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

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 15

[ Page 14067 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: Seated in the gallery today are the legislative interns assigned to the government caucus. Tomorrow is their last day, and on behalf of all members of our caucus, I want to thank Paola Baca, Jitesh Mistry and Shaila Seshia for their hard work in the research department. Jitesh is going back to SFU to finish his master's thesis; Shaila has been accepted to do a PhD with the University of Sussex and leaves for the U.K. in September; Paola will return to work for caucus in a few weeks.

On behalf of both sides of the House, I know that we very much appreciate and value the interns who work for our respective caucuses. They are invariably outstanding individuals with high standing in their universities or colleges. They do superb work for us, and we hope they enjoy it. We know that we enjoy their company and their pleasure.

Would the House please join with me in welcoming them today and wishing them well in their future endeavours.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to extend our thanks to the interns who've worked with us over the last number of months. It's always exciting to see them when they come in the first of the year -- and a little intimidating when your read their CVs. I think most members in caucus would struggle pretty hard to keep up with them. They're very bright and fun to work with and really create a good environment, and they add a lot of value to what we do as the opposition -- and, I know, to what the government caucus does in government.

We wish our interns well. They've done a great job with us so far. Some are off to school, some are off to be married, and some are still figuring out what they're going to do -- not unlike many students in British Columbia. On behalf of our side, we'd like to thank the interns who worked with us and the interns who worked with the government, and we look forward to next year's group.

[1410]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are people who have worked along with thousands of other British Columbians for years to make adult guardianship legislation a reality in British Columbia. I want the House to make them welcome. They are: Al Etmanski, executive director of the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network; Christine Gordon of the Community Coalition for the Implementation of Adult Guardianship Legislation and the B.C. Coalition of People With Disabilities; Carol Ward-Hall, executive director of the B.C.

Coalition to Eliminate Abuse of Seniors; Betty Anderson, coordinator of the Victoria Community Response Network; Tom Claw, Burnaby seniors representative; Lola Cook, coordinator of the Mount Arrowsmith Community Response Network; Lou Drage, chair of the Mount Arrowsmith Elder Abuse Prevention Committee; Rob Gordon, director of the school of criminology at Simon Fraser University; Andrew Kellet, chair of the Surrey Community Mental Health Advisory Council; Liz Laharne, seniors representative with the Health Care Consent and Care Facility Admission Task Force; Margaret Neylan, chair of the Seniors Advisory Council; and Joe Scaletta, the elderly outreach service coordinator.

Would the House please make them -- and the many others who are watching -- welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the delight of introducing two frequent visitors to the gallery. One is John Ranta, mayor of Cache Creek and president of the UBCM. Along with him is Richard Taylor, executive director of the UBCM, who has worked extensively with my ministry on a number of issues including a bill that I'll be introducing today. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: On behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, I too would like to welcome the two familiar faces, Mayor Ranta and Mr. Taylor of the UBCM. I know that they have to wait another hour before they know exactly what is in the new bill that will be introduced this afternoon, but in the meantime I'd like to once again welcome them to the House.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure today to introduce, for the benefit of the House, the winners of the 1999 Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial scholarship. This prestigious scholarship is the government's highest scholastic award. It was established in 1971 to commemorate the Queen's visit during our centennial celebrations. The major award is a substantial one worth $20,000, and there are two secondary awards worth $4,000 each. They support British Columbia graduates who are taking postgraduate studies in Commonwealth countries.

In any event, I would like to ask the House to join me in congratulating these winners and in welcoming Noelle Gallagher -- who is here with her mother Deborah and her father Richard -- as well as David Jensen -- who is accompanied to the Legislature by his partner Robin Jarvis -- in recognition of their accomplishments and their future success.

M. de Jong: Six special guests are here from Jaffray. Tom, Tyler, Brittany, Chris and Matt Molenaar are shepherding their father Peter around Victoria today. I hope my colleagues will make them all welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I have two introductions today. The first one is on behalf of my special assistant, Chloe Burgess. Her friend Dr. Michael Temelini is here from Montreal and visiting friends in the building. I understand that Michael is an individual who appreciates a salmon when it's cooked well, so he's come to the right place -- maybe a little early for the season, but we'll see.

The other introduction is a little bit special for me. This is the first opportunity I've had to introduce my MP to the House in Victoria. Grant McNally, MP for Dewdney-Alouette, is here in the gallery with his father-in-law. I wish the House would bid my guests welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to welcome Ed and Mary Froese, two constituents from Yarrow, to the Legislature today.

[ Page 14068 ]

With them is their granddaughter, Leslie, and her husband Scott Loewen, who come from Fresno, California. They said that they're also having a cool spring there this year. Normally they hit 100 degrees in the beginning of June, and it's the end of June this year. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1415]

Secondly, if I might, I would like to acknowledge some of the same people that the Attorney General has acknowledged around adult guardianship, particularly as it relates to this ministry.

In that light, I would acknowledge and ask people to welcome Margaret Neylan, chair of the Seniors Advisory Council, which provides advice to my ministry -- it's a very fine council; Joe Scaletta, the director of the elderly outreach program; Elizabeth Laharne, the seniors representative at the office for seniors -- I've just discovered she is a graduate of the same nursing school that I went to; and Lou Drage, chair of the Mount Arrowsmith Elder Abuse Prevention Committee.

Just to add to that, if I might, Andrew Kellet is a very frequent visitor who provides good advice to my constituency office from Surrey mental health services, and two other people are here as part of that group.

One thing this legislation did was say that everybody, including people with a mental handicap, is presumed to be capable. So I would like to introduce a friend of mine, Al Etmanski, who's the father of a very capable daughter, Elizabeth Etmanski, and my friend Linda Derkach, who's the mother of a very capable friend of mine, Elaine Derkach. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

W. Hartley: In the galleries today we have six young visitors. They're the 789 Girl Scouts Company, and they're from Bothell, Washington. They're here with their scout leader, Ms. E. Pechacek, and some other adults. Would members please welcome them.

J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to have my husband Keith Reid sitting in the gallery. I'd ask that the House make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today, along with others, are six members of the Parliamentary Players, an acting troupe that I think members are familiar with. They help to interpret B.C. history to visitors of the Legislature throughout the summer. This program will communicate the important role of the parliament buildings and provide an educational work experience for talented young artists who have been studying in British Columbia. I'd like to introduce them and let members know what roles they'll be playing. Cherie McMaster from Calgary will be playing Queen Victoria -- a rather different

interpretation than the one we saw yesterday, I dare say. Cara Dick from Kelowna is playing Nellie Cashman; Jeffrey Fisher from Vernon is playing Sir James Douglas; Adam Sawatsky from Victoria is playing Francis Rattenbury; John Bolton from Vancouver will be playing stonemason Hamish MacKinnon; and David Brown from Victoria is playing Amor de Cosmos. These young actors help make the experience of visiting the parliament buildings a more pleasurable one. I'd ask members of the House to join me in making them very welcome.

The Speaker: And to all those who were not introduced -- welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. Kwan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to present the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. Bill 88 is part of the ongoing Municipal Act reform initiative, which is designed to modernize our system of local government to ensure that it meets the needs of British Columbians as we enter the twenty-first century. It is designed to empower local governments, cut excessive red tape and strengthen local government accountability.

The legislation gives municipalities broad service powers and regulatory powers which will allow them to focus on delivering quality public services to their communities without having to constantly come to Victoria for approvals. As part of our long-term plan to streamline local government legislation, Bill 88 will consolidate 100 separate sections of the Municipal Act related to service powers into one.

[1420]

Under this legislation, municipalities will be able to offer taxpayers more flexible options for paying property taxes, including monthly payments. In terms of accountability, the amendments I'm introducing today make it clear that all municipal council, regional district board and committee meetings are to be held in a manner open to the public, except for situations where confidentiality is required.

Bill 88 also includes stronger disclosure requirements for local election contributions. These requirements will now apply to nomination campaigns, as well as general elections. With this legislation, local governments will take on greater responsibility and the greater accountability that goes along with it.

I want to thank UBCM president, Mayor John Ranta, the UBCM executive and everyone who participated in the consultations of the Municipal Act reform that led to this bill being introduced today. I'm very pleased that Mayor John Ranta -- president Ranta -- has joined us in the gallery today for the introduction of this bill, along with Richard Taylor. I'd also like to recognize my staff, who have worked extensively in bringing this package together.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 14069 ]

Bill 88 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce the Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. This act enables partial proclamation of the four statutes known collectively as the adult guardianship legislation. The effective date for this partial proclamation is February 28, 2000. These technical amendments provide the needed links between the new adult guardianship system and the existing legislation until such time as the balance of the new guardianship system is brought into force. The adult guardianship legislation was passed in 1993.

The portions of the four acts comprising the legislation that we're bringing into force will create the representation agreement, which is a new legal document for adults to plan for their future, clarify health care decision-making when adults are incapable of making their own health care decisions, promote the coordination of support and assistance for abused and neglected adults and provide new tools to assist adults who cannot seek help, modernize the law establishing the public trustee and convert it to the new public guardian and trustee office.

Thousands of hours of volunteer effort and community government partnership led to the development of this legislation, and that partnership has continued to this day. I want to recognize the people in communities throughout British Columbia who have made a significant contribution to the development of community response networks, representation agreements and guidelines on various aspects of the legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 92 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Unclaimed Property Act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's my pleasure to introduce the long-awaited Unclaimed Property Act. This act is designed to reunite owners with their unclaimed property. This act will replace the Unclaimed Money Act, which has become outdated and ineffective. The Unclaimed Property Act strengthens the requirements that all holders of unclaimed property, including business organizations, make reasonable efforts to locate and notify rightful owners.

[1425]

With this act, the government of British Columbia has responded to the auditor general's report from 1994, which recommended a review of unclaimed property regulation in other jurisdictions. The ministry has been consulting with key stakeholders -- primarily the business community -- since 1997. The consultation process has been open, it has been inclusive, it has been responsive, and it has actually resulted in a unique approach to the regulation of unclaimed property.

This proposed legislation balances the concerns of the business community with the interests of the consumer. The goal of the legislation will be met without undue regulation of business activity in this province. A regulatory impact statement has been prepared for this proposal.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 91 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

JOB CREATION IN B.C.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the end of the school year in British Columbia, and across the province students are showing up to collect their report cards. We're pleased to find that the Premier has shown up today. The opposition has prepared a report card for the Premier on his job creation assignments that he promised to hand in this year.

