1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2825 ]

CONTENTS

Liquor Control and Licensing Act (Bill 99). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction

and first reading — 2825

Liquor Distribution Act (Bill 93). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first

reading — 2825

Hospital Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 98). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction

and first reading — 2825

Oral Questions

Coal mine at Elkford. Mr. Bennett — 2825

Casa Loma project. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2825

Provincial position on Senate marijuana hearings. Mr. Wallace — 2826

Princess Marguerite accommodation. Mr. Smith — 2826

Private affiliations of ICBC's Mr. Scrivener. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 2826

Disclosure documents of defeated candidates. Mrs. Jordan — 2827

Meeting with oil and gas company. Mr. McGeer — 2827

Hotel tenant eviction. Mr. Gibson — 2827

Increased costs for holly shipping. Mr. Curtis — 2828

Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill 42). Second reading.

Mrs.

Jordan — 2829

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2830

Public Bodies Information Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 44). Second reading.

Mr.

McClelland — 2830

Pacific North Coast Native cooperative Loan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 19).

Committee report and third reading — 2833

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 76). Committee stage.

section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 2833

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2833

Report stage — 2833

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 29).

Committee stage.

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2834

Report and third reading — 2834

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act,

1975 (Bill 68).

Report stage — 2834

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 69).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 3. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2834

section 3 as amended. Mr. Schroeder — 2834

section 8. Mr. Schroeder — 2835

section 9. Mr. Gibson — 2835

section 10. Mr. Wallace — 2836

section 11. Mr. Schroeder — 2837

Report stage — 2837

Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill

79).

Committee, report and third reading — 2837

Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 88). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 2. Hon. Ms. Young — 2837

Amendment to

section 3. Hon. Ms. Young — 2837

Report stage — 2838

Hospital Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 91). Committee stage.

section 3. Mr. Wallace — 2838

section 8. Mr. Wallace — 2839

section 12. Mr. Chabot — 2839

Report and third reading — 2841

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 89. Mr. Phillips — 2841

On vote 90. Mr. McClelland — 2844

On vote 92. Mr. Fraser — 2845

Department of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 34. Mr. Chabot — 2851

Department of Labour estimates.

On vote 120. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2857

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome a good friend of mine seated in the Members'

gallery, the former mayor of Duncan, Mr. Jim Quaife.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to welcome Suzanne and Len Van Egmond from

Sechelt. Mrs. Van Egmond is the new president of the Social

Credit constituency of Mackenzie. I would like the House to

give them a particularly warm welcome.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would

like the House to welcome today visitors from Revelstoke, Mr.

and Mrs. Wes Ennis and Mr. Ennis' sister and brother-in-law,

whose names I unfortunately forget. They're from Burnaby and I

would like to welcome them anyway.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker,

in the gallery this afternoon are a group of trade unionists

from Vancouver, members of the graphic arts union. I would like

the House to make them welcome.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Although I have had no notice of

it, it appears that there are a group of students from

Coquitlam School District 43 in the gallery today.

Introduction of bills.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Control and

Licensing Act.

Bill 99 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.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquor Distribution

Act.

Bill 93 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.

HOSPITAL INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospital Insurance

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 98 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.

COAL MINE AT ELKFORD

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Mines: with respect to a

public meeting held at Fernie in which a representative of a

German development consortium outlined its plans to spend $200

million to develop an open pit and underground coal mine at

Elkford, has the provincial government or the Minister's

department been part of any discussion with this

consortium?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Yes.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental to the Minister. Has there been

any indication of what route would be taken to ship the coal to

tidewater, in view of the statements made at the meeting that

the majority of coal would go to European steel mills?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No.

CASA LOMA PROJECT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'd just like to congratulate

the Minister of Mines for giving a classic example of how

questions should be answered in this House. (Laughter.)

Could I ask the Minister of Housing whether any more funds

have been advanced to the principals of Casa Loma Ltd,. In

addition to the original payment of $565,000?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that as

notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask the Minister, as he has taken

that one on notice, whether he will also consider the question

of the government's position in the Casa Loma matter in view of

the lawsuit launched by a prominent bank and Casa Loma Ltd.? Is

the Minister aware that, according to the contract, all work is

required to have been completed by Saturday, May 31, 1975?

[ Page 2826 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I am aware that there is a prerogative

which can be exercised by government. If we were not satisfied

at that time, we could exercise rights. But nothing says that

we have to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask the Minister, if he is aware

of this, if he intends to waive that Saturday May 31, 1975,

date and allow work to continue after that?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, if is not a matter of

waiving. We haven't at this time decided to exercise it.

PROVINCIAL POSITION ON

SENATE MARIJUANA HEARINGS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General with

regard to the hearings that have been held by the Senate

committee regarding the legislation pertaining to marijuana:

has the provincial government any intention of taking

part in

the hearings and a brief on this subject to the Senate

committee?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The provincial

government did not intervene or present a brief.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Is it the government's

intention in the near future to present any position regarding

the proposal to move marijuana offences from the Narcotic

Control Act to the Food and Drug Act and, in general, to reduce

penalties for marijuana offences, including automatic pardon

for first offenders convicted of possession? Does the

government have any position, and if it has any position — and

I hope it has some position on this very important issue — does

it intend to communicate that policy to federal authorities for

their information prior to the amending of the federal

legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a matter of federal law.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, come on, Alex, don't dodge the issue.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The matter now having been raised — we know it has

been raised — we will take under consideration whether or not it is something

on which it's appropriate for us to intervene. It is not something that has

come up at a dominion-provincial conference between, say, the Minister of Justice

and the A-Gs of the provinces. That matter has not been on the agenda. There

have been Senate committee hearings, and the matter will be debated in Parliament.

But we'll consider whether or not we should take a position.

MR. WALLACE: Well, can I take it from that, Mr. Speaker,

that the Attorney-General is suggesting that the chief law

enforcement officer in this province doesn't have some

responsibility to communicate and discuss at the federal level

issues of this importance to the whole society? Are you

suggesting that? Could I ask that question, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it is a bit

argumentative and it's certainly beyond the jurisdiction of

this Legislature to deal with that question.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE ACCOMMODATION

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Health. Mr. Minister, did Commodore Gorst — I mean the Member for Esquimalt — consult with you or seek

your advice, considering the fact that we have Bill 90 on the

order paper, intituled Free Public Toilets Act, before he

circulated to the Members of the Legislative Assembly a

memorandum dated May 29, indicating that staterooms will be

available, if booked, to all MLAs on the inaugural run of the

Princess Marguerite at a cost of $8 with settee and basin, or

for $10 with settee, toilet and basin? (Laughter.) Is it the

policy of the government to charge people $2 before they even

know if they may require the facilities?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as you

know, the rate was reduced by virtue of the fact that while in

Canada the utilization of these facilities is free, as soon as

you get across the 49th parallel.... (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental, then, I presume

that the facilities will be available free on just the junkets

around Victoria Harbour.

HON. MR. COCKE: They are presently free on the B.C. ferries,

yes.

PRIVATE AFFILIATIONS OF

ICBC's MR. SCRIVENER

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland) asked me a question about the affiliations of

a Mr. Scrivener with certain companies elsewhere in Canada. I

am informed that the list he referred to was compiled for the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia by the

[ Page 2827 ]

Canadian independent adjusters conference around December,

1973, before Autoplan began operation.

Mr. Scrivener did not join ICBC until July 1, 1974.

Immediately before that time, he had begun selling his

interests in D.A. Scrivener Ltd., the parent company he owned

in Regina, and also the associated companies, Scrivener,

Countryman and Westman Ltd. In Calgary and Saskatoon.

The Regina firm's sale to a new company was completed by him

before he arrived to take his post with the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia. Negotiations on the Calgary and Saskatoon

partnership interests took longer, but they were completed

within six months of his arrival in Vancouver with Mr.

Countryman buying out Mr. Scrivener's shares. From that time,

he has had no interest in any of those companies.

Mr. Scrivener's name also appeared, and may still appear, in

the name of a fourth claims adjusting company operating in

Yorkton, Saskatchewan, under the title of Scrivener, Countryman

Ltd., but Scrivener himself never had, nor has now, any

ownership in that firm. But at one time he had allowed his name

to be used for a fee in the title of that particular company.

So Mr. Scrivener has not any interest of any kind in any of

those companies. That is the information I have.

DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS

OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Attorney-General. I am sure that he will recall

the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act and the

debate surrounding that Act when the Minister introduced it to

the House, and the concern that was expressed by the opposition

for people who ran for public office, disclosed before the

election, were defeated and then asked to have their disclosure

papers returned.

Could the Minister advise the House if there is anything in

the Act at this time which would prohibit a body such as a

school board or a municipal council from returning personal

disclosures upon request when the candidate was defeated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I do believe that public documents that

were available to the public should be destroyed.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is

aware that there are a number of cases around the province now

and there are a number of requests from defeated candidates,

including a Mr. Gordon P. Johnson of Vernon, who offered his

services in a by-election for the school board of School

District 22 in May, was defeated....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member asking a question.

MRS. JORDAN: I am asking the Minister if he will.... Excuse

me, just wait until I get to my point. In this case, this

gentleman has requested that his documents be returned to him.

It has been denied. Upon appealing to the Attorney-General, he

made clear that there was not provision at this time for the

return, but it did not say that it inhibited the return. In

light of the confusion over this, and an appeal of a

public-spirited citizen, a publicly responsible citizen who

offered his name in a by-election, would the Attorney-General

entertain an amendment to this Act in this session to allow

those to withdraw their documents?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That would be out of order. The

matter is out of order. The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, and patriotism is not needed.

MEETING WITH OIL AND GAS COMPANY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. A question for the Attorney-General and/or the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources with respect to the

mysterious jet-setters who came in from Hudson's Bay Oil and

Gas Co. referred to by the First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) yesterday. At the meetings with these officials, were

agreements entered into that would help to bring about normal

drilling programmes in British Columbia next winter?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member behind you would ask a

supplementary, if permitted.

MR. McGEER: Does that mean that there will not be normal

drilling programmes in northern British Columbia next

winter?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No! (Laughter.)

