business information technology specialist program. ITAC has been working with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre in developing and delivering that program.
Furthermore, ITAC is working with the animation industry in British Columbia to develop designations and ongoing training for this emerging sector.
R. Masi: Those are good examples, and I appreciate those. What I have to ask is: is there any lack of ability for the ITAC commission to move toward these types of industries, methods, in terms of the
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I guess the most basic area where there's always more that could be done is in funding. We've given ITAC a handsome increase this year, I think it's fair to say. They've actually increased their budget as a percentage of the total post-secondary budget; that has increased this year relative to what it was last year. But they can always use more -- and they make representations to that effect -- as so many others can use more resources from government.
But beyond that, of course, apprenticeship in entry-level trades training is quite often overwhelmingly about a business and labour partnership. What we need
[1720]
R. Masi: We're sort of getting down to it, then, in terms of the commission speeding up decisions, as is indicated in this document, and responding quickly. Is there a problem in terms of philosophical differences on the commission itself that's holding up decision-making in terms of quick responses?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: A couple of things. First, ITAC is only three years old. It's a young organization, and it takes some time to put together the basic building blocks. But the member is right to suggest that, of course, there are philosophical differences. They're not philosophical differences that harm in any serious way -- I don't think -- the work that ITAC does. But there are labour
But there are still sometimes differences around the model for training. It's fair to say that often there are those in labour who feel -- and I'm not saying this is representative of the board, but certainly I've heard it anecdotally -- that employers should do more. What's happening is that the state is paying for so much of the training. They'll cite examples of other countries, other jurisdictions, particularly in western Europe, where employers are a much greater partner financially in training.
K. Krueger: Many of the questions I would otherwise have had in ITAC estimates were resolved by the excellent briefing we had, which I appreciated. We did discuss this issue in the briefing, but I'd like to have the minister's thoughts on the record with regard to the building maintenance worker program.
[ Page 15715 ]
This was a program initiated by the Skeetchestn Indian band in my neighbourhood, and Chief Ron Ignace from the band, as well as Chief Manny Jules from the Kamloops Indian band, had raised it with me last year. We dealt with it in estimates. I understand that a lot of the issues that were raised and were troublesome at the time have been resolved. I'd just like the minister to give us a status report on that program, please.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes. I think it's fair to say that many of these issues -- most of them but not all of them -- have been resolved. The ITAC, as I indicated earlier in our discussion, is absolutely committed to working with first nations as one underrepresented group. It has conducted meetings with proponents in February of this year to review recommendations put forward by eight of the affected trades. It resulted in extensive changes to the program outline and competency profile chart to keep the program focused on maintenance and repair. Further meetings were held in March with the same eight affected trades, and this resulted in positive feedback from the trades through open discussion, with the one exception being the drywall TAC subcommittee.
Overall, the affected trades are much more at ease with the direction of the program towards maintenance and repair. So it's fair to say, I think, that the building trades are onside. The next steps would be that the programs standing committee of the ITAC board will review the draft program outline and competency profile chart at their next meeting. Pilot delivery and rollup evaluation protocol, curriculum, training record books and exams are yet to be developed and are scheduled for completion by the end of August this year. ITAC anticipates an intake of 15 to 20 trainees at the Shuswap first nations facility in Kamloops in the fall of this year.
[1725]
K. Krueger: That pretty much covered all the questions I was going to ask on the program. When could we expect, ideally, our first crop of graduates from the program?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The spring of 2003.
R. Masi: We're looking at the strategic objectives on page 5 of the report. I'm interested in No. 8, "
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The program is called skills upgrading. The program is broken into two initiatives. One is funding for individual apprentices and journeypersons, and the other one is group funding administered through employers, industry associations and joint employer-union boards. In terms of the outputs, there were 2,377 training spaces in 1999-2000, and we are aiming this year for 4,200.
R. Masi: Looking at No. 9, there's an objective to increase the proportion of aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, youth, women in trades and technical careers. I wonder if the minister could give me the percentages now of people of those categories in the trades and technical career area.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We have a figure only for women, which is that it has increased from 5 to 6 percent over the first two years of ITAC's existence. For the other three groups, unfortunately, ITAC relies upon voluntary reporting, which is always a challenge in terms of getting useful data. So ITAC is working with those who deliver those programs now to try to get more useful data. That's in answer to the question around the percentages for each group. But overall, we have gone from last year's 289 training spaces for equity groups to a proposed outcome this year of 533.
R. Masi: I am interested in this area particularly, because I seem to recall some employment figures. Now, I realize that employment is a broad field -- employment is everything -- and what we are specifically talking about here are trades and technical careers. But it seems to me that there's almost a correlation between the employment figures of these groups and the percentage of the population. I know that question is not well worded, but what I'm saying is
Interjection.
R. Masi: Well, if the minister understands, hon. Chair, let's hear it.
[1730]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: If I understand the member's question -- I think it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg kind of question -- it is: are the number of underrepresented groups in trades training
R. Masi: I think I'll leave that question.
In terms of going on again in the report, on support for children and families, there is a comment on displaced workers from traditional sectors. What specific programs are in place now to retrain these displaced workers?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: When it comes to dealing with displaced workers, it's more the role or function of other ministries that go into
What ITAC will do, however, is to work in concert with them and try to identify
R. Masi: It seems to me -- and I'm an absolute layman in this field in terms of retraining in the traditional areas -- that it's almost time for a broadening out of some of these areas, perhaps to train people to be more generalists in various fields such as construction or something like that. It seems to me that with the advance of technology -- and we're talking
[ Page 15716 ]
about how the average person is going to have nine different careers, etc. -- that to focus on specific areas is a bit limiting. When we're talking about displaced workers, we're wondering, well, what kind of workers? What's their makeup? What's their education level? What's their skill level? Is there any movement, through ITAC, to generalize some of these areas?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Well, that really very much depends on what a given industry wants. When I use the term industry, I mean both the employers and the employees. The building maintenance worker program, which the member for North Thompson referred to a few minutes ago, is an example of a more generalist program and a great deal of work being done with specialized trades so that within an industry there's some level of comfort with the role of generalist. No doubt there is a debate, and there will be an ongoing debate, about the importance of specialization versus generalization, just as there is in other fields.
[1735]
R. Masi: It seems to me that in this day and age the more general skills a person can acquire, the more possibilities would open up for that person to be re-employed in various positions. Looking at the expenditure plan
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That figure -- a reduction of $284,000 -- is before the next figure below it, which is. . .$1.88 million in expansion was allocated. So at the end of the day the negative $284,000 becomes plus $1.88 million, which will result in between 880 and 1,030 additional spaces.
R. Masi: Well, that takes care of the second question in terms of the spaces. What we're doing, then, is not reducing spaces; that's not the bottom line there. Okay.
Looking further down the chart here, I look at secondary school and I see $100,000. Can I be assured that that is what I am seeing there -- $100,000?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That figure of $100,000 represents only an ITAC contribution to a scholarship program. In fact, the funding for students comes from the Ministry of Education budget and is $2,700 per student.
R. Masi: That reassures me. I had some concerns about that after our discussion on the importance of the secondary school programs. In terms of the spaces, then, looking across the chart, these spaces are actually funded by the Ministry of Education. I see the minister nodding, so I take it that's a yes.
[1740]
In terms of the administration costs here, expenditures have gone down. That's an interesting perspective on a program that is developing. Could you indicate the reason for the reduction of expenditures on administration?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It's simply an accounting change. The lion's share of that would be accounted for through the marketing programs, for example, that ITAC runs -- information programs -- being moved from administration up into the heading of "Other Program Support," two lines above. You see a substantial increase there.
R. Masi: In the upcoming year, are there possible increases for capital expenditures for development, and what are they?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, this year capital will go from last year's $450,000 to $1,279,000. So it's quite a healthy increase.