Under the government's Power for Jobs scheme, the Premier promised three aluminum smelters and over 6,000 new jobs for British Columbians. He even dared the media to print the good news about the three -- count them: three -- aluminum smelters. My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier tell us whatever happened to this assignment? Whatever happened to the 6,000 jobs? And don't tell us that the dog ate your aluminum smelters.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer this question. British Columbia has created 36,000 new jobs in the last 12 months, hon. Speaker, and I never hear the opposition talk about that. I never hear them talking about Louisiana-Pacific investing in the north of British Columbia, creating jobs. I never hear them talk about Telus, the largest company in Alberta, moving their head office to Vancouver. I never hear them talk about Tembec, from Ontario, buying Crestbrook and investing in value-added in British Columbia.

I never even hear the member from Kelowna, who owns shares, talking about Western Star Trucks making a commitment to thousands of jobs in Kelowna. I never hear the member for Abbotsford talking about 800 jobs in Abbotsford at Conair. I never hear them talking about B.C. OnLine and MDA investing in high-tech and creating jobs in British Columbia.

[ Page 14070 ]

I never hear them talking about the oil and gas industry. Did you know, hon. members, that Wascana has found heavy oil in British Columbia, which will increase oil production in this province by 23 percent -- just in the last few months?

The Speaker: Minister, finish up.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll wait for my next grade, hon. Speaker. But I want to tell the members that there are eight aluminum companies negotiating with the province of British Columbia . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I love it when they do this, hon. Speaker, because they're going to look like such fools when they see . . . . We had staff in London last week, and they have rated . . .

The Speaker: Premier . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: . . . almost uniformly, British Columbia as the best place in the world for a new greenfield aluminum smelter. There will be an aluminum smelter in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, for a first supplementary.

[1430]

G. Farrell-Collins: It's sort of like saying that he's sorry he failed math, but he's really good in sports.

Hon. Speaker, we've gone through the government's press releases over the last couple of years. In fact, the Premier promised 84,966 jobs with only . . . . I think it's about ten or 12 press releases -- only the big ones. On those very projects that he promised the 84,000 jobs, it turns out that we've actually lost 12,348 jobs on those assignments. Power for Jobs was supposed to generate 4,200 jobs. We're only a little over 4,000 jobs short. Highland Valley Copper was supposed to produce 1,200 jobs. Instead, the Premier has lost 1,100 jobs.

Now, any grade 3 student who had failed to hand in all those assignments at this point would be up for a failure. Can the Premier tell us if he intends to hand in those assignments, or is he intending to drop out over the summer months?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I started a list. Let's do some more. The film industry -- a billion dollars this year. What about Weyerhaeuser? They want to invest $3.6 billion in British Columbia companies. Is that not a sign of faith in the B.C. economy? What about the public sector projects? They're opposed to SkyTrain; we know that. SkyTrain starts construction in July. Those are good, decent jobs right here in British Columbia. I haven't heard them on the new trade and convention centre. We're working hard to bring that project in -- an $800 million project in downtown Vancouver and thousands of spinoff jobs as we get more conventions in Vancouver.

The Speaker: Time, Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: I've only begun. Tourism is up in this province.

The Speaker: Premier . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Small business taxes are down.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: The Lions Gate Bridge is under construction. Hon. Speaker, if they would just open their eyes for a minute, they'd see that there are bright spots in the B.C. economy.

The Speaker: Premier, please take your seat.

Hon. G. Clark: It's starting to turn around, and thousands of jobs are being created.

G. Plant: Well, like the teacher said: Mr. Premier, all these excuses, and you still don't hand in your assignments. Way back in 1997 and 1998 the Premier created all kinds of hype and fanfare. He announced that B.C. was on the shortlist for a Nike factory. We were going to get 5,000 new jobs in British Columbia. Well, the Premier hasn't handed in that assignment either. If we're not going to get the assignment, maybe we could get the rough notes. Maybe we could get the outline. So my question is: will the Premier for once just do it?

Hon. G. Clark: How many more do they want, hon. Speaker? How about the IBM Pacific Development Centre -- a partnership with the province? That's 800 new high-tech jobs in Burnaby because of a partnership with the provincial government. Retail sales -- I never heard them -- were up 1.3 percent in British Columbia last month and down everywhere else in Canada. What about the high-tech community? The high-tech community is growing at 25 percent a year.

We are in negotiations with a number of companies in partnerships with the provincial government. We're in negotiations with Nike. There's no question about it. They have not come to a conclusion. I love it when they laugh, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Premier is just finishing. Let him finish his remarks. Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Clark: They don't want to hear the good news. They want to spread doom and gloom. Commodity prices for lumber are at record levels in the United States. Forest companies are making money. People are going back to work. Pulp prices are coming up in this province.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: There are lots of positive signs that we've finally turned the corner. Jobs are starting to come up, and the economy is recovering. There will be more announcements about partnerships between this government and private industry to create jobs in the coming days and weeks.

[1435]

M. de Jong: Well, the Premier says we're being unfair. It has undoubtedly been a tough term for this Premier, but he

[ Page 14071 ]

says that there have been successes. You know, Madam Speaker, on the opposition side, we want to find those successes. We want to celebrate those successes. So we searched and we searched, and we found one.

On June 14, 1999, this NDP government issued a news release under the headline "Timber Sale Offer Creates Two Jobs." Count them -- two jobs. Hold the presses. The government that promised 40,000 new forestry jobs has created two. How does the Premier explain the fact that this historic, groundbreaking announcement about two new jobs was so blatantly ignored by those cynical people in the press gallery?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I know it's the end of the session, so they're desperate for questions. They're desperate for questions.

Listen to the list of initiatives that I just enumerated: Lousiana-Pacific, Weyerhaeuser's faith, Tembec's investment, IBM's investment, MacDonald Dettwiler's investment and all the public sector projects from the Lions Gate Bridge to SkyTrain to the new trade and convention centre. They opposed every single one of them. They have not put forward one positive suggestion about how to improve the economy. They are desperate for failure. They're happy if there are problems in British Columbia. But they're the minority. People in this province are looking for leadership.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: That's right. And they're not getting it from that lot over there. They promise us more for everything, but their suggestions don't add up, and people see through them. They know that we live in the most magnificent province in the most magnificent country in the world, and things are looking up. Things are turning up. If we stay the course, they'll be very depressed, because things are finally turning around in our province.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, the only people that are going to be depressed are the people sitting beside the Premier, if he decides to show up for another term in September. Those are the people that are going to be depressed.

Look, they're his announcements. I've tried to calculate, based on the existing evidence, just how long it would take the NDP to fulfil its forest job creation promises.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: It may happen, and undoubtedly there will be an announcement. I can see it now: "Premier's log, star date 2995.5. Job targets reached. Victory is ours." How can this Premier continually stand in this House -- when he does stand in this House -- and expect to have any credibility, when he has promised British Columbians that he's going to create in excess of 50,000 and what we've seen is an actual loss of 13,000 jobs?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I don't know what he's talking about. The facts are clear: 17,000 net new jobs in the last 12 months. That is not insignificant, and all the signs are finally positive: lumber at $400 (U.S.), workers going back to work, forest industry making money, new investments . . . . Why is that? This side of the House cut costs, and we cut red tape. We cut stumpage fees. We worked with the industry, and it's working.

They're unhappy every time the number of jobs is . . .

The Speaker: Premier, please finish up.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . improved in this province.

The Speaker: Please finish up.

Hon. G. Clark: So I look forward to them . . . . They can laugh all they want. Things are turning in British Columbia. These are real jobs; these are real initiatives . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . and they're paying dividends for our province.

[1440]

TOURISM PROMOTION FOR NORTHEASTERN B.C.

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Tourism B.C. last week announced a $100,000 contribution to an undertaking called Tourism North. It's designed to attract American visitors to Alaska. It does a pretty good job of promoting northwestern B.C., but it totally ignores northeastern British Columbia. The only reference to the northeast suggests that travellers coming from the east through Edmonton should travel to Prince George and then perhaps north on Highway 97 to Dawson Creek -- completely ignoring Highway 2, from Edmonton direct to Dawson Creek, with less than half the distance.

Given that we're completely left out of this magazine, why should the residents of northeastern B.C. expect to attract any visitors this summer as a result of that $100,000 investment?

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, hon. Speaker, I can tell the member that tourists are coming to British Columbia, to every region. Tourism is booming in British Columbia. It's a $9 billion industry.

With respect to that concern, the hon. member, who's a valued member of this House and who has raised this point before about northeastern British Columbia . . . . I raised it with Tourism B.C., which is an arm's-length agency doing marketing, and they put an extra $100,000 into marketing for the north. If it's insufficient or if it's not targeted where it should go, then I'd be pleased to take that up with Tourism British Columbia. The member can come along with me, and we can sort it out so that we get those visitors. I agree with him -- that's a very important area for getting visitors to B.C.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to table a report of the chief electoral officer relating to the statement of votes of the Parksville-Qualicum by-election, December 14, 1998.

[ Page 14072 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of the Whole to debate bills, as agreed upon. I think we're starting with the Health Statutes Amendment Act. And in this House, I have the honour to present a message from his Honour the Administrator.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1999.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs while the debate on the government's estimates for 1999-2000 continues. The first interim supply for this fiscal year, granted by the Legislative Assembly, was for one-quarter of the tabled estimates for voted expenses. This funding will be exhausted by June 30, 1999. Therefore a second interim supply is required to provide for the continuation of government programs.

Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to advance through all stages this day.

The Speaker: An interim supply bill falls into the category of a bill which, by precedent in this House, has been permitted to advance through all stages in one day, and I so rule today.

Bill 90, Supply Act (No. 2), 1999, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask that you remain in your seats for a few moments while the bill is being circulated by the Sergeant-at-Arms staff. Then we'll continue.

[1445]

Hon. members, I call the House back to order. The bill has been circulated. Members who have business elsewhere, please attend there but leave the chamber quietly.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1999

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The bill requests one-twelfth of the voted expenses as presented in the 1999-2000 estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government while the estimates debate is completed.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is the second supply bill for this fiscal year. I can't think of a year since 1992 where we haven't had two interim supply bills through the early part of the session. Each year I am hopeful that the government is actually going to bring the House in a little earlier, get to work a little earlier and have a fiscal plan and a legislative plan to move this stuff forward in a reasonable time. Year after year, I'm disappointed. This year is no exception.