HOTEL TENANT EVICTION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question to

the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Last night there was shown

on television some

[ Page 2828 ]

footage of a fracas that ensued when a B.C. television crew

was filming a room of a tenant in a Vancouver hotel who was not

under the protection of the rentalsman. That was the subject of

the story. There is some concern, as a result of the publicity

that ensued, that this particular tenant may be evicted because

of that. I would ask the Attorney-General if his department can

take steps to prevent that or at least maintain a watching

brief on that incident.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The question of whether or not somebody

who's a lodger in a hotel is a tenant or a licensee is a very

difficult one. It may be that this particular person you refer

to has tenancy rights or it may be that he is simply a

licensee.

I would be very glad to refer this matter and to keep a

watching brief. I don't think anybody should lose their home,

even though it's a rented room, as a result of a fracas in

front of television cameras.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary on the same. In view of the

fact that the rentalsman's legal advisers have now informed him

and he, in turn, has informed the Attorney-General that

virtually no protection exists for the residents of skid road

hotels due to the fact the Landlord and Tenant Act does not

apply, could I ask the Attorney-General whether some interim

steps are going to be taken to protect these people who at the

present time are subjected to eviction as well as very severe

rent increases, as landlords anticipate legislation to bring

them under the Landlord and Tenant Act shortly in the future?

I'd like to know whether there's any interim measure to protect

these people at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it's a matter of a legal question that

can only be answered in the statutes as they exist.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The legal question is settled. They have

no protection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not necessarily.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But what I would like to know is whether

the Attorney-General has any advice to give, any public

information to give, so that unscrupulous landlords will not

take advantage of this interim period to either evict or raise

rents to exorbitant levels.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a matter with which I am very much

concerned. We try to keep up to date with it. Some of them may

be covered by the Act, but the majority of people lodging in

hotels are not covered by the Act. Whether or not the Act

should be amended to expand it into that field, with the

support of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, in terms of rent control and protection for these people is

a matter of government policy.

Will you support the whole thing if we do that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will be happy to reply to the

Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I not answer the question? Well, I

will answer it privately later on.

MR. SPEAKER: Only where it relates to your own

jurisdiction.

INCREASED COSTS FOR HOLLY SHIPPING

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Agriculture. Has the Minister received any complaints or

requests from holly growers on Vancouver Island to approach his

federal counterpart or any other federal agency regarding

Vancouver Island — an important industry, as the Minister

knows?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Vancouver Island holly.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The Ministry

hasn't received any in over a year.

MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was making so

much noise I didn't hear the answer.

This matter has been raised very recently. The increases

have taken effect again in the last few months.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question was whether or not I had

received any representations. I have not.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Hall files the sixth report of the Royal Commission

on Family and Children's Law.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files the 69th annual report of the

Department of Agriculture for the year ending December 31,

1974, and the first annual report for the Provincial Land

Commission for the year ending March 31, 1975.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker,

public bills in the hands of private Members. Adjourned debate

on second reading of Bill 12. I

[ Page 2829 ]

don't know if the Hon. Member is here.

Looking through the adjourned debates on second reading, the

Members listed in order here are not in the House. I wonder if

we could have permission to move to second reading of public

bills in the hands of private Members.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Then we would move to second reading of

Bill 42.

SENIOR CITIZENS HOME

REPAIR ASSISTANCE ACT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The purpose of this Act

is in recognition of a very serious problem that senior

citizens in British Columbia face today, that of the high cost

of maintaining a home in light of the rising cost of living in

terms of heating, lighting and taxes, from which there has been

minimum relief from this government.

In any repair or maintenance done to a home by senior

citizens, if it has to be done from outside, they face

extremely high costs for the labour as well as high costs for

the equipment needed. Such things as drainage pipes, shingles

and repair of stairs are prohibitive to those who must live on

a fixed income.

In companion with the practical problems faced by the senior

citizen today is our philosophy, the Social Credit Party

philosophy, that we should do everything as a society to create

a climate in which senior citizens can remain in their own

homes until such time as they choose to move. We do not agree,

and we will strongly oppose, the concept that senior citizens

should live in community housing, with relatives or in nursing

homes for financial reasons. We feel that it's the

responsibility of society to see that that type of unacceptable

situation to the individual is not imposed upon them by the

actions of society. This bill would be in keeping with our

philosophy. If adopted by this government that claims to be so

concerned with the problems of the small people or the little

people, it would show their good faith and be a very practical

way of showing their concern for the senior citizens of our

province.

There are many senior citizens, both those who are young

senior citizens and those who get older, who want to live in

their own homes above all else. Many physicians will tell you —

I am sure the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will

reinforce this statement — that older people sometimes suffer

shocks which result in mental and physical deterioration if

they are removed from familiar surroundings. This often happens

if it's done voluntarily and it certainly is a very common

reaction when the move is forced upon the individual. We don't

feel that should happen.

The Minister of Finance knows and many Members of this

Legislature know of case after case in British Columbia today

where senior citizens, because of the high cost of land,

because of the high cost of taxes which this government is

doing nothing to alleviate in terms of a problem, because of

school taxes — a commitment by this government to remove them

has not been kept — because of the high cost of heating and

power, because of the high cost of materials and because of the

high cost of assistance, are being forced by the movements of

society today out of their home. If the government would

establish this grant system, it would be one small way, along

with many other ways that we have previously suggested, that

the government could meet a commitment to the senior citizens

of this province and could show good faith that they, along

with the Social Credit Party, believe that senior citizens

should have the right to stay in their own home as long as they

so desire.

There is another factor in terms of those who might have

just enough money to get by but who may suffer from physical

disabilities such as arthritis, blindness — general infirmities

of old age — who have to have extra help in their home. This is

an added cost which along with the upkeep of their homes makes

it very difficult for them.

The most serious danger of all, if senior citizens stay in

their homes without needing those repairs that any home

requires, is that it can lead to personal injury. If stairs

deteriorate and rot, and senior citizens fall down them because

they can't afford to have them repaired, this often spells the

beginning of the end. They break a leg or a hip; they don't

heal; they become discouraged, and frequently death results not

specifically from the injury but from the problems of the

injury.

Wiring in a home, if it's not kept up to date, can cause

serious personal injury to senior citizens. It can to anyone

but more so to these people. Heaven help us that in British

Columbia, in this wealthy, wealthy province, we should have

senior citizens today living under leaky roofs. Mr. Speaker,

there are senior citizens in this province today living in

their own homes with leaky roofs because they can't afford to

have them repaired.

I am sure we can all recall many other specific

circumstances where senior citizens are suffering

inconvenience, personal danger and possibly severe emotional

trauma because of problems they are encountering in maintaining

their own homes, I would urge, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

the government accept this principle and accept this bill and

offer a system of cash grants to senior citizens who have owned

their homes for one year, if you wish, in order that they may

use that money to maintain their homes in a state of proper

repair, to protect their health, to protect them from injury

and,

[ Page 2830 ]

most of all, to protect them emotionally so that they do

have the same choice that other younger people want to have —

that is, the right to remain in their homes.

I'm looking at the Minister of Finance. Would he indicate a

willingness to accept this principle?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I beg your pardon?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister of Finance says the bill is

out of order. You know, Mr. Minister, I must say that your

response to the plight of these senior citizens in British

Columbia makes Snoopy look like a greyhound.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Stop hanging your hat on technicalities and

accept the principle.

MR. D. BARRETT (Premier): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

I would ask you to rule on the bill in terms of an impost of

the Crown.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you wouldn't want

to take directions from the Premier. The Premier doesn't have

to accept the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Finance can accept the

principle.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

I think it's quite inappropriate, when any Member stands on

a point of order and makes a point of order, for another to

suggest that because the Speaker pays attention to the point of

order he's taking directions from any Member of the House. My

directions come from the rules, and the rules very clearly are

there to deal with points of order. Any Member in this House is

entitled to raise a point of order on the rules.

I think the Hon. Member knows that this particular bill

requires a grant to be made, as one of the primary sections of

the bill. The Hon. Member has been in the House long enough,

further, to know that such a bill would require the message and

the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor in order to be passed

by this House or to proceed in this House.

Consequently, under our standing order 67 and also because of the constitution

of this province, which incorporates the British North America Act as well,

no bill or statute or measure shall be passed by the House without first having

the assent of the Lieutenant-Governor by message to this House.

So under standing order 67 I have no recourse but to rule it

out of order when a point of order is raised in the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, on each day that

passes and this government seems to want to get involved in

more and more outside activities which are outside the sphere

of what we have come to accept as normal government procedure,

this bill becomes more important. The bill asks that many of

the corporations and commissions and societies and agencies and

branches and associations which have been formed under the

direct auspices of the government come under the purview of the

Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

There's not much doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that no

other jurisdiction in Canada has ever been asked to pass so

much legislation that in effect could leave the public open to

having its pockets picked on behalf of government agencies —

programmes that provide practically no checks or balances at

all to these governmental agency spending programmes,

programmes, Mr. Speaker, that open the wallets of the taxpayer

and, what perhaps is more important, take the responsibilities

of scrutinizing the expenditure of public funds away from the

elected legislators.

We saw what happened here earlier this year as there was an

attempt to make it impossible for the opposition to scrutinize

expenditures of the Ministers. Yet here we have all of these

public bodies not really open to scrutiny by the elected

representatives. Instead, the total spending authority has been

placed either in the hands of the bodies themselves, in many

instances, or the cabinet or even, in too many instances, an

individual Minister. We feel that neither the government nor

these agencies can be trusted with the kind of spending powers

they're taking upon themselves. We also feel that the taxpayers

of this province need to be protected from abuses of this kind

of power.

Mr. Speaker, the government seems, in setting up many of these Crown corporations

and other bodies, to be almost obsessed with allowing them to have, and allowing

the cabinet to have, open-ended

[ Page 2831 ]

financial powers. It is creating and has created an

unbelievable list of public bodies, commissions and Acts of

legislation, all of which seem to have the tendency to throw

the concept of fiscal integrity right out the window. I don't

know whether I could name them all, but our bill has been

revised this year and we now go from A to Z, Mr. Speaker.

Even in some of the bills which would seem to be rather

innocent in the beginning — the Medical Services Act, for

instance.... You wouldn't think there'd be any opportunity for

that Act to open up the vault doors and allow unlimited and

abandoned spending. Yet we find that the provision has been

made in this Act for any number of programmes, schemes, dreams

with no accountability whatsoever to the Legislature.

If I could just refer to one

section in that bill, Mr.