R. Masi: Could the minister give me some examples of the capital spending -- what the money's spent on?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That figure would represent computer upgrades for staff at ITAC. It represents an enhancement of the web site, which -- getting to the member's earlier point about the need to get to young people in particular -- is being enhanced. These days, if you don't have a good web site, you're not going to make much of an impact with young people. There are some facilities issues as well, because ITAC has been, in some cases, co-located in some of its space with the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security and is outgrowing that. It's having to get some of its own office space. So that accounts for most of it.
R. Masi: Are there any salary increases accommodated in the budget?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In fact, the total amount being spent on salaries and benefits is being reduced by 2.6 percent this year because of lower costs for staff pensions.
R. Masi: Looking ahead further, on page 8, "Performance Measures," I'm impressed with the development of key performance indicators. I think it's an excellent way to go about business. Looking at the KPIs here, I just would like an explanation of the
[1745]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes.
R. Masi: In terms of the under-development KPIs here, what is the status of these?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Those four represent more complex indicators. They do require staff time -- both ITAC and in the colleges -- this year to get the baseline data that's necessary to establish an indicator. That's expected to be complete this year.
R. Masi: This year. Is there an approximate time when we would have these available?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Probably starting in the next calendar year.
R. Masi: Further on that, I see that there is an annual planning calendar that will be published shortly. Could you give me some dates on that? And would we be able to obtain copies of that?
[ Page 15717 ]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: ITAC is attempting to make this correspond with the government budgeting cycle, which would start in the fall. ITAC would be happy to make that available in the fall at the beginning of the budget cycle for next year.
R. Masi: Well, looking over at appendix B
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What ITAC is attempting to do
[1750]
R. Masi: I would just like to express my thanks and to forward my appreciation to your CEO, Kerry Jothen, for an excellent presentation here in terms of the strategic objectives.
J. Weisbeck: I just have one final question about the commission. I understand that it's made up of 24 individuals, and I think they're based on a three-year term. I'm just wondering: what is the current situation right now? ITAC has been in place for three years. We've obviously had people placed on the board. When do we start having elections? Is there a turnover after three years, or is there a sort of staggered system to replace people on the board?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The board appointees result from nominees being put forward through the B.C. Federation of Labour and the B.C. Business Council. Colleges would be another group; there are others as well. The appointments are staggered, but they're also for differing terms; some are for one year, some for two years, some for three years. The whole idea is to maintain some level of corporate expertise and memory rather than having a massive change at any one time.
J. Weisbeck: I asked that question because I had a request from the B.C. Career Colleges Association. They state:
I have expressed my concerns via BCCCA."Currently two private training institutions provide the training portion of an apprenticeship program. Many private training institutions provide quality training in vocational, but because private training interests are not represented at the board level, valuable resources and input from this sector continue to be overlooked. The industries ITAC trains for have repeatedly requested that private training be included at the table, yet they remain excluded. This undermines the objectives of ITAC and compromises the quality of training available to this worthwhile project. It is clearly an unacceptable oversight, and the B.C. Career Colleges Association respectfully requests that this matter be put right with the appointment of a private training representative to the board of ITAC."
Hon. G. Bowbrick: First of all, I appreciate the member raising the concerns -- the first that I've heard about it. There is, I would suggest, some involvement of that organization, or those institutions, already. The chair of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which has some background in that sector, is on the ITAC board. The trade advisory committees -- one of them has the chair of that association on it. And I would also suggest that private training institutions are businesses. They're first and foremost businesses, and they may be able to have their concerns addressed or raised through business representation on the board.
J. Weisbeck: Thank you, hon. Chair. That concludes our questions re ITAC. I guess, after the break, we can start on post-secondary education.
[1755]
The committee recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6:50 p.m.
[G. Robertson in the chair.]
J. Weisbeck: I want to move into a report that was given to us by the ministry on the implications of this year's budget. There are a number of items under "Post-secondary Education Programs," the first one being $32 million for 4,569 spaces. You know, I did my math on it. It just seemed that it was an awfully low number per FTE. Obviously maybe I'm oversimplifying it; I mean, there's more to it than that. But I'm coming out at a $6,000 figure; that seemed to be awfully low per FTE. Maybe I could have an explanation of that, please.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: First I would like to introduce the staff that I have with me this evening. To my left is Jerry Armstrong, my deputy minister; to the right is Robin Ciceri, the assistant deputy minister for the post-secondary education division. Sitting behind me are Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, management services division; Rod MacDonald, director, finance and information, management branch, post-secondary education division; and Jim Vanstone, director of student services branch, post-secondary education division.
That $32 million, if you do the division, adds up to $7,000 a space.
J. Weisbeck: I used the 5,000 number there, I guess, so obviously you're basing that on the 4,500 spaces. Obviously I used the 5,000 spaces. So where does the other money come from, then, to fund Tech B.C. and the FTEs for ITAC?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In addition to the $32 million for the 4,569 spaces, there's $3.75 million to Royal Roads; there's $4.5 million to Technical University for 156 new FTEs. And was there another one? No, that's it. So they add up.
J. Weisbeck: I commented in my opening remarks about the grants per FTE over the years, and I started off in '92-93. The numbers that I'm using here are the total number of grants divided by the total number of FTEs. In 1992-93, I got a figure of $8,427 per FTE; '95-96 was $8,302. In '98-99, I get $7,818. Now this year I saw a bump; taking the grants divided by the FTEs, I get a number of $8,052.
My comment was that there seems to have been over the years an erosion of the dollars per FTE. It's not something that
[ Page 15718 ]
happens only in B.C.; it's happened across the country. But B.C., of course, has lost 8.8 percent, while elsewhere in the province some of the 16 other universities across the province have actually had a gain of 3 percent. Perhaps I could have an explanation of how that is.
[1855]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm told that we provided the member with figures. We're not sure of the basis of the calculation, but our figures are that we've seen an increase in the dollars per FTE from '96. On average, we've got like
It's worth noting as well
A Voice: Sixteenth.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yeah. I believe the member may be referring to some information that was gathered, and there was a calculation worked out around revenue per student. I think it's important to note that for some reason, of the 16 other universities, none of them included universities from Quebec -- which, of course, is the only other jurisdiction in a similar position to us in terms of having a tuition policy which has a significant effect on revenue per student. If you take a quarter of the country's post-secondary education system out of the mix, you're going to have a jump in the average revenue per student. So it doesn't really offer a very accurate reflection of a national average.
J. Weisbeck: The numbers I was using were from SFU, their research department. It's TUPC annual reports. That's where I got these numbers from. I wanted to show this trend that was happening across the country, and I was trying to get an explanation for that.
You've talked about $5.78 million to compensate institutions for the cost of the tuition freeze. What has been the total compensation over the last five years of the tuition freezes?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Two years ago it was $1.2 million; last year it was $1.5 million, and this year it is $5.78 million.
J. Weisbeck: One of the lines here talks about $23 million for salary and benefit increases as well as $0.72 million for the costs of pay equity in 2000 and 2001. We've just recently had the signing or ratification of a contract with 11 institutions: Camosun, College of the Rockies, Douglas College, Justice Institute, Kwantlen, Malaspina, North Island, Northern Lights, Northwest Community College, Open Learning Agency and the University College of the Cariboo.
The four-year contract apparently adheres to the zero-zero-and-2 provisions. But I notice that in this line here, you've got some compensation for salary benefits and pay equity. Now, how is that reflected in this new contract that's been signed?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The reference to the $23 million was for salary and benefit increases that had already been negotiated. Accord provisions hadn't been ratified by this point, and so they aren't included in that figure.
J. Weisbeck: That begs the question: what are the estimated cost implications of this particular deal for this year and for future years -- this current contract?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm told we don't have that information handy, but I can get it for you.