Despite the fact that this House came in several times over the last year . . . . We adjourned last summer at the end of July, came back in December for second reading of the Nisga'a debate and then came back in January to complete the Nisga'a debate. We only sat for a month -- three weeks, actually -- until the government pulled the plug. We left the Legislature and then didn't come back again until the very end of March, right at the end of the fiscal year, to bring in the government's budget and to get interim supply for the next three months.

At any one of the opportunities along there, the government could have -- if it hadn't been in complete disarray -- brought in the budget earlier. It could have brought in the budget in February; it could have brought in the budget earlier in March. Indeed, a previous administration -- same party, but a different administration -- in 1992 brought the House in about mid-March. In fact, that was a pattern for some time. Under its new leader, this government seems to try to bring the House in absolutely as late as possible in order to get supply for the three months that follow.

Every year it seems that despite the best attempts of the opposition, we end up here at the end of June with another supply bill. This year it happens to be for an additional month.

The fact of the matter is that the Legislature has virtually completed the estimates process, with the exception of a portion of the health care estimates and the Premier's estimates. We tried to start our evening sittings a little earlier this year, to have a bit more order in the way that the Legislature dealt with the supply, and to a certain extent that worked. But I must say that we could have completed the estimates process much, much earlier. The government came back in March and continued with committee stage of the Nisga'a bill. At that point in time, the budget had been introduced.

Had the budget speech progressed and the government then moved the estimates process forward, we could have been well underway in the estimates long before now. In fact, we would have probably completed them by now, because we could have moved them into Committee A; we could have started the work there.

[1450]

It amazes me that year after year we end up in this situation. Because of bad planning, a bad legislative agenda -- no legislative agenda -- no sense of cohesion or planning that goes into what we're going to do here in the Legislature, we again end up in this situation. It seems that year after year the same thing happens: mismanagement, misplanning, poor planning. Year after year we end up in the same situation.

We talked earlier today -- in question period, in fact -- about the government's job creation record and some of the announcements they've made over the last number of years in an effort to attract jobs to British Columbia. I know that when people are looking to invest, they look to see what kind of a government they're going to have to deal with. In British Columbia they look at a government that has failed year after year to get its supply through on time. They look at a government that year after year comes in with a scattered legislative agenda, a government that's in disarray, a government that

[ Page 14073 ]

doesn't seen to understand that stability and predictability are part of what attracts investors to a particular climate -- along with all the other things that we often talk about.

The fact that we sit here in this Legislature year after year and deal with our budget in the way that we deal with it is, I think, entirely inappropriate. We should have a fixed budget day for the province of British Columbia so that people know when the budget is coming in. We should have a plan to deal with the estimates that will get them completed in the time required. Interim supply should not be used by the government just as it pleases because it can't get its act together sufficiently to get its legislative agenda through.

The problem, too, with this is that we're again being asked to grant the government more money -- one-twelfth of this year's budget -- when we all know that the government failed in this year's budget to deal with the problems that are arresting people in British Columbia and that are hurting families right across this province. The downturn in the economy continues. We're still in recession in B.C., despite the amazing revisionist theories of the Premier, whom we heard less than half an hour ago talking about how everything's wonderful in British Columbia and everything's turned around and everything's back on the rise. That's clearly not the case.

Housing starts are at a record low. Since we've been keeping track, they've never been lower than they are now; in 50 years, housing starts per capita have never been this low. Retail sales are off substantially from last year. The Premier picks one month and says that they've gone up. It's ridiculous to use that kind of comparison. To think that the Premier bases his philosophy and his plan for British Columbia on statistics like that. If he's that selective with his statistics, it's no wonder that he doesn't understand what's happening in British Columbia right now.

It's no wonder that we're in the problems that we're in right now, because that's the way the government views the economy and the way the Premier views the economy.

For the Premier to stand up and ask for more supply, for more money, from the Legislature of British Columbia when he has yet to prove himself worthy of those funds is unfortunate. The Premier has once again delayed his estimates to the very end of the estimates process so that he need not be accountable for the work -- or lack of work -- that's gone on in his office and the lack of vision that's been exhibited by his office on the economy. He leaves it till the last so he doesn't have to defend it. That's part of the reason why we're sitting here today having to debate a supply bill once again.

[1455]

Over the last number of years, this government has refused -- despite the comments, the advice and the recommendations of thousands of British Columbians -- to come to terms with their inability to manage their finances and to manage the economy. Other provinces in Canada are doing much, much better than British Columbia is.

In fact, CIBC Economics Group sent out a package today which cautioned the provinces of Canada to stay the course with their debt management, to continue to run surpluses, to continue to pay down their debts, because it is the right thing to do for their economies and the right thing to do for the people in their provinces. It is shocking to read it, because you just realize that not only is British Columbia not in the mainstream, we're not even in the same river as everyone else.

The rest of the provinces are balancing their budgets, they're paying down their debts, they're getting their economies up and started and running and prosperous, and they're managing to control their expenditures.

The province of Alberta is one example. It's interesting to see what's happened in Alberta over the last couple of years, because the people in Alberta are starting to reap the benefits . . .

H. Giesbrecht: Of their gaming policy.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . . of their government getting its economy in order.

The member for Skeena says it's because of their gaming policy. Well, I thought that the government of British Columbia had decided against an aggressive expansion of gaming, but it appears that the member for Skeena wasn't at that caucus meeting. Or is it just that policy changes so fast on that side of the House from caucus meeting to caucus meeting that if you miss one, you don't know exactly what's happening? Maybe the member for Skeena could get up to speed on what's happening with his caucus, or maybe this is the precursor of the fact that the government has changed its plans yet again.

We know -- or at least we were told -- that there was an emergency caucus meeting of the NDP today to deal with something. Maybe they've changed their gaming policy again, and we're going to see that.

In Alberta, if you look at the trends that have taken place there over time, you see that in the last couple of years the people of Alberta are starting to reap the benefits. In fact, spending on health care in Alberta is substantially higher than it was before the cutbacks were ever initiated -- substantially higher. In fact, they cut back, I think, about $400 million in health care spending, and now health care spending is about $1.2 billion more than it was at the height of the cuts.

So in fact health care spending in Alberta has gone up dramatically and is forecast to go up dramatically over the next number of years. Indeed, spending in Alberta on education is going up as well. Health care spending in Alberta has gone up well beyond what the cuts were initially, well beyond what they were before . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister asks me if we're going to get their MPs to run for us as well. Well, we might get one of her former cabinet colleagues to run for us: Ms. Pement, a former cabinet member of the NDP, has joined the opposition to the NDP and is now part of our party. Who knows? She just may choose to run, and the people in her community just may choose to back her, and she could become part of the opposition to the government and part of a new plan.

It's people from right across the political spectrum that are uniting to oppose this government. That's why they're at 16 percent in the polls; that's why the Premier has a 78 percent disapproval rating -- a record level for a leader in British Columbia since they've been polling. I know that the Minister of Finance may be uncomfortable with that -- to find out that when she walks out of this building, there's really only she and part of her caucus that still supports the Premier and that the rest of the province doesn't -- but that's the reality of it.

So if you look at what's happened in Alberta over the last couple of years . . . . Prior to their cutbacks in health care, they

[ Page 14074 ]

were at about $4.2 billion that they spent on health care. And they took about half a billion dollars out of health care spending. But now, in the last three or four years, health care spending in the province of Alberta is almost $5 billion. Their debt service costs have dropped by almost a corresponding amount; they've gone down by almost $1 billion in roughly the same period of time.

[1500]

So the fact is that the people of Alberta had dealt with some very tough times, but they balanced their budgets. They've been paying down their debt. They've paid off $8.3 billion of debt in the last six years. Their debt service costs have dropped by $1 billion.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: All of that money is going back into their health care and education system. They're reaping the benefits of good fiscal management.

The member for Skeena asked me how many . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Skeena will have a chance to enter the debate, should he wish to do so. In the meantime, interruptions are not helpful. The member continues.

G. Farrell-Collins: I await the day that the member for Skeena actually gets up in this House and enters into the debate. I think that what happened in 1992, when he got here, was that one of his colleagues played a trick on him and Krazy Glued his seat to the chair. He hasn't been able to get up in the last seven years. They probably should have used the Krazy Glue for another part of his anatomy. Then we wouldn't have had to listen to him and his heckling over the last seven years. But we'll wait and see what he does with that.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague from Peace River North raises the fact that the Albertans tend not to fly their patients to British Columbia for health care,

whereas there seems to be a number of health care patients in British Columbia who end up in Edmonton and Calgary hospitals in order to get health care. So I don't know what the true story is there. But I'm sure that the member for Skeena will get up and engage in the debate and help us with those figures.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members will come to order. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Finance minister had her chance. I thought she would have got up and said more to justify the supply, but perhaps she won't.

If you look at what has happened in Alberta, their health care and education spending is at record levels. It's climbing dramatically at the same time as their debt service costs are dropping.

I did hear the member for Skeena talk about the hospitals that closed in Alberta, but I didn't hear him talk about the hospitals that were closed in Saskatchewan by the NDP government. It seems to me that another social democratic government . . . . I'm not sure that this one's got very much social democracy left, in the NDP; it's more like a big-labour party. But certainly the social democratic government in Saskatchewan has done similar things. They're supposed to be left of centre. They in fact had to deal with some tough times in Saskatchewan.

But they balanced their budget year after year, six years in a row. They've been paying down their debt, and they're putting more money into health care and education.

So it doesn't matter whether you're a left-of-centre party, an extreme-left party or a right-of-centre party. It doesn't seem to matter in other parts of Canada. They're all trying to get their finances in order and all trying to present a reasonable fiscal approach to managing the people's finances.

In British Columbia we seem to be off in some never-never land, with the Premier hallucinating about all sorts of jobs. He thinks that all you have to do to create a job is to have a press release or a photo op, and therefore the jobs exist. If you announce that there are going to be 6,000 jobs in the aluminum sector, then they exist. He doesn't understand that making the announcement and the photo op is only the first part of it. You've actually got to create the jobs. You've actually got to have the businesses come to British Columbia, invest, expand, hire people and create jobs; that's what it takes.

It doesn't just take a photo op; it doesn't just take a press release. It takes hard work. It takes creating an economic climate that fosters business and allows for business to create jobs, to create opportunities for people in your province.

All other provinces have figured that out -- all the other nine provinces, whether they're the NDP government in Saskatchewan, a Conservative government in Alberta or Liberal governments in places like New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or wherever. They have all realized that in order to have a prosperous economy, in order to create jobs and in order to give people opportunity, you have to get your fiscal house in order.