Speaker, it says "...to provide financial or other

assistance to any person establishing or administering a

programme referred to in clause (a)." Now here's a

section in a

bill which is an open invitation, Mr. Speaker, to develop what

could be a provincial LIP programme in all of the worst aspects

of those kinds of programmes where we see various groups of

people, or individuals or agencies, providing publicly funded

services for which there is either no proven need or, in many

instances, for which a programme is already being provided. And

that is only one bill out of so many.

Most important, again there is no accountability in these

provisions. A kind of sweeping financial discretion is evident

again in the Farm Assurance Income Act, in which we should

demand, again, that there be accountability of the money being

spent through the provisions of that Act. The Agricultural

Credit Act — again the government has the power to set up

various forms of boards and agencies. They haven't done it yet,

but certainly the power is in that Act, Mr. Speaker.

The same thing for the Land Commission Act. The insurance

corporation — we've certainly seen a lot of examples of what

kind of open-ended spending is going on in that corporation,

with $34 million in losses in its second year of operation.

Controlled costs, you know.

The Department of Housing Act — the same kind of thing. The

Department of Transport and Communications Act, under which I

am sure, once it gets operative, we can expect a whole new ball

game in the proliferation of bureaucracy.

The Energy Act, the development corporation, the takeover

Act of Ocean Falls and Can-Cel, the Alcohol and Drug Commission

Act, the British Columbia Cellulose Co. Act, the Petroleum

Corp. Act — the Medical Centre I've mentioned — the Department

of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act....

Besides those direct Acts of government, we also have the various companies

which are now under the jurisdiction and umbrella of this government, like Plateau

Mills, Vancouver Island Coach lines Co. Ltd., Pacific Poultry, South Peace Hydro

Products, Woodbridge Development Corp., Kootenay Forest Products, "Pinko" Poultry

— there could have been more but we ran out of letters in the alphabet, so we

stopped at that.

But the point is that the people of British Columbia

certainly have the right to demand that they have full

accountability. The only place we could see that that full

accountability could come is under the jurisdiction of the

Public Bodies Financial Information Act which not only demands

that these corporations and companies provide us with an annual

statement, but also show exactly what expenses are being

incurred by the company, who is getting the money, who is

getting paid, who the employees are and what their salaries

are. Those are things that the people of British Columbia have

a right to demand, particularly with the proliferation of the

kind of activity this government is getting itself involved

in.

We have never in the history of this province seen such an

incredible growth rate of government agencies,. paid for from

public funds, taxpayers' money, but not subject to the same

kind of scrutiny that the people of this province should expect

and demand.

So, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of full accountability —

and I know that the government will want to let the sun shine

in, as they have indicated on so many other occasions — that I

have presented this bill which is

an Act to Amend the Public

Bodies Information Act. I have no doubt that the government

will, in the interests of fair play and honesty, show no

hesitation in accepting its principle and adopting this

bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Don't hold your breath.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to ask a question of the Hon.

Member for Langley, dealing with his bill. The wording is a bit

uncertain when you read the words "formed under the authority

of the...." Then it cites certain Acts — Farm Income

Insurance Act, Medical Services Act, Agricultural Credit Act.

But if you read further down, you get into some difficulty in

understanding. It says: "...formed under the authority of

the South Peace Hydro Products, formed under the authority of the

Pacific Poultry, formed under the authority of the Kootenay

Forest Products, and formed under the authority of the Panco

Poultry," well, of course that doesn't read properly,

does it? Would the Hon. Member like the

[ Page 2832 ]

matter deferred until he could, perhaps, amend those

sections?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd be happy to submit amendments, Mr.

Speaker. It may be just a little difficult to read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not that. It's not only difficult to

read, it would be out of order if it isn't comprehensible.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, well, it's certainly comprehensible.

"The Plateau Mills Co. Ltd." — what's wrong with that? I can

understand it; I'm sure the people of British Columbia could

understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of that.

MR. McCLELLAND: I think that's the important thing, Mr.

Speaker. But yes, I would be happy to defer because if that's

the only grounds....

MR. SPEAKER: No, there are other grounds. May I go on to the

second....

MR. McCLELLAND: If you rule my bill out of order I think I

have achieved some kind of record, and I would be glad to defer

it....

MR. SPEAKER: May I go onto the second point? The second

point I am trying to consider is: the Crown itself cannot have

any burden or duty imposed on it by a private Member without

authority from the Crown itself. That's one point.

The second thing is: an agency of the Crown, such as a Crown

corporation or company that is owned by the Crown, similarly,

cannot have a duty imposed on it, any more than can the Crown,

according to our authorities here. So you get into this

difficulty — are these all Crown agencies or corporations?

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: You are saying "sure." They are? I'm asking for

the information from you.

MR. McCLELLAND: I thought I made it very clear that the

agencies to which I refer, and the commissions and boards, are

directly under the umbrella of the provincial government in one

way or another.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to consider this. I would ask that

any decision on this matter be deferred until I have had a

chance to look at it more fully, because there are decisions of

this House that would rule them out of order where.... Would

the Hon. Member adjourn the debate on this, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that

the debate on this bill be adjourned until the next sitting of

the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we

proceed to committee on public bills and orders.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the rule here is that on private

Members' day, when you go into public bills and orders, you go

through the list of public bills in the hands of private

Members. I have several authorities that indicate that that is

the rule unless there is some supervening priority precedence

matter. The only precedence matter that we have would be

estimates. So the question is whether the House wishes to

proceed further on public bills in the hands of private Members

or go on to public bills in the hands of government

Members.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Question on the motion. I made a

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted that we proceed to

public bills in the hands of the government?

MR. WALLACE: It's already been denied.

MR. SPEAKER: You denied it? Okay, I just wanted to know. So

we will have to continue with....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You cannot have a division on that

motion?

MR. SPEAKER: No, it's a matter of leave. It's private

Members' day.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I asked for leave and it was denied.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I understood that there was some arrangement

made, and I would like to know whether the agreement is being

honoured or not.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can

clarify the situation. I, for one, have not been consulted

about any arrangement with the Whips, and I was the person who

said no when leave was asked to proceed further. But if I am

the only one in the House opposed to the idea, I

[ Page 2833 ]

would like to withdraw my opposition and grant leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Member.

Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker. Then we will go on down

the list.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE

CO-OPERATIVE LOAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 2A approved.

Title approved.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I

move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan

Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read

a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I said that we would go in

order but, as a couple of the Ministers had to slip out, I

would like to move to Bill 76 until they return.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 76; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would just

like to ask the Attorney-General why

section 40 is being

repealed.

Interjections.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Do you want to come

back to that section?

MR. GIBSON: Fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order, Hon. Member for

North Okanagan?

MRS. JORDAN: In regard to the

section that the Hon. Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano mentioned, I would suggest with

all due respect to the Chair that this is a matter that the

Attorney-General is prepared to answer. If he needs further

information, we should recess the House until such time as he

is prepared....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Member agreed to get his answer

later.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It isn't that.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a matter of the House's business, not a

Member's business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think he agreed to get his answer later.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad if the

committee agrees to go back to

section 9 to answer the

question. This is to do with articled clerks. In earlier

sections of the Act, there is a change in name, and their

duties are spelled out elsewhere in the Act and their

obligations and so forth. The

section just drops because it's

no longer useful.

Sections 9 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 5.

[ Page 2834 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yesterday I was asked two questions

related to this section. I'd like to inform the Member (Mr.

Gibson) who asked me that additional revenues for the year

1975-76 will be $1,500,000, the small businesses will save

between $750,000 to $1 million, and the amendment eliminates

10,000 small businesses from paying taxes under this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Why did you put those 10,000 businesses in a

tax position in the first place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No comment.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 68.

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Section 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment

Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Section 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the amendment standing in my name

on page 20 of orders of the day, amending

section 3 of this

bill.

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On

section 3 as amended,

with the figures still remaining at $250, is there anything in

the amended

section that will make it very clear that the

amount of dollars to be. recovered will be those dollars over

$250 without respect to the amount of damage done to the

automobile? Let me explain what the question is. For instance,

the practice in the past has been that if damage to an

automobile — hit-and-run or parking lot damage — was over the

limit, and the limit was $200 before, then the corporation paid

the entire amount. However, if the damage happened to be $195,

then the owner paid the entire amount. What is the plan going

to be now under

section 3 as amended?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): First

of all, the amendment was designed to make it very clear that the deductible

did not apply to physical damage to the individual. There was a difference of

opinion among lawyers, and one of them thought it might have applied to physical

damage to the individual. The amendment is simply to make it clear that any

limitation only applied to damage to the vehicle.

Section 3 as amended makes it very clear that the corporation will accept responsibility

for the damage above the deductible, whatever the deductible happens to be.

This is a vast improvement over the situation where there was a hit-and-run

driver. Previously, there was absolutely no compensation if the hit-and-run

driver had never been identified. It's a vast improvement, and this is simply

clarifying it and rationalizing it and bringing it into a reasonable procedure.

[ Page

2835 ]

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. SCHROEDER: This is a question of the registration of the

vehicle. Are we to understand after this amendment that the

registration is going to be clearly separated from the issuance

of licence? Up until now, the registration was a form which was

carried usually in the motor vehicle, which was the paper

licence. It was the form which represented not only the fact

that the automobile was registered in some owner's name but it

was in essence the indication of a licence to operate, in

addition to the plates or the decal.

Is it clearly understood in the statutes now that this

registration referred to in this

section is not a licence to

operate but is simply some list on some registry known

otherwise than the registration before? Is it spelled out

clearly? If not, then the concept first espoused by this

Minister that said under this insurance plan that if there was

no licence there would be no insurance, and if there was no

insurance there would be no licence.... We need to be very,

very sure that this registration does not refer to that

licence.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The registration is a certificate of

proof of ownership of that vehicle. The licence plate and the

decal and so on are proof that that car is entitled to be on

the road. And that is the difference between the registration

and the other factor. This allows us to maintain the

registration and the other factor. This allows us to maintain

the registration and the record of who owns that vehicle.

Whether or not it should be on the road is entirely different

legislation.

That is all this does. I can assure you that there is this

separation.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to express some concern about

section

9, particularly part (

b) of

section 9. The purpose of this provision, I imagine,

is to provide for payments in cases where equity demands such payments and where

the regulations or rules of the corporation wouldn't otherwise make it possible.