J. Weisbeck: Thank you. And what is the predicted impact on services? I guess we're asking: will the minister provide assurances that all post-secondary spaces that the government announced will be fully funded?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes.
J. Weisbeck: Will you table a copy of the recently ratified package, including the common agreement, the local agreements and the accords?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yeah. We can table them within the next couple of weeks.
J. Weisbeck: Can you guarantee that the accords under negotiation will be within the zero-zero-and-2 mandate? I understand there are a number of accords currently in process -- are there not? I'd like to have the status and titles of the accords currently under negotiation as well.
[1900]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The accords themselves are outside of zero-zero-and-2. Everything else is within zero-zero-and-2. But the accords aren't within the zero-zero-and-2 mandate.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: No, they aren't.
J. Weisbeck: Can you give us the status and title of all ratified accords in the post-secondary sector?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, we can supply that to the member. We don't have it here, but we can supply it to the member.
A. Sanders: In my constituency of Okanagan-Vernon I share with a number of my colleagues the campuses of the Okanagan University College, an institution that we are very pleased with, especially when we see the results that our graduates are able to achieve when we look at them on the scale of where they go following their education right in their back yard. There have been a number of issues around the OUC campus. Just so the minister's aware of where I'm going, there are two issues: one is the funding per capita, and the second is the Okanagan -- OU or OUC. I can tell the minister that there are as many votes on one side of that fence as another. I'm not here to advocate for one or another but to give you the opinions of the people who go to Kalamalka campus, which is the campus in Vernon.
My first question to the minister
[ Page 15719 ]
receives something like $230 per capita. Does the province intend to address this issue to increase the access and opportunities for post-secondary within the region of the OUC drainage basin?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it's a question of how we calculate the figures. If we remove universities and institutes that have provincial mandates -- not regional ones or more local community-based mandates, but provincial mandates
A. Sanders: Does the formula favour communities that are not growing quickly? Is that something that's been ferreted out from using the formula for per-capita funding?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The calculation takes into account population growth and participation rates, so it wouldn't favour communities that aren't growing versus those that do.
A. Sanders: Can the minister explain the concept of a provincial mandate? In other words, am I to understand that because the UNBC is in the north, that would skew the formula, favouring the north from a per-capita point of view? Or does it mean that if you apply for courses that might have a provincial mandate, you get more funding?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The institutions with provincial mandates or that are considered to have a provincial mandate are those that draw broadly from a very large region of the province. UNBC would be somewhat unique in terms of the ones I'm about to list, in the sense that it draws heavily from the north as a region. Certainly the other institutions -- BCIT, UBC, SFU, UVic -- draw from the entire province rather than just one region.
[1905]
A. Sanders: That makes sense to me; I get that. But the ones that are used comparatively by the people who argue that the Okanagan is being shortchanged are in fact comparing to Cariboo and -- what's the other one? -- to the Kamloops area, I guess.
Interjection.
A. Sanders: Kamloops and Prince George, those are the two. That's right. I'm wondering: if we look at it, what's the difference between
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There's no question that the member's right; there is a discrepancy between UCC and OUC. What we have to do now is try to do what we can to make up for that discrepancy and recognize the position that the Okanagan is in. It does have a greater population growth, and as a result, we want to increase participation rates there. What we've done this year is
A. Sanders: I just need clarification so I really understand this. We started out with the minister saying that the gap was primarily having to do with provincial mandate. Now we're talking about it with respect to: "Yes, there is one, and we're making a step towards decreasing the gulf between the two regions." I'm interested, hon. Chair, in what the time line is for that. Let's start with that: what's the time line?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Well, a couple of things. First of all, the initial comparison -- as I understood the member to be making it -- was between the funding per student in the Okanagan versus the rest of the province in showing that kind of discrepancy. That's why I raised the issue of provincial mandate institutions. Then we were comparing two different campuses with similar mandates.
As far as a time line goes, all we can commit to, in fairness, is that if the Okanagan continues to have growth that exceeds other areas that are similarly situated -- you've got UCC versus OUC -- the Okanagan should continue to receive a bigger increase than a region which has lower growth. But we can't project out ten years from now how much growth there will be in the Okanagan relative to the Cariboo, for example. So we'll just continue the same trend that we're embarked on right now.
[1910]
A. Sanders: Just for my understanding, did this discrepancy start with the tuition freeze? Is that where things were looked at as a snapshot, and then things have sort of related to that as a first point when the gulf widened?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: No, it had nothing to do with the tuition fee freeze. It had everything to do with rapid population growth in the Okanagan over a number of years and FTEs not keeping up with that growth in the way that perhaps they should have, which we're trying now to correct.
A. Sanders: I just want to read from a letter from Bonita Frank, vice-president of the Kalamalka campus for the year 2000-2001. She comments on the lift to the university this year:
Bonita Frank goes on to point out:"Students at the Kalamalka campus are seriously concerned about OUC's funding crisis. As a result of the recent provincial budget for post-secondary funding, OUC received a $2.9 million increase. This increase has offered breathing space and prevents the institution from being forced to make program and staffing cuts in order to remain within their operating budget. On paper the government appears to have funded 300 'new' spaces at OUC, but in reality these funds simply cover retirement and regularization expenses and maintain the status quo for programs. Those new spaces have evaporated in OUC's continued struggle to maintain its budgetary obligations, never mind an adequate number of programs for the region's ever-increasing population."
People tend to be balkanized in their area and try to compare apples to apples. I think staff and residents and certainly students of Kal campus look at OUC and compare it to the Cariboo and think: how come these guys are so much better off than we are? I think they're really searching for an answer."
. . . Kalamalka campus was forced, for the first time in its history, to close off new admissions in March, because we were unable to serve a 58 percent increase in applications. Our region's requirements for post-secondary, college and university programs are increasing dramatically, and it is time for the provincial government to recognize OUC's needs and increase funding to the same levels as the University College of the Cariboo."[ Page 15720 ]
The second question is related to OUC in Vernon. When you look at OUC, it's not just Vernon; it's five campuses. It serves a region with 11 continuing education centres. Does the current funding formula recognize the true cost of operating those campuses which are providing education to many communities?
[1915]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The funding that we provided to OUC this year provided for wages and benefits, and it provided for the compensation of the tuition fee freeze. That was in addition to the funding that we provided for the new spaces. There was also the issue of applications, the cutoff for applications. I don't want to minimize this issue at all, because it is an issue. But it is also the case that there are always more applications than there are students, because they'll apply to many institutions and for many different courses. That's not to minimize that it is an issue.
Secondly, taking into account the issue of multi-campuses for some institutions in this province
A. Sanders: Is there a time line on that?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Our plan is to have it introduced for the coming fiscal year, 2001-2002.
A. Sanders: Was it true that that formula review was to be done by the middle of May this year?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There was a committee made up of various interested parties in the system who were working on putting together a model for this formula. That work was to be done by now, and it now is to be presented to the ministry for implementation in the next fiscal year.
A. Sanders: University colleges across the province have been lobbying government to increase their funding to develop their library collections to standards that are commensurate with their mandate. I had a personal experience in that area that was shocking to me not only just at the university library but at my own local library.
A historian of some note to British Columbia, Margaret Ormsby, lived in my riding. She has been deceased for two years now. There was no copy of her history of British Columbia in the public library and only one in the OUC, and that was out to someone in, I think, Kelowna. So I can attest that there aren't a whole lot of extra books floating around in the system. OUC students have complained about having to drive to Vancouver to find the resources necessary to complete term papers and assignments. To the minister: is the province going to give the university colleges more money for their libraries?
[1920]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What was going to happen is that the library grants for university colleges were going to be phased out. We've changed that decision, and this year we're continuing that.
I just met with the presidents of all the university colleges last week or the week before. They were very pleased with this. I know that in the case of Malaspina University College, that was a key factor in them receiving formal accreditation with the AUCC. And we will definitely be looking at the possibility of increasing the grant in the next fiscal year, if it's at all possible.