It's very interesting to see, once again, that this government is back here asking for more money -- asking for more cash -- to get them through . . . .

[1505]

An Hon. Member: How much more?

G. Farrell-Collins: " How much more?" my colleague asks. I think they're asking for about $1.7 billion for the next month.

If the government were spending that money wisely, if they actually had a credible budget and a credible fiscal plan, I'm sure all members of the House would be enthusiastic in supporting this request for supply. But as we've gone through the estimates process, whether it be in Forests or Finance or you name it -- whichever ministry; we're now doing Health -- we hear of litany after litany of failures. We hear about programs that aren't delivering what they promised.

An Hon. Member: Oil and gas is down 15 percent.

G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague tells me that oil and gas is down 15 percent. We know that the job creation record of the government has been abysmal. We know that the health care system continues to have crisis after crisis. I think it was

[ Page 14075 ]

the Minister of Finance herself who said that every year we seem to throw more money at it, and the problem never goes away. Maybe the problem isn't throwing more money at it; maybe the problem is that they're not managing it very well. The government doesn't seem to have an agenda, doesn't seem to have a way to deal with the financing of this province, doesn't have a plan in its budget to correct some of these problems.

I have sat in this House for seven years now. This is actually the eighth time I've had to sit in this chamber and listen to the health care estimates, and after seven or eight years, it's the same issues that are coming forward. It's wait-lists that aren't getting any shorter. It's money that's not being spent appropriately. It's people having to fly out of the province to get health care from that demon province, Alberta. It's people having to go down to the United States to get health care -- although I think there's a little less of that than there used to be. But it seems that there is no credible plan to move these issues forward. Year after year we grapple with them.

Education is the same thing. The Premier thinks that all you have to do is create a photo op and you've solved the problem. We saw one a couple of weeks ago, where the Premier was trying to tell us that the government was going to get rid of portables. We've been hearing that announcement since 1990, before the first time this government was elected. I think we've got twice as many portables now as we had in 1992. The Premier says: "We've got a problem with portables. I know how to solve it.

Let's have a photo op." So what they do is go and find a portable, they take it and attach it to a school, and then they put the Premier in the seat of a truck, so he can drive the portable away. The problem's gone, according to the government. It's over; they've solved the problem.

They deal with portables the same way they deal with job creation. You have a photo op. You have an announcement. You get the Premier to stand up and read off the list of announcements. And we're all supposed to believe that the jobs have been created. We're all supposed to believe that the portables have disappeared. We're all supposed to believe that the wait-lists are gone. The Minister of Health has stood up in the House -- how many times? How many times has she stood up in front of a podium? How many times has she stood up in front of a television camera?

How many press releases have she and her predecessors -- the three or four other Health ministers we've had in this province in the last seven or eight years -- put out, saying: "Here, we're injecting new money into the health care system. We're going to eliminate wait-lists"? It's eight years later, and the wait-lists are longer, not shorter.

So the government came up with a new angle. They've gone into the high-tech sector. The government has come up with a wait-list web site. British Columbians can get on the web site and find shorter waiting lists and plan their route to better health. We find out now that according to the government's own web site, there are over 2,000 new people on the wait-lists. Either there is something wrong with the web site or with the way it's being reported, or the government hasn't been reporting the problem accurately over the last number of years. I don't know which one of those it is, but any one of them is a problem.

If it's the first one -- that the web site is inaccurate -- then they're not telling people the truth about the state of the wait-lists in the province. If the information that is being reported there to them is inaccurate, then they've got a reporting problem. If the web site is actually accurate, that means that they haven't been reporting the information accurately in the past. They've been misleading British Columbians in the past about the real state of wait-lists.

Maybe the new high-technology trick the government is trying with the web site is going to solve the problem. Maybe it's highlighting further problems, and maybe it's actually going to finally tell British Columbians the truth about what the government has done in the last number of years.

If we on this side of the House felt that those problems were being dealt with and that those problems were moving forward, we'd all be enthusiastic about granting further supply to the government, because it would be stopping those problems. It would be correcting those problems. It would be improving the state of the economy, the state of health care and the state of education in the province of British Columbia. But clearly that hasn't been happening.

I must tell you the frustration that I as a member of the opposition sense, year after year, standing up in this House and asking the government almost the very same questions, highlighting the same problems for this government and dealing with interim supply debates.

[1510]

We sit around the clock and try to create some sense of urgency with the government, and we're ignored. The British Columbians who speak to us and the British Columbians who speak through us in this chamber are also ignored. Year after year we grapple with this. Year after year we chide and chastise the government about their lack of a fiscal plan. Year after year we chastise the government about their inability to run a proper legislative agenda and move forward. Year after year we go into the Premier's estimates, and the Premier promises us that we're going to sit down and talk about improving the way this place works. And year after year those promises are broken.

It reaches a point where the only recourse that is available to the people who speak to us and speak through us is an election. It's the only thing that is going to finally settle the matter. It is the only thing that is going to finally clear the air. It is the only thing that is going to change the direction of this government -- by replacing this government. The people of British Columbia are bitterly disappointed with the performance of the New Democrats over the last eight years.

They are bitterly disappointed with the way they've been misled, with the way they've been promised things only to find out that there was never an intention of delivering in the first place. They are bitterly disappointed with turning the news on every night and hearing the latest gimmick that the Premier has thought up to get himself on the 6 o'clock news, knowing full well that there is about as much fact in that as there is in turning on the television and watching Bart Simpson make a promise. That's about how much reality there is.

It's hard to tell anymore where the comedy starts on the news, where the tragedy starts on the news and where the government's announcements fit in. They're blurring. They're pretty much the same. The Premier stands up every day . . . . We saw the one I highlighted, with the school; we're going to see another one, I'm sure, tomorrow. The Premier announced today that there are going to be more aluminum smelter announcements in the weeks to come, and I'm sure there will be. I'm sure before the next election . . . . He said today that it's eight aluminum companies now. It's not three anymore; it's eight aluminum companies that are thinking about investing here in British Columbia.

[ Page 14076 ]

To hear those kinds of words fly out of the Premier's mouth and to expect that that is somehow going to be reassuring to people in British Columbia is, I think, sheer falsehood. The people of British Columbia don't believe what the Premier tells them anymore. That's his problem. That's his fundamental problem. I know the Premier goes home every night and wonders why he's not getting any traction with the voters -- why the voters aren't able to see that the government is doing all the right things.

When the Premier and the Minister of Finance come and ask us for more money, it's our duty to ask the government why they need this money and if they've changed their ways. If they need this money, then perhaps they're going to enlighten us and tell us that they've changed their ways, that they've got a better plan than the one they've been working on for the last eight years and that in fact they're going to try and turn the corner and change the way British Columbia works. But we see that the Premier is still in dreamland. He still is under some illusion that what he has been doing for the last three years has worked.

I don't know how he continues to delude himself. Maybe he sifts through the tea leaves of economic news and pulls out the one little kernel of statistical plus and says: "Hey! Retail sales went up a half a percentage point last month. Everything's fine." He's ignoring the fact that retail sales are off dramatically over last year.

An Hon. Member: Housing starts are at a 40-year low.

G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague reminds me again that housing starts are at . . . . Actually, I think it's a 50-year low. I think that since we've been keeping track, it's at a 50-year low.

[1515]

So I'm frustrated, as a member of the opposition -- and my colleagues are frustrated -- that year after year, time after time . . . . This is probably the fourteenth or fifteenth interim supply bill that this Legislature has had to debate in the time that I've been here and in the time that the New Democrats have been in government. None of the debate -- none of the cautions, none of the urgings, none of the revelations -- has done one bit to change the government's mind. They have not changed the direction of this government one iota.

In fact, the most recent budget affirms that this government continues on a track of record spending, record deficits, a record buildup in debt and record high taxes.

They don't get it. I don't think that anything we could possibly say here in this Legislature is going to see that they get it this year as opposed to other years. In fact, I expect that they'll go ahead and do exactly the same thing. If this administration, heaven forbid, happens to last another eight or nine months and we're forced to see the 2000-2001 budget, I expect that it will reflect the fact that the government has still not figured it out.

So I don't see much point in standing up here, yelling at this government and trying to correct the government's ways and to pass on the recommendations of British Columbians to this government -- as we've done year after year -- when they continue to reject it year after year.

I think that the sooner we can get over the business of this government, get rid of this government and have an election and get a new government in place, we'll all be a lot better off.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting exercise to pursue the choices that people make during a budget. We've made our choices perfectly clear, and the choices are much different from those that governments in other provinces have made.

It is simply ridiculous to compare health care or education spending in Alberta as an example to hold up to this government in some way. If we had actually followed the example of Alberta, we would be sitting here with a $500 million surplus based on this year's budget. If we had made the choices around gaming revenue that Alberta has made, we would be sitting here with a $1 billion surplus. It is simply ridiculous . . . . Maybe it isn't ridiculous. Maybe this opposition is actually going the way of the members that it's trying to recruit. Maybe it is going to actually change its name.

Maybe we'll be standing up and asking for a private member's bill to have the Liberal name changed to Reform, to actually reflect what they really stand for.

Anyway, we are here to determine supply. It is straightforward, and I would move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 90, Supply Act (No. 2), 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1999

The House in committee on Bill 90; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[1520]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Goodacre

Janssen

[ Page 14077 ]

NAYS -- 26

Whittred

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

Barisoff

J. Reid

McKinnon

J. Wilson

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 90, Supply Act. (No. 2), 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[1525]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Wilson: I have the honour to table the 1998-99 annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In Committee A, I call Committee of the Whole to debate the bills as agreed.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

(continued)

On vote 36: ministry operations, $7,569,524 (continued).

[1530]

I. Chong: Seeing that I was asking questions of the minister before the lunch break, I would like to continue at this time. Before we did adjourn, we were talking about the Royal Jubilee Hospital development, phase 1. We discussed the cost overruns. I just want to confirm that the minister will provide me with an update on that, as she did last year -- only, hopefully, this year that much sooner.

Also, in the context of that, when she does respond, if there are any overruns for this year, if she could also elaborate on the factor that was cited as a reason for the cost overrun . . . . That is the issue of fluctuating currency. Again, that caught me by surprise when I read the letter that I received from the minister's office. As I say, thinking that the entire project was a B.C. build and B.C. labour and B.C. materials, fluctuating currency seemed a bit odd in that context.