I imagine that is the intent. But the effect of the words also would allow the

corporation to make payments in a way which could not be justified in cases

where the corporation really might just be getting into a boondoggle and making

considerable overpayments for one reason or another, I am not speculating that

the present management of the corporation would do this or anything like it.

What I am suggesting is that there should be a check on this

section by providing that any payments made under the authority

of this

section should be published in the B.C. Gazette .

An amendment I would like to move would be adding to the end of

subsection (

b) the words "...and publishing notice of any

action taken under this authority in the B.C. Gazette ."

Before moving that amendment, Mr. Chairman, I might say that I

have some doubts as to whether it is in order unless it is

accepted by the Crown. To that end, I sent notice of this to

the Minister two or three days ago, and he may perhaps have

some view on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member did send me a copy of this

proposed amendment. I got to it this morning. I have asked for

comment on it. I am not prepared to accept it at this time, but

certainly I will consider its implications for future action. I

am reluctant to accept an amendment without having fully

checked it out. I have been through that once already and

discovered it opened doors we hadn't realized it would open. On

that basis, while rejecting the amendment, I can certainly

assure the Member I will take a good look at it.

I have already indicated publicly many times that the reason

for this

section is to avoid the sort of situation that

happened three years ago when the present Premier was ordered

out of the House because of the iron-clad terms of a contract

that did not allow an insurance company to follow through on

natural justice. That was why, when we wrote the legislation, I

insisted there be the right in there. Let me assure you it

comes to the board of directors. It is not just an automatic

thing; it comes to the board of directors and we stand behind

any decision we make.

I will certainly examine your amendment. Although I don't

accept it at this time, it doesn't mean I am turning it

down.

MR. WALLACE: You're becoming very conservative, Bob.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm learning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to what the Hon. Minister said,

will the Hon. Member withdraw the amendment?

MR. GIBSON: I will indeed. I appreciate what the Minister

said and the consideration he has given this. I just ask him if

he could clarify what he means by some future action. What kind

of time frame does he have in mind?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The next time there are a

[ Page 2836 ]

series of housekeeping amendments coming up, I will

certainly have a look at that one before that time.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman,

section 10 refers to an addition

section 46A and it deals with the corporation's capacity to

write special policies, as it were, where the regulations don't

seem to cover the policy applied for. In this addition for that

kind of service, I would like information as well as to

comment. The

section reads: "...the corporation may

prescribe the commissions to be paid to its agents as

remuneration for their services to the corporation respecting

insurance transactions conducted under this section."

First of all, I gather that

section 46A provides for a

rather unique kind of policy or a policy which differs in

specific details from the general applications for the various

classes of vehicles. Otherwise, why have this

section in here

in the first place? If that is the case, I would like to know

how much might be involved by the agent in dealing with such a

policy, drawing up a policy or amending it or whatever is

involved. That would be my question.

My comment would be that this seems to give the arbitrary

power to the corporation to tell the agent what he will get

paid. For a government that believes in collective bargaining

and the fact that there are two sides to every argument, I read

into this amendment that the corporation shall tell the agent

what he shall get for this service he renders in the drawing up

of this particular type of policy.

I know the Minister has commented earlier on, and I think in

second reading the Minister commented that of course it would

be done after discussion with the agents. If past record is

anything to go by, I am not so sure that the agents would feel

very happy with that kind of arrangement whereby they sit down

and discuss it with the Minister and then the Minister tells

them what their commission will be.

I would wonder if the Minister could answer these two

points: how complicated might the service be, and to what

degree is the agent going to have elbow room to really

negotiate what the commission is worth?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member made some general comments

about relationships with the agents. He may not have been in

the House the other day when I spoke on Bill 68 and read from

the speech given by Mr. Hamilton, the president of the agents'

association, at the meeting on May 5. If he was not in the

House when I read that, then I suggest he check Hansard

of two or three days ago, when they outlined their attitude

towards ICBC and what has happened.

There were and have been discussions between the agents and

the corporation. We have an individual contract with each

agent. Despite that contract, we have on three or four

different occasions, after discussion, even added and increased

the amount of money that was being paid to the agents for

different kinds of work. Every company has the right to

determine what salaries and/or commission it will pay its

agents. It is naturally and can be subject to negotiation.

The explanatory notes that I asked for, and which are

indicated briefly here: "...that the need for this

flexibility in the handling of the multi-faceted aspects of

commercial and industrial automobile insurance lines indicates

the desirability of having this flexibility."

Some of the vehicles are very, very expensive vehicles, and

there is the examination of them. Some of them are fairly

straightforward, even though they are very expensive. Yet there

is such a variety of vehicles it is almost impossible to

classify every single instance. So this is to give the

flexibility to make a fair commission without, at the same

time, forcing the corporation to pay what would be, in essence,

an exorbitant amount of money for the time taken to do a

particular job because of the value of the vehicle, an

extremely high value in some of these vehicles. It's a two-way

thing.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask the Minister if in preparing

this amendment he discussed the matter with the agents? Are the

agents or the representatives happy with the wording of this

amendment? Putting it another way, has he had any complaints as

to the amount of discretion to the corporation, which this

amendment appears to allow, in the setting of the

commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have had no complaints from the agents

about the vehicles that are referred to.

MR. WALLACE: No, not the vehicles.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Nor on the commission paid on the

vehicles referred to.

MR. SCHROEDER: Perhaps this entire

section would be more

acceptable to the agents if, rather than the word "prescribed"

the word "negotiate" were there. It would not only leave the

door open to negotiation, but it would also present a far more

flexible attitude on the part of the corporation — "negotiate"

the commissions to be paid. Not only would it give it a better

face as of right now, but it would not have to be changed,

then, a little later on if and when agents happen to be

certified as a bargaining unit, and an amendment would have

[ Page 2837 ]

come in at the time.

Would the Minister consider an amendment that would use the

word "negotiate" rather than "prescribe"?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the agents ever get themselves into

that position, then there are a whole variety of things that

would have to be changed. If that situation comes about, then

I'll look at your suggestion. A whole variety of situations

would have to change before the agents could be in that

position.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister tell us whether or not any

payments payable under the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund and

the responsibility assumed by the corporation has been made?

Have any of these payments been made to date?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, quite a number have been paid. Some

of them are in the process of being certified and checked out

in accordance with the responsibility which I voluntarily

accepted by introducing the legislation I did last fall. I

think about one-third of the claims have been paid and the

others are on the way. That's the information I had about a

month ago.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could we have the date of the first

payment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to check that out, but I'll

get it for you.

MR. SCHROEDER: You don't have it right there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I haven't.

Section 11 approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 69, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, committee

on Bill 79, please.

PERSONAL INFORMATION REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 79, Personal Information Reporting Amendment Act,

1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. COCKE: Committee on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House-in Committee on Bill 88; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

[ Page 2838 ]

Sections 4 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 88, Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realize that

it's unusual, but I was out of the House doing a radio

interview just outside in the corridor when Bill 79 was called.

The Hon. House Leader is aware that I have amendments on the

order paper. It has been a little difficult this afternoon

because the House Leader, with the consent of the House, has

been jumping around in calling the bills owing to certain

Ministers being out of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you referring to a bill that's been already

passed?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Bill 79, and I wonder if the Minister

....

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it would be regular once it has

been proclaimed by the Speaker as having been passed as

an Act.

I don't think we can then march backwards. It would be

different if an order could be discharged, but we have gone

past that stage to the point that it is

an Act of the

Legislature at this moment.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your ruling and I accept it. But I

must express disappointment that the House Leader would move in

this direction when, with the consent of the House, we have

been allowing her to call bills out of order owing to Ministers

being out of the House at various times. I had no idea she was

calling it at that moment. I was only out about three

minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: It is regrettable, but nothing can be done

about it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's what I say. I have no objections,

but if it can't be done according to the rules of the House, I

guess we can't. But I have no objection if there were a way to

have it done.

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid it can't, because it is not the same as asking

leave of the House to discharge an order. It's gone beyond that. We have actually

proclaimed it as having been enacted, and all it requires now is the consent

of the Lieutenant-Governor.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 91.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 91; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. WALLACE: Just a brief comment. I think this is a good

attempt in this

section to define personal care. One of the

problems we are getting into more and more is the multiplicity

of terms that are being used to describe levels of care. Since

it is extremely important that we get the idea across to the

community, and certainly to everybody involved in the health

field, that there are indeed levels of care which require

greater or lesser degrees of skilled professional involvement,

the sooner we do that the better.

The Minister is preoccupied at the moment. I just wanted to

ask him a question regarding the new definition in

section 3.

It's very obvious — or at least I think it's obvious — if you

read it word for word that there is a great effort there to

exclude any suggestion of medical or nursing care in the terms

"non-professional care and supervision" and "a planned

programme of social and recreational activities." I just wanted

to be clear in my own mind that in this definition the Minister

is making it very clear that we are referring to people who in

no way, shape or form require nursing or physician care

regardless of where it's provided. I'm trying to clarify what

you mean by "personal care," especially when we have

already discussed a big segment of intermediate care of which

this really is a part. I wonder if the Minister could either

confirm or correct me in my understanding that this definition

is specifically put in here in these words so as to relate it

to a person who requires neither nursing nor physician

care.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as you know, some time ago we

delineated the levels of care. What we wanted to do was make

sure that there is no misunderstanding. The Member for Oak Bay

has it quite right; the personal-care level does not require

any form of medical or nursing care on an ongoing basis. Mr.

Member, you're a doctor. But aside from that, it's to make sure

that they are sorted out.

[ Page 2839 ]

The next level of care up is intermediate care. That's an

additional level of chronic care that we have discussed many

times in this House. Then, of course, comes extended care,

rehabilitation, acute care and so on. So just to make sure that

there is no misunderstanding, I think it was time that it was

in the Act and properly designated.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. WALLACE: Just a brief comment. I can see the purpose in

this. The

section says that an apparently dead person shall not

be removed from a licensed hospital until a medical

practitioner has certified that the person is actually dead. I

just would like to make the passing comment that while I see

the obvious wisdom in this, I hope the legislation is not

interpreted by some hospitals that the apparently dead person

shall be examined forthwith by the physician to certify that

the person is dead. I've certainly been phoned in the middle

hours of the night by private hospitals where the deceased

person was known to be on the verge of eternity and they wanted

me to go and certify at 3:30 in the morning that the patient

finally expired.