A. Sanders: What the minister told me was that there was a plan to phase it out, but now there's going to be an increase. Is this kind of on an ad hoc basis? What is the long-term plan for library funds?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: No, it's not ad hoc. This is an ongoing commitment.
What we did was to talk to the university colleges, and they certainly made the case that for the nature of programs they're offering -- particularly degree programs -- there are a certain number of volumes needed for each degree program. There might be some kind of rough formula, and they've been involved in talking with the ministry about working out that formula. So we've made this commitment on an ongoing basis, and now we'll be looking at increasing it, in fact, as we continue those discussions with them.
A. Sanders: Good.
Let's talk a little bit about research. This has become an integral component of all university and university college activities, and it's an integral and necessary component of OUC's activities not only in terms of the service to the region but in terms of creating the kind of educational milieu that students need in today's global economy.
Is the province contemplating changes to the legislation which would acknowledge the role research plays in the university colleges?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: During my meeting with the university college presidents -- we met sometime in the last couple of weeks -- they raised this issue of legislation. My response to them was that I needed to see their case for a change in legislation. The question is: do we need a legislative change in order to accomplish the ends they seek to accomplish? The point is that we all want to be supportive of the ends they seek to accomplish. Do we need to do that legislatively or not? They are getting back to me on that.
[1925]
On a related note, one of the problems they're having at the university colleges is that they are not being properly recognized by the federal government right now when it comes to funding research chairs. The federal government has put in place some kind of formula which requires a certain number of years of research capacity at an institution. Because
[ Page 15721 ]
our university colleges are relatively new, they're not qualifying, and they're being shut out. I should be signing a letter anytime now to the federal minister responsible to see if we can get them to change that and get more of those federal research dollars into our university colleges, so that they get a piece of the pie just like other institutions do across the country.
A. Sanders: Is it part of the vision of the provincial government to provide funding for infrastructure necessary to properly support research in the university colleges?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I guess the short answer is yes. The question is always how much. As an example of what we've done, the B.C. knowledge development fund provides capital funds for research infrastructure. University colleges are free to apply for that funding. The applications are handled in an arm's-length way by a committee. This year we had committed to $100 million over five years, I believe it was. I think we're in year 3 of that. We're in year 3 right now of the initial $100 million commitment, and this year we added another $117 million. So we more than doubled the commitment to the B.C. knowledge development fund, and that certainly is something from which university colleges can draw in making applications for funding for capital around research infrastructure.
A. Sanders: There's a number of kind of grumpy Okanagan residents looking to do some post-baccalaureate education, and they've been forced to go to the lower mainland or forced to go to Alberta or the United States for programs that could have been delivered at the university college with the expertise and resources that are already in place there. Is the province prepared to consider giving university colleges generally, and OUC particularly, the mandate to offer postgraduate degrees?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The ministry is involved in ongoing discussions with the university colleges, all of them, about their future and what form it takes exactly. In their most recent submission to the ministry, they did not identify wishing to offer graduate programs as a priority.
A. Sanders: I spoke to the Kalamalka campus students' association a couple of weeks ago, and I talked to the principal and to members of the advisory committee. It was something that was addressed by all three of those groups to me, as MLA for the area. In addition, I've received a number of letters, especially from single mothers living in places like Falkland -- I don't know if you've been to Falkland, but it's not very close to anywhere particularly -- or Lumby or Cherryville. If they had the opportunity to do their post-secondary degree locally
In the provincial press releases announcing the fifth year of the tuition freeze, the minister talked about British Columbia having the second-lowest average tuition rate in the country and noting that they are at $2,280, which is about $1,600 less than Ontario and $1,400 less than Alberta. OUC charges students a maximum of $1,410 per year for tuition, about 40 percent less than the already low provincial average. While this makes OUC a good bargain for students, the question arises as to whether the province has fully recognized the cost of the tuition freeze to OUC and to other institutions. My question to the minister is: has the per-student grant to the institutions risen to offset the loss of potential revenue that student fee increases would bring?
[1930]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: When we allocate the tuition fee compensation funding, we're allocating it on the basis of their grant. So we're not exacerbating the situation by only taking into account the lower level of the fees where they were frozen at OUC. That applies provincewide, of course. It's important to note that I think they may be mixing up a few figures in the member's question. The figure -- I think it was $2,280 -- that the member used refers to average university tuition in British Columbia. The average university college tuition in British Columbia is $1,700. I think the member used a figure of around $1,400-something for OUC. So the disparity isn't as great as one might think in the first instance if we just compare similar institutions.
A. Sanders: Thank you for that clarification. Has there been any review of the impact of the tuition freeze on student debt?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Well, it almost goes without saying that if we have tuition fees that are frozen rather than increasing, that is going to lead to lower student debt. If we had higher tuition fees, those students who are going to apply, who incur debt in any form
It is worth noting that population growth since the freeze came into place has been 2 percent per year. At the same time, we've seen annual growth in students enrolling and taking advantage of student financial assistance of 10 percent. That suggests that there is an increasing tendency for lower-income individuals to be taking advantage of the opportunity to go to school in British Columbia.
A. Sanders: It's wonderful to see the world through rose-coloured glasses. There are other interpretations, of course, of those same basic facts. One is that more students are having to access loans because they are taking longer to graduate. The other is that if tuition is frozen, then of course there would be less debt; that would follow in a one-to-one relationship.
But if you are in a circumstance where you could get all your courses during the nine-to-three or nine-to-four part of the day and have a part-time job, which you can't do now because there are fewer offerings of that course
[1935]
If you have to take an additional semester at school in order to get all of the courses you need because there are decreased offerings at an institution, that too will increase your student debt, despite the fact that your tuition has been
[ Page 15722 ]
frozen. In fact, you may be $5,000 or $10,000 or even $15,000 down the tubes from where you were previously, under different circumstances.
Just to point it out to the minister, there are many ways of interpreting it. I'm not saying that his way is wrong. I'm just saying that's not the only way to look at the world. Certainly in my area students are telling me a different story with respect to what they perceive the qualities of their education are. I think students are the first people to want to get something for as little a financial amount as possible, because, quite frankly, that's what they have to do; they have no choice when they're in training and in university and university college.
My last point, hon. Chair -- two points. The first is that I have a letter written by this young woman, Bonita Frank, vice-president of Kalamalka campus. I would like to provide the minister with a copy of that letter and ask him to personally write back to Ms. Frank.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Certainly. If the letter didn't come to me directly for any reason, I'd be happy to write back.
While I'm on my feet, I think it's worth noting -- contrary to the view of the member, perhaps -- that I don't wear rose-coloured glasses; I don't wear glasses at all.
In fact, student debt in British Columbia is coming down. It is now the lowest in Canada. The average student debt load upon graduation is $15,000 versus a national average in the range of $25,000. I would suggest that that is the direct result of not only the tuition fee freeze policy but also our greatly expanded student financial assistance program, which includes extending grants -- outright grants -- from a system where they were only in the first and second year, to now the third and fourth year of a program. So, in fact, we have very low debt levels compared to anywhere else in the country.
A. Sanders: Again, the philosophical argument of, "You've got the debt, and then you can get a job" -- that might not be so bad, depending on how much you have, if there's a job to go to in your province when you're done.
My last question to the minister is: have there been any studies to look at the impact of the tuition freeze on the institutions' abilities to create access to education?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is no, there haven't been any studies. But it is worth noting that the TUPC report itself indicates that the gap-per-student problem has really been in the last couple of years. The tuition fee freeze has been in place for five years. We've recognized this problem by increasing our contribution this year, so we're
The member also raises the question of whether it has had an impact on access. Well, it's not going to have an impact on access when, at the same time, we've been funding a minimum of 2,900 new spaces a year, and this year over 5,000 new spaces. That's in addition to the freeze policy. So I would argue that it hasn't had an impact on access, but certainly, in terms of the revenue gap, we've tried to address that.