I also spoke to the minister before the break about some constituency concerns that have been raised in my riding, in particular about a senior who was not able to receive home care support when he returned from surgery. At that time I did not give the name of the constituent, which I'm prepared to do, because the constituent is quite happy for the minister to know. It is a Mr. Hall, who lives in Oak Bay. It was his neighbour, Mr. Peter Holloway, I believe, who had contacted our office and indicated his concern for his neighbour. Were it not for the concern of Mr. Holloway, the neighbour, Mr. Hall's situation could have been much more tragic.

In conclusion on that particular file, Mr. Hall then sent me a letter. As I say, his suggestion as a result of his experience was that every doctor and surgeon must ask each patient whether they live alone and "Will you need help? If so, what kind?" so that the doctor can assist in arranging it if that is the case. So I just leave that for the minister, as well, so that she's aware of those concerns of seniors which I represent -- many in the riding that I represent.

The other issue I also want to provide to the minister is another constituent. Again this has to do with wait-lists. I know that the wait-list issue has arisen, but it continues to plague the people in the riding that I represent. Ms. Julie Keyes waited so long for surgery for kidney stones that apparently it's very likely that she may now have some permanent kidney damage. So in the context of that, hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister: can she advise whether the wait-list for surgery in that area has improved or if there is still a substantial backlog in kidney surgery?

[1535]

Hon. P. Priddy: I thank the member for asking her questions sequentially. We have one or two we still have to work on, but I can answer a couple of them. And thank you for providing the information. If you can provide the information about the person to the ministry, we will do some follow-up on that. We checked -- actually, after you asked the question, just to be doubly sure -- with the capital health region. I can only speak for the policy, and it sounds like the policy didn't work in this case. The policy is that services are in place and arranged prior to discharge from hospital.

Clients in hospital are supposed to be visited by a liaison nurse, and appropriate home support services, if necessary, are arranged. So that is what is supposed to happen; that is the policy. It does not sound like this happened in this particular patient's case. If you can provide that information to us, we will follow up as to why that support might not have occurred for that gentleman.

In terms of Royal Jubilee Hospital, my understanding is that the original project was $83.5 million. I think what we referred to last year -- or at least in the letter that you received -- was an additional cost of $5.941 million due to contaminated soil, asbestos, etc., which was the cost overrun referred to in the letter. You asked if there had been any other cost overruns -- additional costs approved since the original amount. There has been one. In June this year, just recently, $3.7 million was approved to cover the lowest tendered cost.

I. Chong: To the minister's last remarks about the additional cost of $3.7 million, would she be able to clarify that, perhaps, in the context of the lowest . . . ? What I'm looking for is: was it a cost that was paid out that actually did not receive any tangible benefit? If it was just to satisfy a legal requirement, I would be curious to find that out.

Hon. P. Priddy: What happened in this circumstance -- and it could happen either higher or lower in others . . . . When a project is put on the capital plan and approved, there's an estimated cost for that. In this case the estimated cost was $83.5 million. When the tender came in, the lowest tender was $3.7 million over the $83.5 million that had originally been estimated.

I. Chong: I would surmise from that comment that the budget would therefore have to have been revised from its

[ Page 14078 ]

original budget, which was $83.5 million. We have a revision, so the target we would be looking at is $87.2 million if we were to measure this two or three years from now as to a project that comes in on time and on budget.

The difficulty, of course, as the minister must be aware, is that when you have moving targets in terms of your budget because of extras and adjustments to tenders, etc., then it's very difficult for people to really get a handle on whether the project has come in on budget -- which is something, I'm sure, that every ministry wants to have happen in its capital projects. So I would just like a final confirmation, if at all possible, of the final budget projection -- the target amount that we will be measuring to when the project is complete.

Hon. P. Priddy: The final target will be $101.6 million.

I. Chong: I'd like to move on to another issue here in the capital health region. That is, about a month ago a press release was issued on a weekend, announcing additional spending that was coming to the capital health region. As a result of that, obviously, I was called and asked to comment on it -- not only from constituents but also from members of the media. I was quite surprised to have to respond to $116 million extra that was being provided to the capital health region.

Lo and behold, I realized later that in fact it is the additional amounts that are included in the current year's budget, the '99-2000 budget. It was not additional moneys over and above what has been allocated for this budget but in fact is the budgeted amount, which is an increase over last year's spending.

[1540]

The difficulty with that -- as the minister can, I hope, appreciate -- is that when announcements are made time after time, it naturally confuses constituents. They think that more spending is being allocated toward health care each and every time the announcements are reannounced, when in fact there is not a second or third injection of moneys. It causes a lot of confusion. Not only does it cause confusion; it causes one to investigate further.

What I've discovered or what has been brought to my attention is that the extra $116 million for the capital health region in this year's current budget in fact was moneys for programs that were initiated last year, in '98-99. So this extra $116 million is to cover last year's programs and in fact will not improve or increase health care services for the current year. This is what I've been told by people who work in the health care field. I'm wondering if the minister can provide some further clarification on that. I'm not absolutely sure if it's $116 million or $161 million; I may have my figures transposed on that. But I know it is in that range.

Hon. P. Priddy: Sorry; we don't have all our press releases here. If you have one and could pass it across to us, I'd be grateful, because $116 million -- at least in the information in front of me, presented by staff -- isn't a number that we have.

In point of fact, the capital health region did receive an overall budget increase of 3.7 percent. Whatever programs they were running last year would have been annualized in their base last year. So this is additional money this year. Their total operating budget is $476,835,325, which is almost a 3.5 percent change. So I would need to look at the press release -- I'm sorry -- to understand. But they do have new money. It's not only to sustain the programs that were begun last year. They do indeed have additional resources this year -- about $16 million, actually.

I. Chong: I apologize to the minister. I don't have that press release here, but it was about a month ago. The answer that the minister has given is fine, in terms of that particular press release. But my understanding, of course, was that the additional increase this year was based on programs that were announced for the capital health region to provide or to be expanded or enhanced.

I'm not exactly sure, other than the fact that I have spoken to people in the health care industry who have said: "Really, that extra money isn't going to allow us to do anything extra, other than what we're required to do." If the idea is to increase funding for health care services, one would logically expect that it would be to provide new services, not to pay for the services that are required as a result of announcements from the previous year. That's where the question lies. I'll leave it for the minister to ponder; and if she wishes to respond to me, that's fine.

In another area, again in my constituency, last year I asked about the Queen Alexandra Hospital for Children, the Queen Alexandra Foundation for Children and the ongoing signing of the agreement. This is a very short answer that the minister can provide: has the agreement finally been signed last year? It was to be very soon; it's now ten months later. I'm assuming that the agreement with the Queen Alexandra Hospital has been signed -- with the capital health region -- and that there were no difficulties or problems encountered with that.

[1545]

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't believe it has been signed. I believe there is still discussion above and beyond what was actually recommended when the proposal-in-principle was agreed to. Certainly QA continues to provide the services it's always provided at the level it's provided them, but I don't think the final agreement has been signed.

I. Chong: Then perhaps the minister could provide me with some details -- if not now, then perhaps by way of a written response -- as to what the delays are, preventing or precluding the agreement from the proper signatories. The reason I ask is that it began, I believe, two years ago, prior to this minister assuming responsibility for the Ministry of Health. When the Miriam Gropper report was released, we were told that all the recommendations had been accepted by the Ministry of Health and that it would be signed very shortly. So last year -- it had been a year since then -- I asked if it would be signed very shortly, and the minister replied yes.

It just causes one to raise the question: if it's all agreed to and everything is fine, why aren't we signing this document? If there are other issues to be dealt with, there would also be further costs, I would imagine, to revise, amend or alter the agreement. We're looking at additional legal costs or consultants' fees. I don't know to what extent, financially, but that's a concern. We know there are very few, scarce health care dollars. Certainly we want them to be spent for the patients and not for a continuum of legal services. So if the minister is able to provide that at a later date, I will accept that.

I'm anxious to move on to another issue as well. There is a group called Citizens Concerned About Aphasia. They've contacted me, as I know they've contacted other members in

[ Page 14079 ]

the capital health region and perhaps throughout the province. I understand that those who have heard the presentation have been receptive to the idea. So I'm just wondering where the Ministry of Health is moving on this issue, whether an aphasia centre is being considered in the capital health region -- whether it's being considered anywhere -- and what deliberations will be taking place. Is this something that needs to go out through a public consultation process? Or is it just not being considered at all?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I can just go back to QA for a moment, we will get you that information. Again, I would prefer to get it for you before estimates are over. I agree that last year we thought it was all optimistic and should be signed soon. Of course it's puzzling a year later, when it is still not signed. So the member's question is a fair one, and we will get that information for her.

In terms of funding for people with aphasia, we are not aware at this time that we have received a provincial proposal. As I say, we're not aware. I have people saying no. You know, we can always be proven wrong, but at this time we're not aware that we have received a proposal for funding for people with aphasia. They may have received proposals at regional health levels. In fact, I don't doubt that they have, because I know the issue is primarily for adults who've had CVAs and have lost speech as a result of that, although it certainly could include other people as well. I would expect that those have been made at a regional level.

[1550]

We will know, when we look at the health plan that is in from the capital region. The member herself may know. I don't know whether they have included in their budget any funding for adults with aphasia. I would certainly suggest to the member -- and I think she knows that, and therefore I would be fairly direct about it -- that it is a challenge. It's a challenge all over the province. Normally, when you look at speech therapy or speech pathology, the focus has historically -- in the last 30 or 40 years, I mean -- been on infants and children who have difficulty developing speech.

So the focus on adults who have had speech and lost it, particularly as older adults, has only reasonably recently been one that people have brought to the fore. But we will check with your health plan, and you may wish to check with your health board in terms of whether they have submitted something for it.

I. Chong: Regrettably, I believe that the regional health board -- the capital health region here -- has not included it within their plan. Again, due to funding commitments and requirements, it's not yet being considered. But I raise it on the basis of whether the ministry as a whole is looking into this area. We've seen the ministry move into areas of funding for midwifery. We've seen the ministry moving in the area of alternative medicine. It may be something that requires the ministry to take the lead on, versus people going to all the regional boards to solicit support for and understanding of this.

So in that context, I ask whether the ministry itself is looking at this or whether it's low on the priority list at this time. I'll let the minister answer.