I think that while it certainly doesn't imply in this

section that it should be forthwith, I wonder if the Minister

would consider whether some instructions to hospitals or

regulations or otherwise could just clarify the point that it

doesn't necessarily mean that a medical practitioner the very

next minute, regardless of whether it's day or night, should

immediately abandon what he is doing to go and clarify that the

apparently dead person is really dead.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the reason I introduced this

particular

section was that it was brought to our attention

that a deceased body was turned over to an undertaker prior to

a certification of death by a medical practitioner. As far as

I'm concerned, that's not good enough. I'm not suggesting what

time the doctor should be called or who should call him or

whatever, but that person should not be removed and turned over

to an undertaker until such time as there is that kind of

proper declaration. So it's now in the Act and that's it.

We can work towards seeing to it that sense, not nonsense,

is done around it. But we have to have this

section in the Act

for that purpose.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I couldn't agree more. I just wanted to make the point

that the principle the Minister is espousing is sound; I am sure all the medical

profession would say that. But I hope the Minister in his capacity, not necessarily

by amendment or even by regulation, could perhaps circulate to the hospitals

that this is not intended to be some authority to hospitals in a pre-emptory

way to demand that a physician immediately go and certify that some.... It

might be necessary to go immediately, but in some cases, particularly with the

chronic hospitals, it is not necessary. Physicians have enough demands on their

time and interruptions of their sleep that it seems to me unreasonable that

that

interpretation might be placed on the amendment by the hospitals.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River):

Section 12 appears to me,

from my cursory examination, to substantially strengthen the

position of the public administrator in the management of a

hospital that encounters, or runs into certain difficulties.

I'm wondering if the necessity of changing

section 44 of the

former Act to suggest "notwithstanding the Societies Act, and

the Companies Act or any other Act," is caused by the

difficulties that has been experienced by the hospital board in

the community of Fernie.

I notice this morning, when reading the latest

orders-in-council, that there has been a re-appointment of the

public administrator, Mr. Howard, to administer the affairs of

the Fernie Memorial Hospital Society. His appointment has been

ongoing for some considerable period of time, and I'm wondering

what really is causing the difficulty in that community.

I have been approached by members of the board of that

hospital, as well as the chairman, who have recounted to me

very strange activities taking place in the hospital, which I

am not about to relate at length at this time. It's my

understanding from meeting with these people, and from their

background, that the people who resigned from the hospital

board were very concerned, community-oriented people.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

In fact, the chairman was decorated by the Governor-General of this country

with the Order of Canada for his activity in community affairs over the years.

This honour was bestowed upon him for his great contribution, and now he finds

himself in a conflict situation where he's been forced to resign as chairman

of the hospital board in Fernie. He didn't do this lightly; it wasn't done lightly.

It was a conflict

[ Page 2840 ]

between the administrator and the board, and four or five of

the hospital members have resigned over this problem. We notice

now that the problem is ongoing. There have been notices placed

in the newspapers in the community of Fernie by a nominating

committee and Mr. Howard, the public administrator of the

hospital. In fact, a recent letter has been sent to the

Minister regarding the powers of the public administrator in

that community, which should be read into the record. It was

dated May 12, in Fernie. It says:

"To the Hon. Minister of Health:

"Please find enclosed notices from the Free Press ,

May 7 edition. As you must be well aware, there has been much

controversy with regard to the Fernie Memorial Hospital. We,

the hospital society members, are now faced with a new and

interesting situation: a nominating committee. We are asked to

offer names to a group of people whose function, it seems, is

to sort the wheat from the chaff and present only those names

they deem suitable. By whom are these people who may stand for

election judged? Where did this nominating committee come from?

There's no indication in the ad, which I have before me, of who

this nominating committee is.

"The issue of the resigned members was cut-and-dried out of

Victoria before they were done the courtesy of an interview. Is

this the last step to the final coat of whitewash? I personally

resent the patronizing and arrogant attitude this government

has adopted. If this is indeed not the case, kindly correct my

impression.

"Yours truly, Mrs. Tremmie Yourchek."

Now Mrs. Yourchek was a former member of the hospital board

in the community of Fernie. The government representative, as

well, has resigned from the board.

This is all that the former members have been asking for:

they've been asking that the Minister concern himself with the

problems surrounding the hospital that are being experienced in

that community. They've asked for a public inquiry, and that

public inquiry has not been forthcoming. That's all they ask.

They want their names cleared — people who've made a great

contribution to the community of Fernie and other communities

before. I think the Minister, if he has any reports on his

investigation of the problems surrounding the administration of

that hospital, has a responsibility to these people who have

offered their services over the years on that hospital society,

and to give them the benefit of the findings of any public

inquiry that might have taken place.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I'm nothing less than

shocked at that kind of speech. I would suggest, in the first place.... Let's

just take the first premise.

MR. CHABOT: Stay with the facts as I told them to you.

HON. MR. COCKE: Let's take the first premise that the Member

for Columbia River came up with. He said, for instance, that

the new subsection is tougher. Let me tell you about the new

subsection. You know what it says? It says that the public

administrator may be given complete control over a hospital

society. The old subsection said it was mandatory. What we're

trying to do is make the kinds of transition situations

available.

MR. CHABOT: Notwithstanding the Societies Act and the

Companies Act.

HON. MR. COCKE: What are we doing now, Mr. Chairman, in

Fernie? A hospital board quit. A hospital board resigned.

Fortunately, we had this

section in the Act, which needed some

improvement in wording. If the Member was here yesterday, it

was fully discussed. But we've improved the wording and

provided a transition from the administrator back to the

society.

The Member said: "Who is this sinister nominating

committee?"

MR. CHABOT: I used the word "sinister"?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. Well — "Who is this nominating

committee?" I'll try to use your kind of expression. The local

hospital society in Fernie elect a nominating committee who in

their own town nominate members for the board.

We hope that they can get back. We haven't manpower enough

to be running hospitals around this province in BCHIS. Mr.

Howard is needed elsewhere. But, Mr. Chairman, when a hospital

board resigns, when they're having personality problems and

other problems, then it's necessary that someone run that

hospital. It's been run by Mr. Howard for the last few months.

Now we have passed an order-in-council making a transition back

to the hospital board, once it's elected. Pure and simple.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words regarding the

Minister's statement. This nominating committee — and I'm not

going to use the word "sinister"; that's not my type of

language. I don't use those kind of inflammatory statements.

But certainly I put some emphasis on this nominating

committee.

Why is it necessary to have a nominating committee to

personally select those people they feel — "desirable", might

it be? — to be members of the

[ Page 2841 ]

hospital board, to stand for the hospital board? Why can't

there be elections held by the members in good standing of that

hospital society, as is done everywhere else in the province?

That's the way they're done.

One other question which I put to the Minister and which he

hasn't responded to was the fact that the former members of the

hospital board of that community, including your nominee and

political sympathizer, had resigned in disgust, Now what's

taken place in that hospital? Certainly there is justification

for some kind of an inquiry. Why can't there be a public

inquiry relating to the problems being experienced in that

community surrounding that hospital?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that knowledgeable

Member for Columbia River says that nominating committees are

unique or rare. I have yet to encounter a hospital in this

province whose society does not have a nominating committee.

Now if you've got one in Golden or Invermere, that's rare; not

this particular method.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: All right. Then in that case, why are you

speaking so frivolously? Because it does not occur that

way.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. COCKE: It occurs that hospital societies have

nominating committees who go out and find out from among their

members who is willing to stand. A rather usual procedure. So

that's taken care of.

As far as the hospital was concerned, we sent our

administrator, one of our first-rate administrators from BCHIS.

He informed us there was no need for an inquiry. The major

problem in that hospital was a personality problem. Therefore

it would iron itself out as people got to know the facts

better. Now, I don't understand that there is any problem with

respect to patient care. As Minister of Health that's my job:

to see to it that patients get the best of care that the system

can provide. My understanding is, from an old-time member of

the B.C. hospital insurance group, that that hospital is

providing good patient care.

It's up to the society to put themselves together in such a

way that they can come back and run that hospital in the way it

should be run — not with spite but with proper dedication to

the delivery of health care.

MR. CHABOT: One further question, Mr. Chairman. The Minister said he's

received a report from the public administrator that recommends no public

inquiry. On the basis of that report, is the Minister going to

deny the request of the former members of the hospital board

from having this inquiry which they have been requesting for

some considerable period of time?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 91, Hospital Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I ask leave of the House to permit debate

in Committee of Supply for this afternoon's sitting.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 89: community services, $4,375,734.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River. Are you just sorting your mail or are you going to

speak?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No, I am trying to

find some notes that I had here. Things move rather swiftly in

the House for a change. I certainly don't want to change that,

Mr. Chairman, but I just want to ask the Minister of Health a

couple of questions.

He informed me this morning, if I heard him correctly — I am

sure I did but I would like the Minister to inform me if I

didn't hear him correctly — that there is no problem with funds

for mental health care. The problem was to get personnel. I'll

just sit down and let the Minister inform me if I am right.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I understand all the positions

in the unit are filled, The funding

[ Page 2842 ]

that you find there is just for that number of people. In

the past, there has been a problem with respect to manpower,

and that's it. That funding that you see is just for that

number of people.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister informed me the

budget was cut down from $137,142, which was to include

payments for existing staff and an increase in staff of one

clinical psychologist with a PhD, two psychiatric social

workers and four psychiatric nurses. The budget was cut down

from $137,142 to $72,896. I ask the Minister why the budget was

cut down. There again, I believe I heard the Minister say

correctly that the budget was cut down because personnel were

not available to fill these positions.

HON. MR. COCKE: In general, yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that the case? Why did you cut the budget

down?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, obviously you have picked up a

budget request from a particular area. That is the budget at

this point. You say it is cut down. That is not to say that we

haven't flexibility within this vote to increase it. But I am

not going to debate here a policy that is going on between the

mental health branch and one of its community health

centres.

I say that, generally speaking, in the northern areas, there

has been a difficulty in acquiring manpower. I suggested this

morning that the likelihood is that it was recognized that

staff wouldn't be available in any event to match the requests

from that particular community mental health centre. But then I

went on to say that we are looking at ways of dealing with the

north through using various alternatives. I just didn't want to

suggest what those were at the present time because, after all,

I don't want any of the alternatives to disappear from under my

feet.