A. Sanders: In closing, I just want to point out -- in the letter from Ms. Frank -- that the so-called 300 spaces that we would have got from that 5,000 spaces have materialized into just keeping the status quo, as opposed to 300 new spaces. I think that that is important, when looking at access. I think, as well, that a 58 percent increase in applications talks about access and a change in the status of access. Those two figures, to a certain degree, go to refute the minister's thoughts that there is no decrease in access for the students.
I thank the minister for his time, and I will send a copy of Bonita Frank's letter to his office.
[1940]
J. Weisbeck: I just have one further question on the funding overview, and it was the $8.2 million for new initiatives. It talks about funding for equipment, libraries "determined by the ministry." I'd like to know how you're going to determine who gets what, how it's allocated and what the priorities are.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That funding is in essence discretionary, and the ministry will look at the needs of various institutions as they come forward. Certainly I referred in my earlier remarks, when answering some of the questions of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, that we were looking at increasing funding for the university college library grant, for example. So an increase might come out of that $8.2 million.
J. Weisbeck: So how does one access that funding? Is it an application process, or is it just
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Well, what happens is that the post-secondary institutions come to the ministry and make a formal request. They have some discussions. There will be some set of formal criteria developed to make sure that we're being fair and not completely arbitrary in the way this funding is divided. But they do come forward, and they make a request -- for example, around technology needs. Then we'll be as equitable as possible in our response.
J. Weisbeck: There's a question of technology. We've heard of the lack of computers in a lot of schools and that a lot of them are outdated as well. Will the ministry use this particular funding to possibly go and try to upgrade some of the systems out there?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yeah, that's possible. Yeah, it's one of the things. There's an education technology framework that's just been developed, and it's just going to the deputy now. Then we'll look at it within that framework -- what we might be able to do around education technology.
C. Clark: I want to go back a little bit, because I missed my chance to pop up when we were talking about labour issues. I understand you talked about the accords and the collective agreements that you signed. I just want to find out how many accords are yet to get to the ratification stage. I understand that you've got a few accords on the table that have been entirely completed and are just awaiting ratification and final signature. Are there any other accords that are currently on the table and under negotiation?
[1945]
[ Page 15723 ]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It's pretty much all done. The college support sector was ratified yesterday. BCIT is in the process of going through ratification now. That should be done by June, we expect, with BCIT.
C. Clark: And there are no other accords or anybody else at an accord table currently negotiating any accords?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: No.
C. Clark: No? Okay.
The second question I had on that subject was: when will the next collective agreement expire in this ministry -- that you'll need to negotiate?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: At the end of this fiscal year, I think -- March 31, 2001 -- the CIEA, the College-Institute Educators, collective agreement expires.
C. Clark: And will the ministry be pursuing the zero-zero-and-2 framework in their negotiating strategy with that negotiation?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The negotiating framework and strategy is all managed by the Minister of Finance, not by the Ministry of Advanced Education.
C. Clark: I understand that the Ministry of Education will have to put together a negotiating team and a negotiating strategy, or they'll have to have some input into that process. Or is this ministry completely cut out of that process and just ends up being the subject of the outcome?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: This ministry has representation on both the University Public Sector Employers Association and the Post-Secondary Employers Association, which is the colleges and institutes. But in terms of the bargaining mandate, that direction is received from PSEC, which is answerable to the Minister of Finance.
C. Clark: No, I understand that. But I know that every ministry, though, also has its own goals and objectives that it wants to pursue, which are unique to that ministry, based on the history that it has with its employers, its bargaining groups and all that stuff. So what I'm curious about is how that policy shop in the Ministry of Advanced Education is preparing for the negotiations that will be upcoming, which surely will be underway by September-October.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it's fair to say
We have an extremely limited role around the issue of salaries and benefits of the people who work in the system -- that is, PSEC. PSEC, of course, consults the interested parties, including the employers, and the employers association does have representatives from the ministry on there, but they would be outnumbered by the institutions as employers. So, really, the major focus of this ministry, when it comes to policy, wouldn't be on anything to do with wages and benefits. It would be on broader policy mandates for post-secondary education generally.
[1950]
C. Clark: I do want to be clear about the number of contracts that are expiring. The contract that is expiring on March 31, 2001 -- how many employees does that cover?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What expires on March 31, 2001, is really the whole college sector, pretty much -- so 7,000 instructors and approximately 5,000 support staff. We'll certainly commit to sending you a calendar that will indicate when collective agreements expire and which groups are involved. So we'll get that to you.
As far as the universities go, their collective agreements are at different points in time, so they'll have more of a staggered schedule. But the first to come up will be the college and institutes sector.
C. Clark: I appreciate getting that information.
I'm going to apologize for jumping around, but I just have one question on another issue, which is with respect to the labour market development, the transfer of federal employees. I wonder what the status of that is and if negotiations are continuing. If this is the wrong time to raise it and you need to get staff, I can raise it later as well.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Responsibility for that has been transferred along with skills development to -- I always forget the name of this ministry -- the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security.
S. Hawkins: I just have a couple of questions in regard to the money that is going towards funding. First of all, we'll start with the 400 spots for nurses in the province. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me if this is targeted funding.
[1950]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, it is targeted. It's targeted based upon the capacity of different institutions to deliver spaces in particular areas, whether it's a nurse refresher course, a diploma program or what have you. That is worked out with input from nurse educators and the Ministry of Health.
S. Hawkins: So all of the funding isn't just for bachelor degrees, it varies between diplomas, bachelor's, refreshers. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes.
S. Hawkins: How did the ministry come up with the number 400?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There was a recruitment and retention task force that reported to the Ministry of Health, and it identified the figure of 400.
S. Hawkins: Can I get a copy of that report?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'll forward the request to the Minister of Health, certainly, and try and get it for you.
[ Page 15724 ]
S. Hawkins: Yeah, we keep going back between the ministries, because we don't know where to ask some of the questions.
Is there a breakdown, then, for how many are refresher, how many are diploma and how many are degrees that this funding is targeted for?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We can get that information for you. We're not sure whether the Ministry of Health has made that announcement yet, so they may still be doing some final work on it. What we did a number of weeks ago was allocate the number of nursing spaces per institution, but not the specific breakdown.
S. Hawkins: I would appreciate the breakdown. We can coordinate it between the two ministries. At Okanagan University College, I understand there are 20 spaces that this funding is being allocated to. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It's 20.5.
[1955]
S. Hawkins: It's 20.5 -- well, half a nurse. Well, they work us one and a half times as hard. But anyway, I understand that some of the institutions are talking about not being able to provide those spaces. In the Okanagan at the college, I understand that for the 20 spaces, the college is running a deficit, and they're concerned that they can perhaps only fund 13. Does the minister have a comment about that?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The institutions have made the commitment to deliver those spaces, so we expect that's exactly what they'll do. In the case of OUC, they'll do that in their nursing program.
S. Hawkins: If you're committing to 20 spaces -- because I believe at OUC we do provide a degree program there -- is that funding protected then and targeted for four years?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, it would flow through the entire number of years of the program.
S. Hawkins: Just a couple more questions. Again, the questions are asked in Health, and they're asked here. We tend to get bounced between the two Houses, so we'll see if it works here. Well, for at least the last ten to 15 years we've been talking about a shortage of health care personnel, and this is the first year where we've seen the problem addressed by adding spaces. We know that's true for physicians as well.
Is the ministry looking at that, working with the Health ministry? We only have 120 spaces for medical training at UBC. That was cut back a few years ago. And we only trained about 50 percent of our doctors that we have in B.C. Is that something that the ministry's actively looking at? And are you working with the Ministry of Health to address that issue as well?