Hon. P. Priddy: No, we are not looking at it provincially at this time. I think the examples that the member uses around midwifery or traditional Chinese medicine are about professionals incorporated in a college providing a service. If we were to take it on at a provincial level and say to all regional health boards, "You must fund programs for adults with aphasia," then we could quickly lengthen that list to services for people who are hearing impaired or mobility impaired. That list starts to grow.

I think that the regional health boards need to make that decision. I mean, they need to put it in their plan and submit that plan to the ministry -- fair enough. But there may be some health authorities that don't have a high number of adults and may not choose to put their dollars there, even though they still have adults who need it. There may be areas like the capital region and others, with a high proportion of seniors, which would wish to include it. So we're not looking at providing provincial funding to do that, but we'll certainly look at anything that comes from a regional plan.

While I'm on my feet, hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Priddy: I notice in the gallery two colleagues who are, I'm sure, here to watch the Health estimates, because they have a profound interest in the health care profession. They are Chris Allnutt and Mike Old from the HEU. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

I. Chong: I thank her for her clarification on that issue. I think it's important that those who would review the Hansard after this date or who are watching now understand the process by which certain forms of health care services are not funded. I think that clarification may help those who want to pursue this issue a little more.

Before I move on to a few other constituency areas . . . . This does not actually fall within my constituency, but as the sort of greater Victoria MLA in the opposition benches, I feel that I need to ask a very quick question to the minister. It's whether or not another major project in the capital health region, the replacement of Mount St. Mary Hospital at the Fairfield Health Centre . . . . Again, can the minister advise whether we are on time on that -- I think the date expected for completion is March 2002 -- and whether we are also on budget at this time?

Hon. P. Priddy: The most recent information I have is that they are both on time and on budget.

I. Chong: The issue of home support, which we've touched on very briefly in discussing some constituency concerns, has been very much heightened in terms of awareness in the last three or four months. The capital health region board went through a contract-restructuring process about four months ago; I know that the minister is well aware of that. I know that there have been difficulties in contract restructuring in the Ministry for Children and Families, for example, where the whole process was halted.

[1555]

I'm questioning, as well, whether the need for contract restructuring was necessary in this region. The home care support services that were being provided, as I understand, were being well provided to those who were receiving the

[ Page 14080 ]

services -- namely, the patients. When the restructuring occurred, two of the more long-term agencies here -- one being Island Community Home Support Services Society, and I don't have the name of the other with me -- were cut out of the named agencies that could provide the services. Patients were calling my office; I'm sure they were calling other members on the government side concerning this.

I'm wondering whether there's any direction that the Ministry of Health staff place on the regional health boards in the area of contract restructuring, whether there is a valid business plan that has to support contract restructuring and what cost savings are looked at -- in essence, whether a thorough review before this kind of project is undertaken. It's simply because in the area of home care support, people are very much tied to their home care support providers. Any change sometimes causes severe stress on those who rely on continuity and familiar faces. I'm wondering if the minister can provide a little more clarification on what occurred.

Hon. P. Priddy: We have said to the health authorities that if they need to do that kind of restructuring, they can and should. But they need to do it based on, probably, two or three factors. One of them is that, yes, they do have to have a business plan to go forward with that. Secondly, I think that they must bear in mind the kind of quality home support that is offered to people and that because we are a medicare system, if you will, they have to be very conscious of the not-for-profit components of the home support system.

I have met with a number of people from Victoria, particularly people with disabilities, who've been concerned that the restructuring may, for them . . . . They are less concerned about the process of restructuring than the fact that if you're a person who needs a significant amount of assistance with the activities of daily living and you've had the same home support worker for a year or two or three years -- whatever that is . . . . If suddenly someone says, "You're going to have someone new," that's very frightening for people.

I think that our work with people with disabilities in Victoria -- last time I checked, which was a couple of weeks ago -- is going reasonably well towards meeting the needs of people with disabilities who have those concerns.

I. Chong: I just want to say for the record that I've found the name of the other agency. The two agencies that were not included in terms of providing contract services were Island Community Home Support Services Society and Fernwood Home Support Services Society, both of which use a complement of volunteers, I believe, as well as paid staff. I think it was distressing to those employees, many of whom were not organized employees and had been working for many years, to no longer be able to continue to work for their society and have to find alternate work through an organized labour structure in the other nine contracted agencies that did receive it.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

I think it's important that when contract restructuring does occur -- and if in fact there is a business plan, as the minister states -- that it also be made public or provided to those inquiring. I don't know if that has been forthcoming. If the minister has those copies, would she be able to provide those to me?

[1600]

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the business plan that the capital region put together, I would suggest . . . . We don't have to sign off on every business plan that every region has for everything it does. We have to sign off for the overall budget, which we do when they submit their plans to us. I mean, given all the discussion this has had, particularly in the Victoria area -- I don't know if someone has asked the health authority -- I see no reason why they would not provide you with that information. It's clearly available under FOI, but I hope that nobody would have to go to those lengths in order to get it.

So while we could get it, you could probably even more easily get it from the health authority.

I did want to comment, if I might go back for a moment, that I understand from the ministry that we have written to health authorities -- I'm going back to aphasia for a moment -- to inform them that speech language services, which is really what you're talking about, for adults suffering from aphasia are important measures for them to be considering when they look at services in their area. We've not gone beyond that, but we have written that recommendation and reminder to them.

I. Chong: I will certainly take the minister up on the suggestion she made that we contact the capital health board. Someone may have done so; I'm not sure if they've had difficulty. If we've had difficulty retrieving that information, then perhaps I will oblige myself to use the services of her ministry staff to assist me in obtaining that information. I would certainly also hope that it would not have to go through FOI; these things should be made public. We're talking about individuals and their care providers. I think they should be entitled to know.

I have two other issues I'd like to quickly canvass, which are specific to this region. I know it may be outside the purview of the Ministry of Health, but I place it on the floor for her to perhaps comment on. That is the CRD clean air bylaw that was introduced recently. I know it comes from the regional district, although the capital health region medical officer, Dr. Stanwick, is very much a proponent of this. I'm sure he has quite a bit of involvement; that's where the link is, as I see it.

At the last reading of this, I understand that the enforcement has become very difficult and that the regional district -- in conjunction with the CHR, I guess -- is looking to get a ruling from the B.C. Supreme Court on this issue of enforcement.

Can the minister advise whether there is money coming out of her ministry to help fund the legal court case, or is this strictly in the regional health board's budget that they should have provided for in their business plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: We will, of course, always check when we say these things, but to the best of our knowledge, no, there are no dollars coming from the ministry to do that. While you are correct that this is sort of a broader issue, as it relates to health authorities or health facilities, if you will, and enforcement of the regulations, I do note that they have made some exceptions. And I actually support the exceptions that were made. Enforcement in those areas is probably the least of the difficulties that they'll have.

[1605]

I. Chong: I appreciate that as well. Certainly we all support safe working environments and clean air for workers.

[ Page 14081 ]

I do appreciate, as well, that the CRD has made exceptions. But those exceptions were not without some intense debate and deliberations at the CRD, particularly by the mayor of Oak Bay -- one of the municipalities that I represent -- because one of the facilities in question, Oak Bay Lodge, is a facility that houses many adult seniors with dementia, for whom a segregated room with separate ventilation was provided. Still the CRD would not provide an exemption, nor would the health officer assist in that area. I felt that it was incumbent upon the health officer, at least, to look at that issue from a health perspective.

The final issue I'd like to ask the minister about is an area that I've canvassed in the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, and finally it has landed here in the Ministry of Health. I'm sure the minister is quite aware of the issue I'm going to raise: that is, the aerial spraying for the gypsy moth. I raise it because not only has it been an environmental concern for those who would oppose this; it's been a health concern as well. Seeing that interministerial discussions need to take place . . . . I know the Agriculture ministry and the Environment ministry are looking at this.

But again, the medical health officer, Dr. Stanwick, has stepped into the fray here and has said that he would be monitoring the effects of this. I'm wondering whether the ministry itself would take any -- I wouldn't say lead -- authority or responsibility in looking into the possible health effects, above and beyond the local health officer. Certainly if you were to ask the health authority in the Richmond area, they feel that there are health risks. So if you're going to compare region to region, you're going to get different medical officers providing a different assessment of the risk of the aerial spraying.

If that is the situation, then there surely must be some collaborative effort from the ministry to ensure, once and for all, that the health risks are settled and determined. I'm wondering if the minister can provide any clarification on that from her ministry.

Hon. P. Priddy: There is not any current plan to do additional research or additional observation beyond what has been indicated in the CRD.

However, we have a provincial medical health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall. If people wanted additional assistance above and beyond what they felt they could do locally, then the appropriate thing would be to raise that with him. I met with him -- I don't know -- a week or so ago. He didn't raise that with me, particularly, as an issue at the time or say that we'd received any requests to do that. I'll check back and see if we have. That would be the appropriate route -- for Dr. Stanwick to say to the provincial medical health officer, "We might need this help beyond that" -- and then we'd look at it.

I. Chong: Just a quick follow-up, then. Would it be correct to conclude that if the provincial medical health officer . . . ? His decision, I guess, would be final and would override those of the regional medical officers. Would it be correct to conclude that?

Hon. P. Priddy: I suppose that in extreme circumstances the provincial medical health officer could override a local medical health officer, but it's very hard to imagine the circumstances in which that might happen.

[1610]

My comments about Dr. Kendall were that if there was . . . . I think what the member has said is that the local medical health officer, Dr. Stanwick, has indicated that he's going to do a certain amount around observation and watching and so on and that if he thought that was not enough and required more, he would speak with the provincial medical health officer. I do not envision the provincial medical health officer in very many circumstances overriding a decision that's been made by a local officer.

I. Chong: I would just like to thank the minister and her staff for having been as helpful as they have. I know that -- duly noted -- her staff has recorded information that I've requested, and I'm sure that I'll get that in due time. Those are all the questions that I have, related to the constituencies that I represent. Certainly I'll be watching the debates as the critic continues, to see where questions of a general nature may arise, and I may take the opportunity to again deliberate with the minister. But at this point I'm very grateful for the help and assistance I've received.

Hon. P. Priddy: In our efforts not to have outstanding questions, I have additional information that a memorandum of understanding has been developed jointly between the capital health region and QA -- back to Queen Alexandra again. It is now with QA for signing and confirms the framework for the working relationship. Once the CHR completes the regional services planning exercise they've initiated, it will be further formalized, probably in some form of lease agreement.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, I would like to introduce what I would like to speak about today and question the minister for a little while about. That is the fact that the Sea to Sky community health council from time to time has spoken to the minister about the really serious problem of underfunding, based on certain criteria that I think I would like to canvass today.