But, in any event, that is the number of staff who are last

year's complement with the increases in salary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe I can help the Minister because Dr.

DeWitt, the psychiatrist in the area, has made contacts. I have

the names of two persons who have their PhDs in clinical

psychology who are willing to work in this area. This is why I

am so concerned about this. The situation is critical in that

area, very critical. I have correspondence here on the recent

death of a woman with four children strictly because she didn't

have sufficient health. It was a suicide. These situations are

cropping up.

All I am saying to the Minister is, if it is a case of money, that is one thing.

But here are two people, one from Richmond and the other from Kodiak, Alaska,

both of whom have their PhDs in clinical psychology. They are available and

they will go to that area to work.

I would be quite happy to supply this information to the

Minister if he will give me his assurance that he will take a

look at this budget, because the situation is really critical

up there.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would give that

kind of commitment, and I would have given that commitment had

the Member approached me personally in my office or in the hall

at some time or another on this question.

It is very difficult for me to stand here in this House....

As you know, we have well over 5,000 people in the mental

health service. It's very difficult just to be able to pull out

of a hat numbers for specific areas. I haven't even heard, nor

has my senior Deputy, of this particular situation and that

availability of staff. So I would be only too happy to discuss

it with you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate this. I did bring it up once

before under your salary vote, and you said it was a situation.... This information...well, I won't say it just arrived,

but it did get misplaced on my desk. I'll certainly supply you

with the information, and I appreciate you making that

commitment — I don't want to be critical. As I say, I am

concerned about what's happening there. All I want to do is see

that the situation is alleviated. I'm not, by any stretch of

the imagination, Mr. Minister, trying to make political hay out

of this very, very critical situation. I will certainly provide

you with the information. I appreciate your frank comments.

MR. CHABOT: Just one brief question on a matter I raised

before with the Minister regarding the mental health services

being provided to the community of Revelstoke and the community

of Golden.

Now it was my understanding from correspondence from the

administrator of the Queen Victoria Hospital in the community

of Revelstoke that there had been severe restrictions, that no

longer were the mental health workers travelling into that

community to provide the services. Whether this was a

misunderstanding I don't know, but it was his understanding

that it was because of budgetary restrictions, that it no

longer was possible to provide this service.

Just a few moments ago the Minister suggested that there

were ample dollars to provide services; it was just a matter of

being able to engage professional personnel. The Minister did,

after some considerable time, reply to the administrator of the

hospital suggesting that the Vernon Mental Health Centre

[ Page

2843 ]

would reinstate the services to the community of Revelstoke,

and that they would travel again.

I'm wondering if the cause of the cutback of those services

to the community of Revelstoke and Golden was really budgetary

problems in the department, because the Minister has given us a

clear indication that there are no budgetary problems in the

field of mental health.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I did raise the

same kind of problem in the Skeena riding, specifically in the

City of Kitimat. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether

advertisements are appearing in the journals of an increased

complement in terms of psychiatric social workers or

psychiatrists or that kind of personnel, because I think the

opposition Members are still not certain as to whether there is

a complement agreed to as to the kind of skilled personnel

required but unavailable, and that simply because you may need

five personnel and you can only get three, you set the budget

for three. That makes a lot of sense, but we are concerned over

here that something is being done in a positive way to get the

personnel that are required. I wonder to what degree the

Minister or the department concerned has advertised and failed

to find the personnel.

The people up there in Skeena are like the people, I guess,

in Peace River. They are very anxious to know if it is money or

lack of personnel. If the personnel can be found, will the

Minister provide the salaries?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, naturally there is a

last-dollar syndrome in everything we do, and certainly this is

a very important area. But let me tell you about some of the

advertising that's gone on over the years. There's been a great

deal for the type of people you described.

Now I remember the last time I was in the Peace River, up in

that country represented by the Hon. Member (Mr. Phillips) that

spoke just before the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

At the time I went up there they were anxious and very angry

that there had been advertising in some publications for mental

health personnel, but not for their area. So I came wildly back

to the capital city of B.C. and asked some of my chaps: "How

come that happened?" They said: "Well, we gave up because we

keep advertising for them and we are just not getting them."

That's probably a value judgment, may the quality be good, bad

or indifferent. That's for you to judge.

But the fact of the matter is that they were at that time

having real difficulty in securing staff to go to that

particular area. That is why it surprised me when I heard this

other information.

Revelstoke? Mr. Chairman, we are looking at that whole question. We did ask

that the service be restored to the area — that is, the team service that had

gone back to the Vernon area — but now we are looking at the whole question

from the hospital base. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has leaned on

me a good deal and so has the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) about this whole

question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: We are responding to that request

positively, I hope.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see the Minister of

Labour interject to make sure that he got a little bit of

credit for what has not taken place in the Revelstoke area, as

well as helping out my little friend from Shuswap.

I have again recently received communication from the

community of Revelstoke regarding the spotty and sketchy type

of service that has been given to that community. I'm not going

to read the letter, but there is concern. The nub of the letter

is that they're hoping that it will be possible for the

Minister, under the provisions of this vote, to establish a

unit within the community of Revelstoke to service the

surrounding area without having to go all the way to Vernon.

You can imagine how someone from Golden can ever get to Vernon

in the winter months — going through the Rogers Pass, and the

hazards of driving that road — Vernon is about 165 or 170 miles

away. So people who need care when these services are cut back

and they have to drive to Vernon, certainly aren't going to

drive that distance in the winter months.

What I want to know, really, is if the Minister is giving

consideration to the establishment of a unit in the community

of Revelstoke to service the area south of Revelstoke,

immediately west to take in the community of Salmon Arm and

immediately east to take in the community of Golden. Is that

being considered? I think it's a logical solution to the

problem that that particular area of the province is

facing.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The Minister of Labour should be

making that speech. What's the matter with you?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour has

made that speech, and much better speeches.

Presently we are looking at the whole question of the

travelling group. We are not second-guessing. What we are

looking at are the requests that have come in from the area —

the hospital base request and also the request to beef up the

travelling group.

You talk about the Rogers Pass. A person has to come across

the Rogers Pass to go from Golden to

[ Page 2844 ]

Revelstoke — that same kind of hazardous drive. Mainly what

we're dealing with here are mental health teams that go out

into those communities, not patients coming in to see them.

MR. CHABOT: I agree. If they go from Vernon to Golden,

they're not likely to go — it's too far in the winter

months.

HON. MR. COCKE: Right. But in any event, ultimately our

objective, of course, is to have community mental health

programmes in all good-sized communities and in all districts

where we can have a good central core and move people around

those districts.

Vote 89 approved.

On vote 90: in-patient care, $41,585,681.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a brief comment

and ask a question of the Minister to do with the concerns

expressed in the annual report of the branch. It was most

adequately pointed out that there is a staff shortage at

Riverview Hospital. Some time ago there were comments by the

British Columbia Medical Association that the dispute, between

the government and the salaried physicians may have been at

least a partial cause of the shortage at Riverview, and the

reason why the government wasn't able to attract psychiatrists

to come to work at Riverview. Since the Minister has indicated

that there will be a settlement in the next day or two, or in a

matter of days, at least, does he expect that that settlement

might, in fact, relieve the situation at Riverview? Are there

any other contingency plans to alleviate that shortage which

was detailed in the annual report?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there have traditionally been

staff shortages at Riverview. It's far, far more attractive for

a lot of doctors and other health workers to work in the

community than to work in a large institution.

Just let me say that historically the patient population in

Riverview has gone down from 2,260 or thereabouts, almost

2,300, to 1,600 in the last three years. At the same time while

we've gone down in patient population from 2,300 to 1,600, our

staff complement has gone up from 1,800 to 2,200. So, really,

the complement of staff as to the staff-patient ratio has

improved vastly. I just hope, however, that we can continue

with the community mental health services and get the bulk of

the people back where they belong in their own communities

being served by the community support service.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of mental health care and

de-emphasizing treatment within an institution is very sound — we would certainly

support the Minister's efforts in that direction.

However, I wonder if the Minister couldn't give us some more

specific detail as to expediting the process. Since all

patients will not be able to leave Riverview, could we not have

some assurance that some of the very unsatisfactory

circumstances, to say the least, should be upgraded?

I gather that even the Premier is well aware of the problem.

He suggested during his trip in Japan, perhaps in an

off-the-cuff moment — which he might now regret, I don't know —

to one of the television cameramen or interviewers travelling

with him that if he really wanted to investigate social need,

he should go to Riverview. I guess the interviewer has done

just that. I missed the programme, but I understand it is being

shown again tonight at 7:30. I am just giving the programme a

little plug for those who are interested. I would like to see

it.

I took the trouble to go through Riverview myself earlier on

this year with every cooperation from the Minister's

department — I want to make that plain; there was no suggestion

at all that I shouldn't go.

HON. MR. COCKE: And so did the television.

MR. WALLACE: And so did the television people. So I am not

trying to make political points.

As the Minister said, there is a last dollar somewhere. But,

Mr. Chairman, the large wards at Riverview are such that if you

don't have a mental problem when you get into them, you

certainly would have one before very long. It makes some of the

barracks rooms in World War I look like the Hilton Hotel. The

beds are just really camp beds and they are very close

together. The only personal kind of effects the patient seems

to have is a tall, narrow...I suppose it is a wardrobe. The

room is bare and austere. I know they don't spend all their

hours in that particular room.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, and without trying to make a

great big deal out of it, I just say that while it is very

productive and positive to get people out of these big

institutions and treat them in the community — I completely

agree with that — some unfortunate souls are going to stay in

Riverview or some other kind of institution, unfortunately. To

put them in that kind of place at night to sleep really is

anti-therapeutic. Any good you might be doing during the day,

if I were a patient in there, would sadly be undermined and

neutralized in having to be accommodated in these large,

barn-like wards with such spare fittings and furniture and so

on.

Within these kinds of general limitations, I wonder whether

the Minister has any plan to even subdivide some of these big

rooms, make them a little more

[ Page 2845 ]

homelike or improve the furnishings or put in better beds.

When you compare these beds, for example, to the super-duper

beds in the Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, it is like comparing,

I don't know, a three-wheeler bike to a Cadillac, that sort of

idea. Again, I am not saying we shouldn't have these

top-quality beds in the acute-care hospitals, but I am saying

there is such a vast difference between the situation in some

of these large wards in Riverview compared to what we are

providing for people in other hospitals.