[2000]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It's important, for the information of the member -- because I appreciate the concern about being bounced back and forth here -- to understand, as I've just learned, that the Ministry of Health directs this ministry when it comes to labour market requirements. So they provide direction to us. Representatives from this ministry have spoken to the dean of medicine at UBC. There's no commitment from us at this point, but we will take our direction from the Ministry of Health in terms of labour market needs anywhere in the health sector.
S. Hawkins: Was that No. 2? No. 2 is coming up. Okay. I did say a couple, so this is my last question. Can you advise this member, then? Because you're working with the ministry on labour market needs for health care, can you tell me
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In the Ministry of Health there is a Health Human Resources Advisory Committee. It is chaired by staff from the Ministry of Health, and it also includes the Health Employers Association. There is a subcommittee of that committee -- a subcommittee on education -- which is chaired by Robin Ciceri, the ADM for post-secondary education. So that's the process.
Now I want a point of clarification on the impression I may have left before. I said we would take direction. I think the proper word is advice, because we're not necessarily bound by what the Ministry of Health says. But certainly we'd take very seriously their advice.
[2005]
G. Abbott: I want to ask the minister a few questions about Okanagan University College and some funding issues that they have there. As the minister probably knows, there have been issues historically around funding to OUC. I think part of the concern has been based on what they feel is a lack of recognition of the costs of a multi-campus operation at OUC. More recently, in November 1999 the college put together a paper on funding and other challenges facing OUC, entitled "The Road Ahead." They put forward some arguments and some statistics in that paper which I'd like the minister to address. I particularly want to direct his attention to some of the concerns around funding that are contained in that paper.
For example, they note that their research suggests that over time -- approximately the last ten years -- there's been a small increase in per-capita post-secondary funding across the province. But within the regions themselves, the government's per-capita expenditure has actually fallen. I'll just briefly quote the numbers that are provided there. In 1992-93 the provincial per-capita average expenditure was $306.72 per person in B.C. That same year the per-capita expenditure within the OUC region was $113.07. In 1998-99 the provincial per-capita expenditure was $317.05, an increase of approximately 3.4 percent. The regional per-capita expenditure has fallen to $110.32, a decrease of approximately 2.5 percent.
[ Page 15725 ]
That's the basis of the argument that is being put forward by OUC. Has the minister had an opportunity to assess the numbers and the arguments put forward by OUC? What response would he have to that?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member is approaching this issue somewhat different in speaking of per-capita terms. Just for the member's information, the member for Okanagan-Vernon and I spent probably 20 or 25 minutes on this exact issue regarding Okanagan University College. We do recognize the issue that exists in the Okanagan.
The fact is that the Okanagan has had enormous growth in the past decade, and the growth in FTEs has not kept up with that. We're trying to address that now. We can't do it all at once, but certainly OUC has received a large increase. In fact, of all the colleges, institutes and university colleges in the province, OUC received the largest increase in terms of FTEs this year, which was 300. At the same time, they received a budget lift of 8.33 percent, which was among the highest in the entire system. So we are trying to address that discrepancy which exists in the Okanagan. Certainly, in our earlier discussion, the member for Okanagan-Vernon and I looked at a comparison with a similarly situated area. When we compared it with the University College of the Cariboo, we could see that with the moves we're making right now, we are narrowing the gap.
G. Abbott: I apologize if you've answered this question before, but I'll ask it: what time frame does the minister envision in terms of closing that gap?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That is indeed one of the questions that the member for Okanagan-Vernon put to me. My response is that the only commitment that I feel I can make right now is that we will continue to try to close the gap. It's difficult to predict how soon the gap can be closed, partly due to the fact that we can't predict the level of growth in other areas of the province even five years from now.
I think it's worth putting out, as well, that during the period from 1989-90 to 2000-2001, the ministry-funded FTEs at OUC had an increase from 3,579 ten years ago to 6,376. That was a 78 percent increase. It's a very large increase, but certainly I acknowledge that at the same time there's been a large population increase in that area. We have not kept up with it as well as we should, but we're now narrowing the gap.
[2010]
G. Abbott: The member for Okanagan-Vernon may have noted this. I think one of the indications of the problem that the minister has acknowledged is that, for example, OUC begins to put its applicants for a first-year bachelor of science program on a wait-list at the end of February, which I think is quite remarkable. Indeed, bachelor of arts registrations closed off in early June as well. There is considerable demand, and I do look forward to seeing the minister move to close the gap which he acknowledges exists between OUC and some other institutions.
I know the member also raised the issue of the library, but I want to put my two bits' worth in there too. I had the pleasure of teaching at OUC for about a dozen years. One of the huge challenges in that institution is library books for the students. Particularly with the new campus in Kelowna and the growth of the institution overall, the library resources are really strained. There has been a program in place to provide a lift in the last few years, and that's good. But according to the document I have here
Hon. G. Bowbrick: From the fiscal year 1999-2000 to this fiscal year, it has remained flat. We haven't decreased the budget. The member for Okanagan-Vernon and I did discuss this as well. But it is worth noting that there was a point where we were looking at phasing out the library grant. We have since reassessed that and decided that's not the best thing to do. So we have an ongoing commitment to maintain the library grant at the university colleges, recognizing that it's a very important component of offering degree programs.
In fact, there is now a review going on around the funding formula generally for post-secondary colleges and institutes and the university colleges, and this will be a key factor in that. We recognize it. In fact, we're looking to see if we can increase -- even in this fiscal year; we may have a little bit left -- the library grant a little bit more. But it's just something under consideration.
K. Krueger: I had some questions I want to ask along the same line, and the minister has answered a number of them. I would like to get down to some specifics, if we can, for the University College of the Cariboo. The chair, Shirley Dorais, wrote the previous minister on Janurary 28, 2000, about the many problems created at the institution by a cutback in the library degree grant. Her last paragraph specifically referred to the $600,000 per-annum grant that the university college had come to depend on and asked that it be restored and continued at that level.
The minister to whom I am directing the question was in place on May 2, 2000, when the letter was answered. It's a positive letter that he wrote, and he does say, "I am pleased to announce that effective this fiscal year, the Ministry of Advanced Education Training and Technology will provide university colleges with ongoing funding for this purpose," referring to the library operating budget, I gather, but not necessarily to what was known as the library degree grant.
I have been listening to the minister's answers. It seems to me that a decision has been made that the library degree grant program itself will be reinstated, but I'd like to know if it will be at the $600,000 per-year level.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think we're just using some different terms for the same thing, but the library grant will be continued. At the $600,000 figure, the answer is no. Originally the grant was supposed to be phased out; it was being phased out. Last year for UCC, $289,226 was the grant. We were looking at a complete phase-out this year. What we did is stop that, and now we're continuing it at that lower level. As part of our review of the funding formula for colleges and institutes and university colleges, we will be looking at the needs of the university colleges around the library grant. So there's the potential for an increase to that grant there, and -- the member for Okanagan East was asking earlier -- we have
[ Page 15726 ]
about $8 million in the budget this year that's unallocated. One of the things we'll be looking at is the university college's request for an increase in their library grant.
[2015]
K. Krueger: I'm not going to take up the time of the House reading the letter of January 28, 2000, into the record, but I would ask that the minister commit to review it personally. It talks about the reasons why that level of funding is so essential to having credibility in the ten degree programs that UCC is offering. We are attracting international students, over 600 of them this year. They contribute, we believe, about $35,000 each, on average, to the economy of British Columbia and to our region, including the things they buy and the people who come from other countries to visit them and so on. We don't want anything happening to erode the credibility of the degree programs or the institution itself.
I know that the chair had referred to the escalating cost of journals which are essential for the programs -- double-digit inflation in those. And if the minister would just give me that commitment
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm happy to say that I did read it, because I responded to it. The letter you have from me, I believe, is in response to that letter. So I acknowledge the importance of this to university colleges generally and certainly to UCC in particular. That's why we made the decision that we did, and we'll look at opportunities for increasing the library grant as we review the formula.