It is not unknown to the minister that the Sea to Sky country -- from Squamish up to Pemberton, D'Arcy and Birken -- has experienced an enormous growth. As a matter of fact, it is seen as one of the largest growth areas in the province. In spite of that, of course, the funding for patient care in the Sea to Sky corridor has not seen parallel growth to accommodate what is needed.

This has created a fair amount of serious problems in the past, and I think the minister is aware of the fact that not so long ago the government actually had to come in with an additional loan to keep the operation of the Sea to Sky health facilities in full operation. This money was provided at the end of the book year, I think. Because of the inability of the Sea to Sky community health council . . . the funding was actually waived and was transferred to the next year. This kind of thing has been going on now for a year or two and, of course, is not sustainable in the long run.

A health council has to have the ability to plan for the programs that they are involved with and for the staffing they need to provide the health care in their jurisdiction.

The first question that I would like to ask the minister is: one of the problems that arises from year to year is that the acute funding allocation is considerably lower than what the community health council sees as a reasonable or needed amount of money. Can the minister give me a quick rundown

[ Page 14082 ]

on how the impact of community growth or population growth is incorporated in the acute funding formula, especially on issues of the in-patient bed utilization -- or outside the in-patient bed utilization?

[1615]

Hon. P. Priddy: I realize that there has been significant population growth, particularly with young families in that area, which I think is a change from the kind of population or demographics that might have been seen in that area even five years ago.

Ministry of Health staff met about two weeks ago with Sea to Sky staff and agreed to review a number of issues -- some of which you have identified, hon. member, and which were identified by the CHC -- including whether the increase this year of just over 2 percent actually does keep pace with the funding formula. The funding formula is the same across the province. We don't have a different funding formula for different regions. I don't have in front of me your population growth and whether the increase has kept pace with that or not. I can't answer that question. You're right: we have provided some additional dollars during the year.

What I would prefer to do . . . . I guess that's part of what our staff will try to work out with Sea to Sky. We did put $600,000 into Squamish General Hospital and another $400,000 . . . . But it's a difficult way to try to run a health authority; I know that. I've been in one that has tried to run the same way, and it's hard. It's much easier when you can establish a base that is enough for people to actually be able to provide services without running a deficit. I'm sure that you know that the increase this year was just over 2 percent. The issues you've identified are ones raised by your CHC two weeks ago, and they're working on them with our Ministry of Health staff.

T. Nebbeling: What I would be interested in as an answer is how the formula of the acute-care funding model really works and what is incorporated in the calculations to come up with a number that, in the opinion of the bureaucracy, is reflective of what is happening -- in particular, in my case, in the Sea to Sky corridor, but it obviously applies to every other region in the province. That's what I was looking for, and I hope the minister can give me the criteria for the acute-care funding formula.

The other point, of course, is that the minister just mentioned that there is a base funding for everybody, but it is supposed to be equal throughout the province. Not so long ago, during a small debate on health, it was pointed out to the minister that the base funding per patient in the Sea to Sky corridor is considerably lower than anywhere in the province. I believe the average is . . . . I'm not going to say the average, but I know that in Pemberton the funding per patient is $192, which is considerably lower than the numbers for available funding that I hear are in other rural areas in available funding.

First of all, the funding formula itself. I would like to hear from the minister about what exactly is considered to be a cost factor to come to a determination of why the increase for the acute care has been, I think, $63,000 -- which is not 2 percent, as the minister said but is only 1.2 percent.

[1620]

Hon. P. Priddy: The formula that is used, as I understand it and as shared with me by staff . . . .

Let me first tell you who does it, because it's not only people in the Ministry of Health. It is a committee that is made up of all four of the health care unions, a selected number -- and they differ -- of CEOs from health authorities and Ministry of Health staff. So it's not something that's done solely within the bureaucracy; it is done by people who are working in the field.

Anyway, the formula . . . . People estimate population growth by age cohorts, if you will. They translate that population growth into in-patient cases, calculate this growth on a proportion of total provincial growth in particular cases and then give the health authority a share of increased funding equal to their proportion, for that health authority, of the provincial growth.

T. Nebbeling: If it is a known fact, because the sense is that the growth in the Sea To Sky corridor has been established at a 34.7 percent rate, then can the minister explain to me why the increase in funding for acute funding and in-patients is . . . ? You know, I don't know on what basis, but clearly it does not reflect the increase in the population, as I just mentioned. We have a 1.2 percent increase in funding and a 34.7 percent increase in population. Where do the minister or the ministry or the team, which accumulates all the data to come to the determination, incorporate this number? If they do, how can they indeed come up with a 1.2 percent increase in funding for in-patients?

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to ask a question of clarification, if I might, and then make a response. I want to be clear. The member was saying there was a 37 percent increase in population last year.

T. Nebbeling: These are the official numbers: 34.2 percent, not 34.7 percent, between 1994 and 1998-99. So it's in the last four years. The total increase over these last four years has been 21 percent, of which, then, this year 1.2 percent is the increase. The imbalance between the growth in the corridor and the funding has been blatant in the past, but it's even more blatant this particular year. That is why I was very interested in knowing what the criteria are for the Sea to Sky corridor or for any other district. If the minister wants to get . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: I don't think the minister's going to be able to give me the answer, so maybe if I ask some other questions, that will make it easier for me to understand why this discrepancy.

Are day surgery, cancer care, palliative care and emergency volumes also considered in the total package that then makes up the consideration of funding for the district, or are they all excluded from that formula?

[1625]

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, for the most part -- I'm not sure what was said about emergency -- those services are included when the overall budget is done. It's tertiary care, non-tertiary continuing care -- which is home support, etc. -- and cancer care. There are a couple of things that impact on Sea to Sky, and there's at least one that we know we have to do something about and have talked to your health council about at

[ Page 14083 ]

the meeting a couple of weeks ago. You have two diagnostic and treatment centres in your health region, and the funding formula that we have doesn't recognize diagnostic and treatment centres. That does put you at a disadvantage. We realize that we have to develop something, perhaps even separately, to acknowledge that there has to be adequate funding for that part.

The other piece is that people are funded for the work they do, as opposed to just the population. When people choose to go to Lions Gate, then the dollars go to Lions Gate because that's where the work is being done.

T. Nebbeling: An interesting statement that the minister makes is that, yes, we do incorporate tertiary care in the funding. These are the elements that I just mentioned. It is interesting to see that for the Sea to Sky corridor, the funding for tertiary care was zero. Again, clearly, none of these services -- and I've got the budget here from the Ministry of Health -- that are now provided by the community health council are being covered in any way, shape or form; hence we have a problem.

It was two years ago that the community health council was created in Whistler, Pemberton, Squamish and Birken. Since that time, this health council has really striven to participate in the ministry program, Better Teamwork, Better Care. Within the guidelines of the program -- or within the spirit of the program, I should say -- for the last two years they have introduced, in the health care profession in the Sea to Sky corridor, a number of treatments and care that were just not available prior to the community health council's creation. That there is clearly a cost with this activity is again not recognized, so that's really where the problem lies.

I feel that the recognition that the population in the Sea to Sky corridor has blossomed -- mushroomed, whatever you want to call it . . . . At the same time, the health care providers have had the need to provide services that, prior to the community health council, were just not available in the Sea to Sky corridor. At that time, sure, many people did have to go to North Vancouver or Vancouver to get services. So there clearly is a need for an immediate review of what is happening there and to get that health council and the health care in a shape that is responsible.

I don't think anybody in the Sea to Sky corridor is expecting bags of money to make life easy. That's not the case. But it is really a wrong system where we are no longer focusing on how much health care we need to provide but on how much health care we can afford right now. It is just a very simple change in principle, but it is a principle that I think is very dangerous and is hurting people.

The minister made the point that if you don't provide the proper health care services, then indeed you send people to Lions Gate Hospital or Vancouver Hospital. It's true; but again, over the last two years a number of things have been happening in Squamish in particular that have given a lot of people a sense of comfort -- to have the treatment in Squamish. Caesarean sections, up to a year ago or two years ago, had to go to Vancouver, because we just didn't have the surgeons available to provide these kinds of services.

Patients were not comfortable staying in the corridor because the services were not available. Today they are. As a consequence of that, the number of in-patients in the Squamish hospital has gone up by about 10 percent. Again, there is no recognition in the acute-care funding allocation model that reflects that increase in patients. Can the minister give me a comment on that?

[1630]

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me put my comment around the member's comment about there being no dollars provided for tertiary care. That's because there's no tertiary care done in the Sea to Sky corridor. Now, most of the tertiary care that's done is done in fairly large hospitals. We're talking about neurosurgery, bone marrow transplants, renal surgery, fairly high-level orthopedic surgery and cardiac surgery. You would find other health authorities in the province where you would see a zero for tertiary reflected as well.

Now, one always has to sort of keep reviewing as to whether a hospital is big enough yet to be a tertiary centre. South of the Fraser, we don't have one at all. In Surrey, as large as Surrey Memorial Hospital is, there isn't yet a "tertiary centre." That's the reason you would see that part. Certainly Caesarean sections and so on, while I'm very pleased that people feel comfortable having those done there, wouldn't be described as a tertiary service.

The other thing I would add to that is I will make a commitment that we will review the diagnostic and treatment dollars with your health council, because I do think that we might . . . . We meant to do it separately, but there is something that needs to be done about that. That's why the zero for tertiary.

T. Nebbeling: We always learn, and I'm always happy to learn, but it was a little trickier for me. When I spoke about day surgery not being funded, cancer care not being funded -- I mentioned this earlier on -- palliative care not being funded, the minister said, actually, that we do fund tertiary care. I thought she meant as her response that indeed these issues are covered by tertiary care.

That's why I said: "Well, there is zero funding available for that." Nevertheless, the point is that these kinds of services are often out-patient services and therefore not being considered when the formula for acute-care funding is being considered. It is based, as the minister just said, on in-patient beds. So there are a lot of services provided that just somehow miss the boat of getting the proper funding.

I was going on the issue of the Squamish hospital now providing services such as Caesareans, hernias and a number of other issues, because they have staff surgeons. The minister, earlier on, made the point that traditionally many people from that area went to Lions Gate Hospital. That is no longer the case. It is proven that a 10 percent increase in patient load is a reality. This is not reflected in the acute-care funding allocation model, as it has been presented as part of the package that we received for this year's funding. How is the minister going to deal with that?