I am just making the point that I know the money is not

endless, but there is a certain amount of money, and there are

some terrible gaps and inequities, depending upon what your

level of illness is and where you are being looked after. I

just wonder if we couldn't shift the money around and perhaps

be less generous in some areas in order that we can make life a

little more reasonable and comfortable and with a little hope

for the patients in Riverview.

The last question I would really ask is: what is the

ultimate goal of the Minister in his planning for the ultimate

fate of Riverview? Is it intended to keep reducing the

population as much as practical and reasonable, but

acknowledging that there are a certain number of patients who

require care in an institution and probably always will? Or

does he have plans for an alternative, more modern and more

therapeutic atmosphere which, as I say, could be done, I think,

either through smaller units in the same setting or at least

one smaller unit? Or, in fact, are we going to renovate or

modify Riverview as it now exists?

HON. MR. COCKE: One of the problems we have with the whole

Riverview situation is that that place was built to last. It is

so very difficult to renovate.

MR. WALLACE: It would make a good museum.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, it would probably make a number of

museums, it is so big and there are so many buildings out

there. We are not trying to hide anything, Mr. Member. I

acknowledge the fact that it is a crummy place in many areas.

The TV asked if they could go in, and we said yes. As a matter

of fact, we gave them a sort of carte blanche. For 11 months

they were making that "Hourglass" programme, and at no time did

we put any restrictions on them. They went into every little

nook and corner. I was a little bit hurt, in a way, that there

was nothing positive said, but that is fair enough. That is

news, and so what? It was open to you; it is open to any person

who has a vital interest in that particular area.

We made a decision. We know that some areas have to be upgraded. We want to

build smaller units that have more of the home-like kind of atmosphere you are

describing. But people in that setting have to be viewed in the future as people

in either extended care, intermediate care or the level of care you think of

when you think in terms of a person who is physically disabled. So, really,

that has to be part of our planning process.

The first objective we have is to get them out of there if

at all possible, and into their own communities. That's why

you'll find that I am delighted with the cooperation we have

had from general hospitals. They are building psychiatric wards

now, and that will be for shorter-term situations.

One of our problems was that in the old days we sent people

to Riverview never to be seen again, and they suffered from

institutional neurosis. That has to be the wrong approach. You

have to keep them at home if at all possible. So, Mr. Chairman,

we have all of these priorities, putting them together and

trying to phase down. At the same time we have members of our

staff right now going through Riverview to find out what areas

can be upgraded and made into the kind of units you are

describing. Hopefully, we can get on with that job as quickly

as possible.

Vote 90 approved.

Vote 91: salary contingencies, $13,485,188 — approved.

On vote 92: hospital insurance service, $464,163,192.

MR. FRASER: I have two or three short questions. First, I

would like to ask the Minister what the average daily rate is

that is being paid hospitals, starting on April 1, 1975. I

don't know whether you have an average, but give the high and

the low. I would like to hear what that is.

The other thing I missed this morning on public health, and

I have two short questions for the Minister. What is the

problem with doctors in the public health, why can't we get

doctors? The Cariboo has been without one for a year. I

understand one is....

HON. MR. COCKE: That's not in this vote.

MR. FRASER: I know that. But, I say, I wasn't here; I missed

this morning.

There is also Tatla Lake which is in public health, too, but

I don't think the nurse has been replaced there as yet.

HON. MR. COCKE: I wonder if the Member would accept an

off-the-cuff average per diem. I believe that we can say it's

well over $100. I think we can say it's around $100. Some

hospitals are higher, the tertiary kind of facilities, and some

are lower. But let's say $100 a day is what we are paying now,

and it is reflected in that little teenie $464 million

vote.

[ Page 2846 ]

To answer your questions about doctors in public health, I

believe that will be sorted out shortly. There has been, as you

know, a little bit of a tie-up in that area. The health unit in

Tatla Lake — I believe we have a position there, we are just

trying to fill it.

MR. FRASER: The nurse stationed at Tatla Lake — there hasn't

been one there for a year.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I know that. There was a little trouble

with Dr. Vandermann and the previous public health nurse. There

is the possibility that there might be trouble with the next

one. Normally, when you think in terms of the public health

nurse you think in terms of the nurse who is the extended-role

type of nurse who does a good deal of primary care. Dr.

Vandermann has a feeling that a nurse should not do that kind

of thing, and this has been the problem, I guess. There is an

establishment for a nurse there, Mr. Member, and we can

certainly deal with it. I imagine that they are trying to fill

that position.

MR. WALLACE: Once again I feel that we can't pass a vote of

$464 million without at least a few comments and some questions

because hospital care or institutional care has just become

fantastically expensive. In terms of salary settlements, it

looks as though we have nowhere to go but up. As the,Minister

just mentioned a moment ago in answering a question, the

average daily cost of care in an acute hospital is somewhere

around $100.

In that respect in particular, I know its tedious and

repetitious to say so, but we are terribly wasteful in our use

of acute-care beds. To give the House and the committee a

simple example, in the two large general hospitals in Victoria,

where the cost is $100 a day, there are always 30 or 40

patients who shouldn't be there at all because they should be

in some other facility.

I have a clipping here which just headlines it in even in

that very acute-care mental hospital, the Eric Martin Institute

in Victoria. The headline says: "One-Third of EMI Patients

Don't Need Acute Care." The administrator is reported as saying

that one-third of the 100 beds for adult patients at the Eric

Martin Institute are occupied by people who don't need acute

psychiatric care, but have nowhere else to go.

We have, as I say, 60 or 70 beds in Victoria every day

occupied by patients who are only there because they have

nowhere else to go. As I have said many times in the House

before, this is nothing new, the situation being demonstrated

as it is. The federal task force some seven or eight years ago

pointed out that the trend in hospital planning to build more

and more acute-care beds was a very ill-considered plan when

there was no planning, or little or no planning for all these

different levels of care.

I know the Minister has acknowledged this and he has mentioned it in today's

debate. But I wonder whether the Minister feels that he Is being successful

in getting the message through to where it belongs; and the message belongs

at the regional hospital board level in the different regions in this province.

I don't think we can stand here in this House, for example,

and criticize the government for not providing the dollars.

There may be a day when we will come to the government from the

capital region and ask for X dollars and not get them. I don't

know. That hasn't happened yet. In fact, the tragedy is in the

capital region that there has been about $20-odd million

sitting around for two or three or four years that the voters

in this community passed and voted and supported by a very

clear majority to provide facilities.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As the Minister interjects, at the rate of

inflation I don't know what $20 million is worth since it was

approved three years ago. I suppose it is worth $12 or $13

million now.

I would just like to ask that question. Does the Minister

feel that the message regarding levels of care.... If you

build acute beds, you will certainly fill them up. There is

never any problem putting patients in acute beds; you can do

that just as easy as wink. But if we are going to be spending

$100 per day, plus the capital costs and the salaries that are

involved in acute-care hospitals, then it is time we woke up to

the tremendous need for alternative levels of care.

In other words, the key is to give the appropriate kind of

care and facility for the appropriate need of the patient.

Because you are a patient with a certain need, that certainly

doesn't mean you should be in an acute-care hospital.

Unfortunately, that's the image that has persisted until recent

years, not only in British Columbia but in Canada.

While I am not the least bit happy with the federal

government and some of its rigid attitudes to cost-sharing, I

think I can give one credit to the federal government of

several years ago. It became aware of this abuse of acute-care

beds before anybody else did. At that point I think it

over-reacted, or, at least in the course of succeeding years,

it is now so nervous about cost-sharing that it seems to be

holding back in areas where it wouldn't be at all unreasonable

to come up with a few federal dollars. But anyway, that's

really another issue.

I have to again say that the biggest gap is the gap, between

the acute-care hospital and the extended-care hospital. I'm

glad that in that other bill we were able to get it clearly

established that the segment of intermediate care starts above

the personal-care level where the person only needs help in the

place they are living, without medical or

[ Page 2847 ]

nursing care.

My first question would be: are we getting through to the

regions? Is the planning looking at the different levels and

not just zeroing in on one or other kind of facility to the

neglect of the others? The whole thing has to be integrated to

make any medical sense, let alone dollar sense.

The second question would be that in the Minister's efforts

to date to fill some of the gap between acute care and extended

care, what is the government's policy regarding the $10-a-day

charge which has been levied in the Penticton and Tillicum

Lodge in Victoria? I think there are four altogether.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it's $10 in Penticton. I just visited the

Penticton place the other day and visited with some of the

people there. They are very happy. It is a beautiful place,

just an excellent place. Oh, sorry, I'm mixing up Penticton

with Kamloops. It was Kamloops.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry; I'm getting mixed up. It was the

Kamloops one I was in most recently, and they told me they were

paying $10 a day.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Ponderosa?

MR. WALLACE: The Ponderosa; that's right. I've been in the

Penticton one as well, but I can't specifically recall what

they are paying there.

Anyway, is there some uniform policy that the Minister is

developing regarding charges paid by the patients? In other

words, if it is going to be $10 at the personal-care level and

you go up a little bit to intermediate care — some kind of

nursing or medical care in small or greater amounts — what

policy is being developed to try and get some equity and

relationship between the amount the patient pays in relation to

the amount of assistance they're receiving.

We touched on this earlier today, and I would like the

Minister, if he would, also to comment on what is happening to

the person on social assistance in an extended-care hospital. I

know that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) had

earlier mentioned that those patients receiving Mincome no

longer receive the full Mincome. They don't receive Mincome

minus $30, and I don't know that either of the Ministers has

explained to us exactly what the formula is.

If Mincome patients are paying a certain amount for their board and lodgings

in an extended-care hospital, and the government's paying the rest.... The

Minister's nodding, but I'm not at all clear on this. The reason I think it's

important is that the government seems to be very uncertain in its own moves

in regard to the charging of the patient for these various levels of care. We've

got $1 a day in the acute care. We've got, as I understand it, $1 a day in extended

care, but for Mincome patients there's been some modification.

Now we have $10 a day for the personal care. We have a $5

charge for ambulance service. We've got ones and tens and fives

and it looks like some kind of crap game when you look at the

whole spectrum. Yet some people are being helped very

appreciably in meeting the cost of their care and others are

really not getting any kind of deal at all.