K. Krueger: One of the problems confronting UCC has been that its tuition fees were at some of the lowest rates in the province, as I understand it, when the tuition freeze took place. Now that it's been in place for five years, they've been badly pinched.
Even with the recent funding announcements, there is some concern about continuing a number of programs that exist at UCC. There was concern about the physics and math degrees, but I gather that that has temporarily been alleviated. A program for corrections officers and two office administration programs
What I think everybody would really like to see is long-term budgeting, so that an institution like UCC could have a better degree of predictability of its funding over at least a three- or five-year cycle into the future, with some assurances from government that there wouldn't be arbitrary cutbacks. Is that in the cards?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member will be pleased to know that I'm quite familiar with the issues at UCC, because I have met with Roger Barnsley on a couple of occasions: once just regarding just UCC and then once as part of a delegation of the university college presidents. So I'm fairly familiar with the issues.
I know, for example, that they are very pleased with the animal technology facility that we funded in capital this year. I think it's fair to say, from the feedback I've received, that they are quite pleased with the level of funding they've received this year, which was an increase of just over 5 percent and 238 FTEs.
It is the case that when the fees are frozen, fees were lower at UCC than other university colleges. We have in the last three years -- this year's been the biggest one -- provided compensation for the tuition fee freeze to institutions. We don't make up that gap completely by doing that, but what we do do is make sure that tuition fee compensation is not tied to the level of fees. So it's not that you get tuition fee compensation at a lower level if your fees were frozen at a lower level; it's based upon the overall level of your grant, which has nothing to do with where your fees were at when they were frozen.
On the issue of multiyear funding, this may be an interesting discussion to have in a broader context with the Minister of Finance. I'm informed that that level of multiyear funding would probably require an amendment to the Financial Administration Act.
Furthermore, I don't think
[2020]
K. Krueger: That's certainly a good start. I'm certainly hoping for a change of government, so I appreciate the caution. And I appreciate the government's decision on the animal health technology building; that was a real concern. As the minister knows, it's a unique Canadian program. The World War II-vintage buildings that it was operating out of were no longer certifiable by people who have to certify such programs. That was good news. I had it on my list to just flesh that announcement out a little bit. Has Treasury Board actually approved the entire funding package for that building?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes. I wouldn't, as a minister, make a practice of announcing things without Treasury Board approval.
Interjections.
K. Krueger: Reinforcing what my colleagues just said, we do not have a hospital in Clearwater, although it was committed to eight months before the last election. I'm told that Treasury Board has now approved it for construction to begin this fall, so more power to the minister for having secured the Treasury Board approval that quickly. My colleague from Cariboo North is a veterinarian himself and, as I'm sure the minister knows, was more than instrumental in bringing that matter forward. It is really good news for UCC and for Kamloops and for animal health.
An area I'd like to turn to now
[ Page 15727 ]
member for Okanagan West on similar subjects. But UCC also has a very active nursing training program. The nurses are, as a professional association and certainly as a program at UCC, very active politically. They come and visit me regularly, and they're very good at their lobbying.
One of the things that has been brought to my attention is that now that they are obliged to get a bachelor's degree, a bachelor of science in nursing -- and I understand full well why those credentials are desirable and don't argue with them at all -- it's nevertheless quite onerous for the students to go through those extra years of education. In the meantime, many of them have to support themselves. Regrettably, right now they can't make any money working in the hospitals, even though -- especially in their third and fourth years of the nursing programs -- they have a lot to offer.
They can take a lot of pressure off the existing nursing staff, who have an average age of 47, as I understand it, around the province and who are heavily overworked and often obliged to work back-to-back shifts and are really stressed out by their workload. And we all know that's only going to get worse because of our demographics. It's a concern for everyone, I believe. Nurses need to feel esteemed and valued and as though their government backs them up completely and is doing everything it can to keep their workload reasonable and protect their health.
One of the things we could do is provide more assistance in the hospital during this time when we're trying to, as a province -- and I know the opposition and the government share the same goals here -- ramp up to where we do have enough staff, enough professional help in the hospitals to deal with the population crunch that we face. So it seems to me obvious that one of the ways we can do that is if we return to more of a co-op program in nursing education or at least find a way that the nurses can have some paid time, if they're available to do it, to work in the hospitals -- the nursing students. Right now they're working for minimum wage in the service industry, waitressing and acting as servers and busboys and whatever is available to them. They're worth a lot more than that to the system, to British Columbians, and they have an important role to play in reducing the workload on these people who are burning out, who are already in the system.
[2025]
I don't see a lot of resistance to that. When I used to have delegations come from the B.C. Nurses Union, they used to be quite opposed to a discussion of going back to having orderlies to support them and so on. They seemed to want to keep a number of those jobs strictly for registered nurses. But lately we see them categorizing a great many tasks within the hospitals that they do, which don't really have to be done by nurses. This would be another way to take the pressure off them as well as to deal with that financial issue for the students -- to give them practical experience and, as I say, to safeguard our working population of nurses, to help them stay on the job rather than getting injured or stressed out or burning out, booking off sick and adding workload to others.
I have canvassed this in Health estimates, and the Health minister's supportive. It would certainly require a real effort of will and collaboration between ministries to see something like that happen. I can tell the minister that almost every other program at UCC has some co-op aspect to it. There are really progressive degrees like the bachelor of science in natural resource management, where there are a number of practicums and students often graduate with four or five job offers. I see nothing but benefit in having an approach like that for the nursing schools, and I would like the minister's comment.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The report on recruitment and retention of registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses in B.C. was presented to the Minister of Health, I think, at the end of April. There was a recommendation in there to look at the question of cooperative nursing education programs. I think it's a great idea. I'm very pleased, frankly, to see that various parties aren't being jurisdictional but are being practical or pragmatic in their approach so that there aren't labour issues around this and there aren't professional issues. If we can find a way to involve nursing students by getting them good on-the-job training, and if that's going to help the burden that our health care system and our current nurses face, then that's something we should absolutely be working on. It was a recommendation in the report. My ministry will be working with the Ministry of Health and also talking to educational institutions and employers about looking at the establishment of a nursing co-op program wherever possible.
K. Krueger: More power to the minister in that initiative. I hope everyone treats it as a high priority. We're in a war here with the workload, frankly, and it's bad for the people working in the system not to have the support. I'm sure the opposition would be supportive as well, and I'd really like to see that happen. It seems to me that if everyone thinks it's a good idea, it ought to be able to happen quickly. I do think most people consider it a good idea.
One of the problems right now in adding spaces to the nursing programs, as the minister has heard, I'm sure, is that there aren't enough preceptors to go around to add too many more spaces. I think that the 80 now budgeted for at UCC are about all they believe the existing system in the region can handle, as far as providing preceptors. If we got some of the workload off the existing workforce by adding those partially trained but nevertheless helpful students, perhaps that would free up more preceptor time. And certainly if we take some of the financial burden off the nursing students by paying them more what they're worth rather than having them work for minimum wage in the hospitality industry or elsewhere, then we're going to turn out graduates, I think, that are more battle-ready as well. So more power to the minister.
My last question has to do with the funding of the public sector accords -- for example, with CUPE in the colleges. I wonder whether the minister could confirm that the funding to actually pay for the additional costs of those accords is funding that will be provided over and above the existing allocations to the colleges and universities.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It wasn't included in their original budget allocation because we hadn't finalized all of them yet. Now we're this close to having all of them completed, and we will be providing funding to cover that.
B. Penner: I'd like to ask the minister a question which I ask every year of the minister responsible for advanced education, whoever that may be at the time. My question relates to what used to be known as Fraser Valley College when I attended that institution, now known as the University College of the Fraser Valley.