The numbers used by the committee to establish the criteria and the proper funding for the Sea to Sky health community council are based on 1997-98. That was two years ago. In those two years we have seen the creation of the community health council. We have seen a fair number of services added to the package that are now provided in the Sea to Sky corridor. As a consequence of that, we see fewer people going to the city to have services done. If I take the minister's words that were said earlier, we are actually channelling funding towards hospitals in the city for services done in Squamish right now.

I would like to ask the minister if she will correct that immediately. We just cannot let that go on for another year. Is the minister considering any steps to take care of that particular issue?

[ Page 14084 ]

[1635]

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct -- if I understood him -- that the data used is a year behind. That's the most recent data we can get from what's called CIHI, which is the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I'm told one year.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I'll come back to that

part in a minute then, because people are telling me something different here.

Day surgeries, by the way, are one of the things that are looked at. They're not excluded -- so I'm told -- from the way the calculations are done. I don't know of any way to have the data any more up to date than what CIHI provides, which I'm told is only a year behind.

T. Nebbeling: I can understand that, in general, it must be problematic to use up-to-date information to calculate how funding will be channelled towards the various councils to accommodate the increases and the needs of an area. However, it has been documented well enough over the last number of years that very considerable growth has caused some serious trouble. As a matter of fact, it was recognized, when the whole Sea to Sky council was being created and when it was reviewed, that in '94-95 the base created for the funding we deal with today . . . .

Squamish General Hospital was actually underfunded by $150,000 to $300,000. That has never really been rectified. We have had, from time to time, some emergency funding thrown in to deal with: "Are we going to keep the hospital open or not?" But the base funding has never changed, and that's part of the problem.

I'd like to hear from the minister if, at this stage, there's any serious consideration of bringing that base formula up to the level that that particular area needs, so that the funding that will then be calculated, based on that new base, will reflect the needs of the whole area more. I may sound a little bit like an old record, but I think it is fundamentally important that I really get this message through to the minister. I know that very dedicated staff throughout the Sea to Sky corridor have tried to get this message through a number of times.

I've seen it in written form; I've heard it verbally presented to the ministry. Everybody always understands and recognizes that there is a problem, but then when it comes to action, it really is a problem, because there is no action. Hence we have this rather small increase this year that does not reflect what is happening in this corridor.

Now, in comparison -- and I don't really want to get into comparing how other areas get more funding than this particular one -- one that really stood out for me was the Sunshine Coast. When I see the Sea to Sky corridor, with all its growth, getting a 1.2 percent increase for acute, in-patient care -- and that increase reflects $63,217 -- and when I see the Sunshine Coast, which I doubt will have an influx of growth as we do, having an increase of $524,000, which is almost 7 percent, I really question how that calculation has happened and what numbers it's based on.

If I look at the weighted cases, there is no justification for an increase of that nature. Maybe the minister or her staff, through the minister, can tell me how the Sunshine Coast can justify 7 percent -- the Sunshine Coast alone; that's not Powell River -- adding up to $524,000 when an area right next to it with much-recognized growth is being sent home with 1.2 percent.

[1640]

Hon. P. Priddy: Without more people and more time, I can't do a number comparison for the member.

I have probably three comments. I want to go back to the data -- how old it is; you say two years, and we say one year. I think it's actually probably somewhere in the middle, now that I look at this note. We get our data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information in September or October of the year that closed in March. So we get 1998-99 data in September of '99, and that's used for the 1999-2000 funding. It's used for planning the following year. As I say, we get the data in September of 1999, and it's used to plan 1999-2000 funding, so it's not quite two years behind.

There are a number of health authorities around the province -- and I've been quite frank about that -- that have not had adjustments to their base. I could provide you with a variety of examples where, while we have tried with new dollars to keep pace, some health authorities started out with a base that many of us would probably agree wasn't a large enough base. So we're working to try and adjust those bases as we can and not to put new money out on that same formula as the base was adjusted on.

We will continue to look at that with the Sea to Sky as well, and we will look at the diagnostic and treatment centre and see if we can find a solution for that which would put additional dollars into that council.

T. Nebbeling: Just to be correct on the information, because I don't want to use wrong information or give the minister wrong information, the data used for the conclusions that I shared with you today is for '97-98. Based on what the minister just said -- that the data is collected in October of one year for the following year -- I would say to the minister that this data was collected in October 1997, which is almost two years. So this is not the latest data. The book here -- '98 -- is finished in March. So this is two years.

For that reason, maybe we have the discrepancy between the number that should be there and which is there. That is most probably the reason why we have a discrepancy between how many people use the facilities now in the Sea to Sky corridor and those going out of town. I would like to make sure that the minister is aware that there is a year in between, for calculation.

Just on the D and T, maybe the minister can give me some of her thoughts on how the whole situation with the emergency clinic in Whistler is going to be dealt with. As the minister is aware, the amount of people going through that clinic is phenomenal. The estimated use of that emergency clinic for B.C. residents has been exceeded by 3,000 people a year. The data was far too low, in the calculations of how many people would go to that emergency centre. As a consequence, again we have the same problem: it creates a strain on the whole Sea to Sky corridor.

Has the minister any thoughts on how that problem could be rectified in the very foreseeable future, as somehow the funding for that centre is just not working. It's having a very negative impact on the other facilities in the Sea to Sky corridor, be it care centres for senior citizens or the Squamish diagnostic centre. Has the minister any thoughts on that one?

[ Page 14085 ]

[1645]

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. I consider myself no expert on how people collect data, so I think the member is actually correct. We got the data in October of '98, but you're right: it's for the year before that. That's the most recent data that's available anywhere; that's the only way to collect it. The member is correct in terms of the age of the data.

In terms of the diagnostic and treatment centres, I can't tell you at this stage -- nor, I guess, would I be the best person to do that -- exactly how it will be resolved. But I have made a commitment to you in the House here to review it. We are in discussion with your health council about it. You will be able to have fairly accurate numbers, I assume, because the numbers won't be as old, because you know how many people are currently going through your diagnostic and treatment centres.

We are actually working with the health council there -- I guess as we are in other places -- to make sure that the information gets reported in a consistent kind of way. We have some discrepancies between figures that are quoted and figures that are given to the ministry. Often figures quoted are higher than the ones given to the ministry. So if we have higher figures, then we have a better number to work on, which advantages you.

T. Nebbeling: I'd like to thank the minister for her answers. I truly hope that we're going to see some action. I know it is difficult to sit on your side. Everybody has issues that they feel they have to deal with. I'm realistic enough there. But I think the uniqueness of the Sea to Sky corridor and the community health council's issues . . . . It really does not just expect a solution; it demands a solution. Like I said earlier on, in the Sea to Sky corridor today, it is not how much health care we can give; it is how much health care we can give with the money we have. That is fundamentally wrong.

So I hope that during the coming months, now that we're closing the House soon, we're going to see some dialogue with the community health council in the Sea to Sky corridor, leading to a solution that will make things a bit better.

B. Penner: I could ask the minister some questions relating to reductions in home support services in the Fraser Valley, but I already did that when we debated interim supply a few months ago here in the Legislature. I think the minister is well aware of the concerns in the Fraser Valley regarding reduction in home support services and how they've adversely affected the seniors, in particular, in our communities, who rely on those services.

I'd like to ask the minister just a few brief questions about the correspondence unit in her ministry. From time to time, I've been concerned that it takes what appears to be an inordinate amount of time to get replies from various ministers in this government. I think the average is three to six months for a response to any letter, whether or not it's marked as urgent. The record response time, in terms of quickness, occurred a couple of weeks ago, when I got a letter back in ten days from the Minister for Children and Families. I guess that that was because there was a possible media exposure to the issue.

The ministry took that matter seriously. That had to do with the suspension of a social worker, who was speaking to the media.

However, in the past year I've become increasingly concerned about the response time from the Minister of Health's office about a couple of issues raised last year during estimates debate here in the chamber. I have in my hand a letter dated May 28, 1999, that provides me with an answer to a question I asked ten months earlier, on July 24, 1998. Along with my colleagues, I have received quite a number of these letters, shortly before the minister's estimates started. I'm just curious why it takes up to ten months to receive a response.

[1650]

In some cases -- and I say this with regret -- the letters arrive, and the people on whose behalf we were asking the question have already passed away. I have one such letter that I received from the minister, wishing that the constituent is doing well, when in fact that constituent had passed away four months before the letter was actually written. I was seeking some intervention on behalf of that woman to get her better care, which never came. I just highlight this issue because obviously it can cause distress to the families of people concerned.

As well, it may result in some embarrassment for the government, and I'd like to save the government and the people across B.C. from that possibility.

Hon. P. Priddy: Undoubtedly there are times when correspondence takes far too long. The letters you're referring to are letters from last year's estimates that should have been done much faster than they were. As you notice, we're trying very hard not to take any questions on notice, if you will, and trying to get back to people with answers as they raise them. We realized last year that there were literally hundreds . . . . Well, I don't know about hundreds, but there must have been a least a hundred letters on questions that we didn't answer in estimates. I don't consider that to be the best way to do that. So as you'll notice, we're trying very hard not to do it this year.

Other than the fact that the estimates letters took far too long, somebody is checking for me the average turnaround time for letters in our correspondence unit. I don't quite know yet what they are, but I will get that to you. I too have been concerned, and my office staff would confirm that. Some letters actually do turn around very quickly. Then I'll get a letter that's taken two or three months to turn around.

My position would be that if we do not think we can answer a letter quickly because it's more complex, we at least send people an initial letter saying: "This is who is looking after this." It may take a while to get people the information. We can always do better, and we will.

B. Penner: Just a final comment: one thing I've noticed -- it's perhaps not empirical but certainly anecdotal -- is that it doesn't seem to matter whether the letter is marked urgent and the letter is faxed, in terms of the response time. I know for myself that I'm quite careful about what letters I deem to be urgent in nature, and I use that designation selectively. Notwithstanding that, it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the response time to those letters.

With that, I'll turn the floor over to our Health critic.

C. Hansen: I want to turn to an ongoing issue that's been in the news in the Comox Valley, and that's Glacier View Lodge. There was a court decision that came down very recently that talked about the ministry's intention with regard to compulsory amalgamations. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to the House what the ministry's policy is today vis-à-vis the compulsory amalgamation provisions in the Health Authorities Act.

[ Page 14086 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I know that the hon. member realizes I won't be commenting on Glacier View in particular, because I realize an appeal has been filed by Glacier View. Therefore that particular decision from t