I know that the Minister, for example, had considered the

$5.50 a day for the extended-care hospitals some time ago, and

I think he, personally, still believes that that would not be

unreasonable. I assume that the collective decision of the

government was not to proceed in that direction, and I would

like some statement of policy. Where are we headed in face of

these tremendously substantial rising costs? For example, under

this vote salaries are almost doubled. This, of course, isn't

the only cause of vote 92 being so greatly increased. But we've

got here salaries from $2.2 million to $3.9 million. Mind you,

that's within the staff of the department. That is the

department, I realize, but even that....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, there's a 6 per cent increase in staff,

but I've figured out a 77 per cent increase in salary, That,

again, is probably related to.... Does that include

contingencies?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: At any rate, under the payments to hospitals,

which are projected to go up to $446 million, if you look at

the way in which that's accumulated, about 80 per cent of that

sum is salaries to hospital employees. If you look at the

average.... In fact, maybe the Minister could tell us what the

approximate average figure was that the hospital employees

negotiated the last time they reached a settlement. I'm not

sure when renegotiations start. Of that $446 million we're

spending on hospitals, 80 per cent of that relates to salaries

and fringe benefits.

So if that doesn't get the message through that we should be

treating as few people as possible in hospital institutions and

that they should be treated only at the appropriate level of

care with no frills.... The thought of some day requiring an

intermediate level of care in an acute-care hospital is expense

of a kind that I just don't think we should approve. On the

other hand, the fact that a patient in an acute-care hospital

is paying $1 a day, and if they

[ Page 2848 ]

go outside or go to a nursing home they're going to

pay $600 a month...what would you do? You'd try and stay in

the acute hospital just as long as you could. There's no

incentive for you to get a little better.

Of course, at the other end of the scale, in the

extended-care hospital, you've no incentive to improve either

because if you get a little better you get heaved out of the

extended-care hospital and back into the nursing home at $600 a

month. This economic injustice defeats me. I don't know why, in

light of the government's general thrust in many other areas to

help the underdog and pay for people who are disadvantaged in

various ways.... They've certainly got a group of people

requiring a certain level of hospital care who are very sadly

disadvantaged in the financing arrangements of this

government.

I notice that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is paying very careful attention. I can

remember him on this side of the House repeatedly making the

speech that I'm now making. I suppose it's the old drip, drip,

drip on the stone, Mr. Minister of Mines. If we just keep

squeaking that wheel enough, we might get some grease.

Seriously, it's not a matter to joke about. It's very sad

and serious, because we have a substantial number of people

requiring and receiving hospital care, and it's costing them

sometimes every penny they have; or finally they have to go on

social assistance. I don't think that's a very fair way and,

certainly, if we can do as much as we're doing in Medicare and

at extended- and acute-care hospitals, I think we should be

able to do a little better than we're doing. The Minister has

said many times that the plan is in the works, and that they're

studying the situation. Can he give us two things, any kind of

likely date that this might be started, even in part, and,

secondly, does he have any specific measures in mind to

rearrange some of these inequitable financial arrangements at

the present time?

This morning he said that in relation to medicare premiums

it just meant that the government was paying a larger share of

the total costs than they did in 1965. The same argument,

obviously, applies to acute-care hospitals and extended-care

hospitals at the moment. As the costs go up, the patient still

pays $1 per day, so the government is paying a larger and

larger fraction of the total costs. All I am asking is: do you

have a date, or do you have any specific plans to try and have

the patient keep up with the cost of inflation by paying the

same percentage fraction of the cost in the hope that more

money will be available to plug the gaps that now exist?

In this vote there are one or two other smaller points I wondered about. I

notice travelling expenses are going up from $140,000 to $200,000. I wonder

if this is simply due to the rising costs of travel, or is there a greater policy

to get the staff of BCHIS out into other areas. For which particular purpose

is it — inspection or helping regional boards?

HON. MR. COCKE: Consulting, in most cases.

MR. WALLACE: The last point I want to ask is: can the

Minister report, as of this moment, on the progress on the

peninsula hospital in the capital region? The Minister knows

how frustrating it has been to get some of the decisions made

in that direction.

Earlier on in this session the Minister offered the hospital

every help with functional planning of the proposed 75-bed

wing. It would just be such an asset to the people on the

peninsula and a little bit of a release of pressure on the city

hospital beds and so on. The sooner we get these 75 beds

completed, the better. I wonder if the Minister can report just

what his knowledge is of progress on the peninsula

hospital.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, let me go back to the

beginning. The Member asked: are the regions getting involved,

are they cooperating in planning and production of

alternatives to the acute-care situation?

Most of the regions are becoming very much aware of that. Of

course, one of the problems with our system is that the capital

funds for hospitals are provided on a share basis — 60 per cent

provincial, 40 per cent regional. On the other hand, however,

the province picks up the total cost of hospital insurance, so,

really, the motivation isn't there so much for the region to

produce alternatives. In other words, what difference does it

make to the region whether there...I mean, sure it does

morally or ethically, but what difference does it make whether

a patient is in a $100-a-day bed or a $12-a-day bed. It is a

little bit of a problem there with motivation.

The regions are becoming concerned. Particularly I have

noticed the Vancouver regional district recently. They used to

be very much opposed to getting into that area. They are now

moving very much ahead. I think we are building 1,100 beds in

Vancouver for extended-care alone. They are also thinking in

terms of getting together with us on the whole question of

intermediate care. So, yes, the regions really are beginning to

work in this area.

The policy regarding equity. I think one of your last

questions was around that question as well. I think I dealt

with it earlier in the session. That was that I didn't want to

change a thing until after our negotiations in September. We

are negotiating the whole new sharing situation. Hopefully, we

are going to get a lot closer to it this time. The preliminary

talks have looked good, so I suggest that maybe we

[ Page

2849 ]

are much more optimistic than we have been heretofore. This

is sharing lower levels of care than acute care.

MR. WALLACE: If they don't, will we go it alone?

HON. MR. COCKE: If they don't, we have to go it alone; there

is no question about that. One way or the other, we have to

go.

You asked what is happening about the Mincome patient in an

extended-care facility. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) has seen to it that they don't get their Mincome

aspect. They still get their old age pension and any other

pension. The Mincome is withheld because, after all, it is only

costing them $1 a day for room and board. I agree with you; it

is totally inequitable. Again, that gets back to the policy

with respect to equity. I think it should be all established at

one time.

What was the income increase in the hospitals? It was

roughly 10.5 per cent plus a COLA clause which I think amounts

to roughly 8 percent, so it was about 18.5 per cent in

retrospect. We didn't know what it was going to be in prospect.

But anyway, that is what it has been. Yes, it was a pretty

heavy increase, but in many of the areas there was a real need

for parity, payment for services rendered and so on. In any

event, I think that answers your question.

The peninsula hospital, as I announced a long time ago, will

cooperate. As quickly as the plans are made available they

will be approved as quickly as we can. We want to get that

thing off the ground and running.

Where are we now? Are we on functional programme? I presume

we're on functional programme; I think the functional programme

will probably be ready by June.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the

Minister say we would go it by ourselves if we don't get

cost-sharing for the alternative levels of care in the

province. Nevertheless, we do seem rather slow in getting

anywhere. I know that the Minister's arguments are that we are

moving rapidly with more money into the home-care programme and

that part of the money has been transferred to Human Resources.

But still he talks about the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. The regional district has said that they need 3,500

intermediate-care beds now. That's the need, and it isn't some

time in the future. It also emphasizes in that report that

4,000 beds will be needed by 1981. Those beds should be made

available and covered by the same co-insurance scheme which is

presently covering extended-care and acute-care beds.

I differ with the route that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) seems to

want to take and perhaps the route the government wants to take concerning the

charges being made for the alternative levels of care. In this province over

the past several years we have taken the view that various forms of health-care

delivery should be supported in terms of.... We talked about this briefly earlier

today. It should be thought of as a social dividend which is paid for by a strong

and growing economy. Unlike many other jurisdictions, we didn't have a mishmash

of different levels of premiums, bureaucracies, co-insurance and deterrent fees

and all of those kind of things. We simply took the view — I think we should

still take the view — that progressive stages involved with the health-care

delivery system as it applied to the hospital world would move us in stages

to dollar-a-day coverage for all levels of health care through acute care, extended

care, intermediate care and, hopefully someday, with federal government approval,

even home care.

We did have extended care and acute care provided at $1 a

day. There was a problem with the development of the

facilities, a problem which is ongoing as yet and which is

gradually catching up. In terms of the intermediate care and

home-nursing care, there was some relief under the Canada

Assistance Act between the province and the federal government.

But we seem now to be facing a breakdown in this programme for

the future. It bothers me, and I would like to make just a

couple of observations about it, Mr. Chairman.

The history of premium plans, wherever they have been done,

and deterrent plans, wherever they have been done, has been

that they get amended upwards or downwards or sideways or some

other way. But most often the amendments come to serve a

political purpose at election time rather than to serve any

purpose of the patient in need of care.

The premium system and those deterrent systems also create

massive amounts of red tape, Mr. Chairman, and more patient

participation than is necessary if we accept, first of all, the

premise that the health-care delivery system should be

supported by the economy.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, you can't penalize people for being

sick; that's what I believe we're talking about. If we're

talking about $5-a-day contributions for extended care under

the present.... I would say that a rough estimate, under the

present number of people taking advantage of our extended-care

facilities, would be maybe $4.5 million. That's peanuts; it's

no percentage of the surplus funds available for health-care

delivery service. If we're talking about intermediate care,

we'd be probably talking about a $1 recovery at $5 a day of far

less than $4 million. Again, Mr. Chairman, that's just

peanuts.

[ Page 2850 ]

If we ask the patients who are going to be involved in that

intermediate-care system to provide us with $5.50 a day, it not

only breaks down the programme that we had hoped would be

developing in British Columbia but it makes no allowance for

the fact that extended care, intermediate care and home care

are practical and useful ways.... Once again, we had this

demonstrated very clearly to us when we travelled a couple of

years ago with the committee around the province. There are

useful ways of reducing the very costly delivery system now

which is connected with the provision of acute care and the

subsequent hope in the future of reduction in the escalation of

those costs. We're all looking in the long run to stop the

escalation and put a halt to that escalation of costs which has

been so rapidly rising year by year. Extended care,

intermediate care and home care have always been considered a

cheaper way of bringing down the utilization of expensive

acute-care beds. I think the proof is now ther