[ Page 15728 ]
[2030]
Sometime prior to the last election, the government announced plans to construct what has been referred to as phase 3 of the Chilliwack campus. That was supposed to be a new building to replace what is currently a used or old motel building which houses primarily faculty offices and some classroom space. That old building, the former motel, was constructed in the early 1970s and has had a number of health-related problems that the local health board officials have had to deal with from time to time. I'd like the minister to let us know if there are any plans in the current fiscal year to move forward with the actual construction of phase 3. I know that hope springs eternal amongst the board of directors of the University College of the Fraser Valley that someday this project may actually come to fruition.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think it's fair to say that it's a very high priority and that the member should stay tuned.
B. Penner: Boy, that's just too tempting to resist. Can the minister tell me whether or not there is a provision in this year's capital budget to provide for construction of phase 3?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We will be making various capital announcements in the coming weeks for this fiscal year. I won't be making them in estimates.
B. Penner: I'd invite the minister to make it here in the Legislature, where it can be recorded for posterity quite effectively.
In fact, I remember being at the University College of the Fraser Valley with the hon. Chair, the member for Mission-Kent, prior to the last election, when another wing -- I think it was phase 2 -- was being opened. The flag went up the flagpole. I remember the comments of the member for Mission-Kent, saying that we could soon look forward to having phase 3 being completed and that campus becoming more efficient. The new buildings were all designed with the intent of having phase 3 as a central component. With the old building still out across the field, as it were, the people working there feel that the facility is somewhat dysfunctional.
That's my observation about the minister's comments about staying tuned. I know that people will be anxiously awaiting some kind of word, if for no other reason than that they would like to know whether or not to move on and plan for some other eventuality. For the last number of years this has been the focus of planning for the Chilliwack campus. If the government doesn't intend to proceed, then I would ask the government to simply say so and let everyone else start putting their energy elsewhere into other things that would be more productive.
J. Weisbeck: I want to move now into the performance plan. I'm going to start off with the minister's message. He talks about new measures that have been put in place to increase the relevance of education programs to the labour market. I think that's a really, really important issue. We know that there are certain demands out in the labour force, and knowing that there's something in place to try to improve that relevance is a great move. I wonder if the minister could expand on that statement he's made.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What we're trying to do is to be as responsive as possible to the demands that are clearly there and are not being met, particularly on the labour demand side. That's why we've targeted 800 new spaces to high-tech, 400 new spaces to nursing and 300 spaces to ITAC. There is an enormous demand for apprenticeship and entry-level trades training. It's worth noting that the 300 ITAC spaces are 300 FTEs. When you convert them, because apprenticeships and entry-level trades training only have a certain component in the classroom, 300 spaces will actually benefit about 2,000 people. That's what I mean in that message: we're trying to be more responsive to labour market demand.
[2035]
J. Weisbeck: We talked earlier about that equalling $2 million in technology. I'm wondering about part of its relevance -- whether there's something built into the relevance that takes care of the new technologies and the increased demand for new technologies.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I don't want to get too speculative. If institutions are coming to us and saying that their highest priority is to update technology, then it might be safe to assume that one of the reasons they're requesting that is to enhance the training they're offering when it comes to some of those high-tech spaces, but I don't want to go too far down that road. They'll be coming to us, and it's possible, I guess, that their request for some of that money would go to meet that end.
J. Weisbeck: We talk about British Columbia undergoing a shift from a traditional economy to a knowledge-centred economy, and I think this performance plan says all the right things regarding that shift. I was a little disappointed in the overall plan talking about research. I want to get into that a little bit later, but I want to make a note of that at this point in time.
I do want to talk about access, because I think this is obviously one of the major issues. We've created 5,000 new spaces, and they would be spaces, I assume, that are going into first year. What is the impact? In three or four years' time, we will have these 5,000 students theoretically, if they all stay in school, taking programs that
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What we do in the college and institute and university college sector is that we provide the actual cost of the FTE in that program. If a high-tech space is more expensive than a liberal arts space, then they get more funding for that high-tech space than the liberal arts space.
As far as the universities go, we provide a basic FTE; there's a basic amount. Of course, there'll be programs that cost less than the average, and there will be programs that cost more. It's expected that the funding that we provide for those 5,000 spaces will be sufficient to carry right through. That's ongoing funding for each year, so it shouldn't cause any kind of a crunch three or four years from now.
J. Weisbeck: You spoke earlier about the baccalaureate degrees in the province. Is it not true that we're dead last in degree-granting in the nation?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It's true that in terms of the number of degrees conferred, we are below the national average; that
[ Page 15729 ]
is the case. There are a number of reasons that one could offer or speculate that contribute to that. One is that we have a high number of in-migration of degrees. The member for Okanagan West was asking me earlier about doctors and saying that we only train about 50 percent of the doctors that we actually have employed in this province, which suggests that what we have is a large in-migration of people with medical degrees.
[2040]
We also have a large number of programs in British Columbia which are relevant, getting back to the member's earlier point about more applied education, so to speak. They're non-degree programs that are in high demand and actually lead directly to employment. We have a large number of those. The number of degrees shouldn't be seen as any exclusive measure or indicator of success. There are thousands of people who go through diploma programs -- for example, nursing diploma programs -- and go directly into work and do very well.
Finally, it's probably fair to expect that as we see the full impact of our third- and fourth-year grant program taking effect
J. Weisbeck: UBC particularly, but some of the other universities as well, is requiring a very high grade point average to get into the university. Do you know what the average grade point average is at this point in time to get into a university in British Columbia?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: That varies from institution to institution. We could certainly try and get the numbers for you. I mean, it's going to be a different number at UBC than it is at SFU or UVic, or wherever.
J. Weisbeck: I guess I'm wondering how we can turn that around. Obviously you have a B student who is still a very good student
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The solution to this problem, if we can call it that, is to add more spaces. We're continuing to do that. This year, with 5,025 new spaces, that's unprecedented. I don't think any of us could think of a time in recent memory when we've seen that number of spaces added to the system. You add more spaces, you create more capacity, and that's a key way to get at this issue of access.
The other aspect of this is that I think the member's referring to the GPA required to get into a university. While there may be higher standards to get into universities, they're not the only game in town when it comes to post-secondary education. Students out of high school with lower marks could certainly get into other degree-granting institutions in this province, the university colleges or BCIT. Or they can go to colleges or institutes, for that matter. So there are all kinds of options there, and it's not the case that a student would need a B average just to get into a post-secondary institution in British Columbia.
J. Weisbeck: My concern there, obviously, is that they don't have the same level of options going to some of the colleges as they do at, say, UBC or UVic. I think you're limiting people's choices with that comment. If they want to become a certain thing or attain a certain degree, they're going to go elsewhere. This is my comment. You lose a person out of this province -- for example, going to Washington State or to Alberta or whatever -- and you may end up losing them for life. My biggest concern there is that not having the options, going to colleges, they're going to lose a lot of options there for sure.
[2045]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Every student has the opportunity to go. And if they don't have the marks to go straight into a university, they have the opportunity to go to another institution and raise their marks and transfer. So the opportunity to go to university is still there if there's a specific program. If the member is thinking of someone who wants the opportunity to go to medical school, and they're coming out of high school with a C-plus average
That's all it's about. They will get access somewhere in the system, and in terms of the opportunity to get into the university, it just means that they may have to raise their marks. The point is that the opportunity is there for them to do that.
The Chair: Minding the time, whoever wants to get up
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I know what the motion is; I wanted you to recognize me.
The Chair: Minister, I recognize you.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
A Voice: Resolutions.
The Chair: Resolutions, hon. minister.
Interjection.
The Chair: Okay. The explanation, then, minister, would be that the committee concluded the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. We have to report that as resolutions. When we ask leave to sit again, that continues the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: My apologies. That's so moved.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:49 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada