1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1791 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Railcar shortage. Mr. Barrett –– 1792

B.C. Railway losses. Mr. Barrett –– 1792

Ministry of Economic Development studies of Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Gibson

–– 1793

International boundary negotiations. Mr. Lea –– 1793

Commercial property taxes. Mr. Stephens –– 1794

Chemical spraying of rights-of-way. Mr. Lockstead –– 1794

2, 4-D spraying near Nimpkish Lake. Ms. Sanford –– 1795

Printing of "Government Agency Review." Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies ––

Presenting reports.

Committee on Crown Corporations second report. Mr. Veitch –– 1795

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 4) .

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Skelly –– 1798

Mr. Cocke 1795 Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1798

W- Levi 1795 Mr. Cocke –– 1799

Hon. Mr. Wolfe 1796 Mrs. Wallace –– 1799

Mr- Levi 1796 Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1800

Mr. D'Arcy 1796 Mr. Cocke –– 1800

Mr. Mussallem 1797 Report and third reading –– 1800

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Health estimates.

On vote 125. Ms. Brown –– 1813

Mrs. Wallace 1800 Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1813

Hon. Mr. McClelland 1801 Mr. Gibson –– 1813

Mr. Stephens 1802 Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1815

Mr. Gibson 1804 Mr. D'Arcy –– 1816

Hon. Mr. McClelland 1805 Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1817

Mr. Stephens 1809 Mr. Mussallem –– 1818

Hon. Mr. McClelland 1809 Mr. Cocke –– 1818

Mr. D'Arcy 1810 Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1818

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 1812

Committee of Supply; Ministry of the Environment estimates.

On vote 83.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 1819

Mr. Skelly –– 1822

Presenting reports.

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, two reports. Mr. Bawtree ––

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have in the gallery today two constituents who were last week nominated to the British Columbia Sports Hall of Fame. Miss Marjorie Leeming was noted for her tennis accomplishments in B.C. between 1915 and 1932. She was two times Canadian ladies champion, three times Canadian ladies doubles champion with her sister, two times Canadian mixed doubles champion and Oregon state ladies singles champion. Marjorie is in the gallery and I'd like you all to make her welcome as she stands, please.

Along with her, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Howard Furby. His contribution to swimming in Canada and British Columbia was recognized last week as well. He has been a coach for 31 years. In 1955 he was the assistant coach at the Pan-Am Games in Mexico; in 1958 he was at the Empire Games in Wales as coach; in 1964 he was the Canadian Olympic team coach in Tokyo. In 1967 and 1969 he toured South Africa and the Soviet Union with a selected Canadian swim team. From 1970 to 1972 he was national technical director of the Canadian Amateur Swimming Association.

In 1974 he joined the staff of the Juan de Fuca Coho swim team in my constituency as the one and only staff member. We are very pleased to have him there. I would ask the House to bid him welcome as well.

MR. KING : Mr. Speaker, along with the two distinguished guests whom the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) has introduced, I would like the House to welcome Mr. Mac Leeming also, who was a former attendant in this Legislature.

HON. MR. NIELSEN : Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a Richmond businessman who is in the gallery with his wife today, and a couple of friends from North Burnaby as well: from Richmond, Mr. and Mrs. Morris Feldstein, and from North Burnaby, Cliff Oswald and Mr. Gary Oswald.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome from Vancouver East students from Vancouver Technical School with their teacher, Bill Ledingham, the well-known tennis player. The Leader of the Opposition and I both bid them welcome.

MR. HADDAD : Mr. Speaker, everyone here knows that my constituency is

a long way from here, but today I'm honoured with having the mayor of the

city of Cranbrook, Mayor Ty Colgur, and his administrator, Mr. Jim Lamb. They

are sitting in the Speaker's gallery. Would you please make them welcome?

MS. SANFORD : Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock today we will be joined by a group of students from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School in Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher, Doug McRae. Among the students is one Glen Sanford ' who is my No. I son, Mr. Speaker. I would like the House to make them welcome now.

MRS. JORDAN : Mr. Speaker, I didn't know our galleries were so expansive and held so many people, and it's my pleasure to ask you and the House to welcome Mr. Ewald Gatzke from Vernon. Mr. Gatzke is a long-time resident; they have a large family. Their warmth and friendship and their ideals have had a great impact on our area. He's in the members' gallery and I'd ask you all to give him a very warm welcome.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a young school student who is a friend of mine and a friend of our family. I'd like the House to welcome Megan Anderson.

MR. BAWTREE : Mr. Speaker, in the buildings today on tour are 45 grade

4 and 5 students from my constituency, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Dergousoff,

and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Mr. Speaker, it's not very often that I have the opportunity to stand in the Legislature and introduce guests from the mighty Peace River country.

MR. BARRETT : That's right, you don't have any.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Yes, I have got lots of friends but, as the member from Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) says, they're a long way away.

In the gallery today is Mr. Peter Diemert, chairman of the Peace River-Liard Industrial Commission, and with him Mr. Bill Anderson, the new industrial commissioner. I know that the House will join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I would like the House to welcome, here today to watch the proceedings, the executive director of the British Columbia Health Association, Mrs. Pat Wadsworth - a relatively new position.

Also I would like the House to welcome a

[ Page 1792 ]

widely travelled evangelist from Aldergrove in my constituency, the Rev. Mun

Hope, who, I believe, will be giving us prayers tomorrow in the House - and

I hope everyone will be here to hear them.

MR. LEA : On a point of order, I believe the Premier is away from the capital on business, the Deputy Premier is not in the House, and I believe it's usual procedure for the executive council to appoint someone to take questions on behalf of the government generally, in the Premier's stead. I wonder if the executive council or the House Leader could tell us who that person is - which cabinet member for today.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, I don't know under what standing order the point was raised. But regardless of how valid the point may be, it may not be a legitimate point of order.

Oral questions.

RAILCAR SHORTAGE

MR. BARRETT : I would like to ask a question of my friend, the Minister of Economic Development. I'd like to ask my friend about a question I asked him on May 18. 1 asked him what he was doing to assist the workers and management at Balco Industries in the face of the shutdown of this plant due to the shortage of railcars. The minister took the question as notice at that time and I'd appreciate an answer.

MR. SPEAKER : A question taken on notice is taken on notice and is at the discretion of the minister to answer as he wishes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : That's right, Mr. Speaker; thank you for the advice. We will notify you in due course.

MR. BARRETT : Another question: has the minister taken any steps whatsoever to alleviate the desperate car shortage in the province of British Columbia, which was caused partly by the unnecessary closure of Railwest by this government?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is argumentative. Does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : I'll give an argumentative answer. The Leader of the Opposition, I know, is very jealous of the way that the British Columbia Railway is being operated. We just released our annual operating statement from the railway, which is the best annual statement ever issued by that British Columbia Railway.

And I want to inform the Leader of the Opposition that, with the 20 per cent increase in car loadings last year by the British Columbia Railway due to the great economic development that is presently taking place in this province, until there were storms in the east, which caused the shortage of movement of railcars, we moved that additional 20 per cent increase in rail loadings last year - the greatest in the history of the railway - without any shortage of railcars.

So far as the operation of the British Columbia Railway is concerned, had it not been for this problem there would be no shortage of cars in the British Columbia Railway system.

MR. BARRETT : Would the minister undertake to notify OOFI that the 2,500-car shortfall they claim in the shipping of lumber in the interior does not exist, and urge COFI to stop sending out misleading press releases that might embarrass the minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Mr. Speaker, I want to say that because there's a shortage of railcars on the railway, I'm not embarrassed. It's because of the great economic activity created in this province and the great demand for railcars at this time that's caused that shortage. I'm sure that COFI realized that the lumber business is so good in British Columbia that we do have a temporary shortage due to the fact that the other railways in this country are not running as well; they're not keeping up their rolling stock. It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers of British Columbia to supply railcars for the entire North American railway system.

B.C. RAILWAY LOSSES

MR. BARRETT : A last question to the minister. Would the minister please explain to this House how an increase in the loss annually by the B.C. Railway from $53 million last year to $58 million total loss this year is an improvement of their financial position?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite happy to explain that. Because of the tremendous losses incurred on the British Columbia Railway through political interference in the operation of that railway during the period of time that the New Democratic Party was in power and during the time that that man was the president of the railway....

[ Page 1793 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : I want to explain to the leader of the opposition that so far as the operating deficit is concerned, I think that he as a British Columbian should take pride in the fact that the operating loss on that railway was reduced from $21.8 million in 1976, down from some $50 million the last year lie was president, down this year to $8.5 million.

But due to the tremendous capital expenditure and loss while they were in power, we still have to service the deficit, and that is where the increase in the loss has come - from servicing the debt and its interest payments.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we outlay in this House to the people of British Columbia our great transportation policy, we will certainly take that into consideration. I want to point out to the member that that's not an operating loss. Most of the losses incurred by the transportation system in British Columbia are exactly that. The ferry system is a direct loss; urban transportation is a loss; the loss on the British Columbia Railway in terms of the other transportation systems is $8.5 million only.

I want to tell you that he can ask me questions about the British Columbia Railway any day he wants to, because I'm proud to be able to stand. in the House and talk about the fantastic job that that board of directors is doing operating that great British Columbia Railway.

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

OF FORT NELSON EXTENSION

MR. GIBSON : After those answers, it is with some trepidation that I direct another question. But if the Minister of Economic Development can hear me through various symptoms of hay fever, I would ask him - given the decision of the government to keep the Fort Nelson extension open - what current studies - and

I'm not referring to the one tabled two or three years ago - he has supporting the need for expenditure of an additional $35 million plus, as estimated by the royal commission, to upgrade that line. Need it all be spent now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Mr. Speaker, it's fairly simple. If we're going to keep the railway line open, we have to upgrade it to at least branch-line standards, so that the people of that area who were serviced by the railway will look on the railway knowing that it's going to continue in operation.

As I said yesterday, there are two areas where we have to do some physical changes in the roadbed. One is at Elleh Creek, which was caused by heavy rains in May of last year, and we have to redo that bridge in there. The other is an area where we have to bypass about seven miles to get out of a soil condition. The rest of the upgrading, as I pointed out, is going to be in redoing the actual rail and replacement of ties which were originally put in.

MR. GIBSON : On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I don't know that the minister heard my question. I asked him what studies he has and whether he will make those studies available to the public.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : The board and management of the railway did that study last year as to what material was required and haw much money was required to bring the line up to branch line standards. If you want to know the cost of each tie and of the rail welding and so forth, I'll talk to the management. In other words, you want us to detail where the $35 million is going to be expended.

MR. GIBSON : Exactly. But will you make it public?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Do you have a further supplementary?

MR. GIBSON : Yes. The minister asked me if what I wanted was the details, and I said yes. Will the minister make it public?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : In due course.

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY

NEGOTIATIONS

MR. LEA : My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. -Is there a committee of cabinet in British Columbia that deals with negotiations between the provincial government and the federal government? If the committee exists, is the minister on that committee, and would he name the other members of that committee?

HON. MR. MAIR : There is a committee known as the Confederation committee of cabinet, which deals with matters of the constitution and the Confederation issues that face the nation; I am the chairman of it. The other members of the committee are the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Mines and

[ Page 1794 ]

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . I believe that's it.

MR. LEA : As the chairman of that committee, would the minister tell the House why the province of British Columbia is keeping secret from the federal government its position on the negotiations that are going on between the United States and Canada in terms of the international boundary lines the Dixon Entrance and the Strait of Juan de Fuca?

HON. MR. MAIR : That particular matter is not part of the terms of reference of the Confederation committee of cabinet.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAXES

MR. STEPHENS : My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I would like to ask the minister whether it was his intention that the changes made in the system for calculating the assessed values of properties should shift a greater share of property taxes to commercial property, much of which is owned by small businessmen?

HON. MR. CURTIS : Mr. Speaker, while I thank the member for the question, it is directed to the wrong minister. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is responsible for assessment matters in this province.

MR. STEPHENS : I'd like to ask the same question of the Minister of Finance.

I would like to know whether it was your intention, in setting the changes in the system and calculating the assessment for property, that a greater burden of the property taxes would be shifted to commercial property, .much of which is owned by the small business community.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. STEPHENS : A supplementary. I'd like to ask the minister whether he has, since the change has come into effect, conducted any surveys to determine whether in fact a greater portion has shifted to the commercial property owners.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Well, Mr. Speaker, first off, the inference that there has been a shift towards commercial classification on a province-wide basis is not a fact. The total classification of commercial property would be in about the same relationship to the total. The category was set at 25 per cent of actual values. Now this would be approximately what the relationship was previously under the frozen system, so there is really in effect on a province-wide basis no shift, although in individual municipalities certainly there would be a shift, one way or the other.

MR. STEPHENS : A further supplementary. I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he is aware of a survey conducted by Bob Bennett, president of the Suburban Business Property Owners' Association, that shows that there has been an approximate jump of 30 per cent to commercial property owners in the city of Vancouver. If he is aware of that, has he checked out to find out whether it is sound?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, I've been supplied with a number of analyses from different municipalities. I'm not aware that I've received the one the member is referring to. I'd be pleased to have a look at it.

CHEMICAL SPRAYING OF

RIGHTS-OF-WAY

MR. LOCKSTEAD : A question to the Minister of Finance, responsible to this House for B.C. Hydro. Will B.C. Hydro be using toxic chemicals to clear rights-of-way this year?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, there was an instance I'm aware of where I believe chemicals were to have been used in the northern part of Vancouver Island, which has been discontinued, and this was publicly stated. I'm not aware of the details on other [illegible] where spraying would have been contemplated.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister identify precisely which toxic chemicals will be used?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, this would clearly depend on what is approved under the environmental application and so on. I'd be pleased to take that question on notice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD : In view of the fact that the B.C. Hydro management team sent the minister answers, to questions I put to the minister on May 25 of this year and the minister has this material in his possession, would the minister undertake to bring answers to those questions regarding what amounts of toxic chemicals will be used and in what ratio? Would the minister identify the areas of the province where these chemicals will be used? Would you please ask your secretary to make that information

[ Page 1795 ]

available to you? Hydro sent you the answers last week.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. member, questions taken on notice will bring answers at the discretion of the minister.

2, 4-D SPRAYING NEAR NIMPKISH LAKE

MS. SANFORD : My question is to the Minister of Finance as well. The application which was withdrawn was in the Campbell River area, but in view of the concern which has been expressed by the federal Fisheries people concerning the proposed spraying of 2, 4-D near Nimpkish Lake in the northern part of the Island, I'm wondering whether or not Hydro will, at this stage, withdraw that application as well.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, I think that's really a policy question for Hydro which, of course, would have to have approval under all of the environmental applications, as I said before.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Veitch from the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations presented the committee's second report, which was taken as read and received.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to a question taken on notice.

Leave granted.

PRINTING OF

"GOVERNMENT AGENCY REVIEW"

HON. MR. WOLFE : The other day I was asked a question by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) having to do with our new publication called The Government Agency Review. She asked why it had not been printed at the Queen's Printer.

This is the first publication of its kind. It's planned to print two of these a year, and it was under the jurisdiction of the agent at Merritt who instructed that the first issue be printed at the Merritt Herald newspaper in Merritt. I'd just like to advise the member that future editions will be produced through the Queen's Printer.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : By leave, may we proceed to public bills and orders?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Committee on Bill 4.

THE BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The house in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE : The only

section of this bill that has any substance is

section 1, and

section 1 permits the borrowing of $750 million on behalf of B.C. Hydro, putting the people of British Columbia in the glue to the tune of $4.9 billion on behalf of Hydro. During the second reading debate-- many questions were asked by members of the opposition - questions concerning alternatives, questions relating to a real vindication of the need for this amount of money, questions concerning the future and who is ultimately going to pay the bill of virtually $5 billion owed so far by the people in this province.

We raised the issue about the percentage of people's Hydro bills that are now going to pay interest only on Hydro borrowings - estimates of anywhere from 45 to 47 per cent of one's Hydro bill. I suggest that we did not get answers from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . We do not have answers from Hydro, despite one of the members of the Crown corporations committee - that is, the chairman himself - who seems to feel that there is great progress being made in getting answers from Hydro. So far I've seen very little of that.

I suggest to you very strongly that the opposition will take a position opposing this

section of the bill for those reasons. Certainly I'm not going to go through the debate that we've already had. tut I just want to suggest very strongly that the opposition feels no better about this today than we did the last time we debated this particular bill, Bill 4, because we have not had the answers from the Minister of Finance. Neither Hydro nor the Minister of Finance has provided answers to the questions raised in this House.

MR. LEVI : Can the minister tell me whether he, as a member of the board, was part of the decision to recommend to the government the request for $1 billion worth of funds? Yesterday, when I spoke I asked the minister whether or not he didn't find himself in a difficult position being on the board as a director,

[ Page 1796 ]

discussing the amount of money that the board needs, then when that request goes to cabinet, having to make a decision on it as the Minister of Finance. After all, he is the minister who is putting the bill through. So does the minister not find himself in a conflict of interest situation here? Does he not find it difficult to rationalize these two positions that he holds?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Firstly, I was not a member of the Hydro board at the time this bill was put together. And I might say that I disagree that this would represent a conflict. Rather I would view it as an advantage - as fiscal agent for the borrowing of a certain part, mind you - to have the input, information, viewpoint and understanding of the many problems associated with Hydro and its decision to reduce the request in line with fundamentally necessary expenditures, and only those for the current fiscal year. So I think the added feature of currently being the cabinet member on Hydro was really a contributing, helpful thing.

MR. LEVI : On a supplementary, would the minister as matter of future practice refrain from voting on financial decisions on which he has to participate in the cabinet? Or does he feel that's okay to make decisions on the board? For instance, if he's on the board next year when Hydro comes back, as I understand they probably will do, will lie be part of that decision-making or will he exempt himself from that decision-making? He has to be part of a recommendation, after all, to the cabinet. He is the fiscal officer of the province.

HON. MR. WOLFE : As I say, Mr. Chairman, I don't view this as a conflict at this moment. I'll consider that matter when the time comes again for such a consideration. But at this stage I would certainly disagree. I think if anything my responsibility for finance under the Legislature would tend to ameliorate their requests and provide them with a better understanding that they should not exaggerate those.

MR. LEVI : Really, what I am talking about is in respect to the stated policy of the government, as enunciated by the Premier, that Crown corporations have to have an arm's-length relationship. I find it very difficult to accept that such an arm's-length relationship can exist in respect to this Crown corporation when we have the minister who has now told us that he doesn't see anything wrong with participating in financial decision-making on the board and at the same time making recommendations in cabinet.

That does not do anything for the principle enunciated by the Premier that we have an arm's-length relationship. I would strongly suggest that he should reconsider his position in respect to this dual role because it does nothing to demonstrate an arm's-length relationship.

MR. D'ARCY : Mr. Chairman, on

section I of this bill, I note that the increase in this bill brings to $1,850, 000,000 the increase in borrowing capacity of British Columbia Hydro during the present term of office - that is, while this minister has been Minister of Finance. This represents a 60 per cent increase in the last two years and five months in the indebtedness of British Columbia Hydro, a Crown corporation which was created 16 years ago.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell us how long it's going to take to pay off this $700-plus million in borrowing from this particular bill alone. How long are the people of B.C. going to be paying off this debt, backed by the government of B.C. and paid off through Hydro rates to commercial, residential and industrial users?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, any bonds on the marketplace which are obtained through this authority are normally long-term - 25 years as a rule. In one case I can recall, one was about 30 years. That would be the term if about 30 years. That would be the term if everything stopped and the payments went on and the debt was finally paid off. Much of this authority will be covered by internal pension funds, compensation board funds and other internal funds - probably 60 per cent of it.

I might say that you should be made aware of the fact that during the previous government's term of office, a greater acceleration percentage-wise in the authority for borrowing took place. It increased from $1.750 billion previous to 1974 to a level of $3 billion. Now that's 80 per cent. Certainly we have increased this borrowing authority now on three occasions, but in relation to the starting figure it's a lesser portion, that's all. We're talking about a sizable debt and I don't think we should try to mince words on who has accelerated the debt more than anyone else. But in relationship, certainly the previous government accelerated the debt by a substantial measure.

MR. D'ARCY : Mr. Chairman, I would submit to the House that $1,850, 000,000

is substantially

[ Page 1797 ]

more over a period of 29 months than $1,250, 000,000 over a period of 39 months. However, taking the minister's statement at face value, is he to have the House and the people of B.C. believe from his statement that his government and his ministry have absolutely no intention of further increasing the borrowing power of British Columbia Hydro and the indebtedness of the people of B.C. over the rest of the term of office of the present government?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, I would hope we couldn't get into

a debate on percentages of who accelerated more than....

MR. D'ARCY : I'm asking you to clarify your own statement that you just made.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Yes, I know. But you did repeat, Mr. Member. On two requests for increased borrowing, you increased the same amount that we have over a period three successive.... The current request is for another year going forward.

In any event, ignoring that aspect of it, I think we should remember that we're talking about the payments for highly capital intensive projects, largely involved in dam projects and the development of available water power which, from an operating point of view, is very economical. These are dollars well spent even though the debt load might scare one. On a per capita basis across Canada compared to other Hydros, on a per customer basis, it's very comparable. I think it behooves Hydro to develop in the direction of water power to the extent that it's environmentally possible.

MR. D'ARCY : The minister has made evident, I think, what most people know already. I suppose to get very specific on the borrowing, the minister has already told the House the projects which this money will be spent on -the completion of Seven Mile, which is in my riding, the completion of Site One on the Peace and other ongoing work, completion of the power house installations at Mica and so on.

Is the minister telling us that he is likely to come back with the same kind of percentage increase next year for which, in the case of this particular borrowing increase, would mean $1 billion or more authorization for the year following the anniversary date of this bill going through? Is that what he's telling us?

To do that, Mr. Chairman - because these other projects are nearing completion - he would have to be telling the House that

British Columbia Hydro, to his knowledge, intends to initiate new projects rather than merely complete those which have been under construction for the last three or four or five years.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, the question is: will there be further requests for increased borrowing authority the next year or the year following? I think this is highly likely under any Minister of Finance. If you will examine the prospectus, last June, 1977, you see the seven-year projection of capital expenditures of B.C. Hydro very clearly laid forward. It takes you on through 1980 to 1982, a three-year period in which there is a contemplated $3.6 billion to be spent. So there's no way I can say there will not be future requests for increasing this authority.

MR. D'ARCY : I agree that we're going to have greater increases, but does that mean rather definitely that they're going to continue to rise by an amount of perhaps $100 million a year to $150 million a year and that new projects are going to be initiated? That's the question.

HON. MR. WOLFE : This does not commit what future projects may be brought in line or changes which may take place in those decisions.

I want to remind the member that it's a true exercise of democracy that we're required in this Legislature to approve this increased authority on each occasion. We could have requested in this instance to increase the authority to $6 or $7 billion and avoided coining back to the Legislature year after year with these requests. This gives us an opportunity to debate these matters in public. Therefore I think you must expect that there will be future requests, as you are fully aware.

MR. MUSSALLEM ; Mr. Chairman, in my mind, it isn't a question of

whether Hydro is borrowing. The question is their need to borrow. I think the

line of questioning of my hon. friend is not on the right track. The question

really is: is Hydro being efficient in its borrowing? And this is under investigation

at the present time by the Crown corporations committee and by various other

agencies of government. I must say, as far as we have found to date, that the

borrowing has been efficient and Hydro needs to borrow. Hydro will not build

dams unless we, the public, demand more power. As long as we demand power, Hydro

must meet our demands. We could not

[ Page 1798 ]

afford to buy power from other sources. We have to develop it ourselves.

The figures are great and large and frightening. But when they are put in context, they're not that serious. We are producing power in British Columbia for far less than in most other jurisdictions. Hydro, although great, is only meeting our demands. I could say also: who pays for the maintenance of our highways? That would shrink to insignificance compared to Hydro's borrowing. It's the public interest that is being served here. Let us not dwell on how much they are borrowing. How long will they continue to borrow? That is not the question.

If British Columbia continues to grow, which I'm sure it will under good administration, this borrowing will continue. It will become greater and greater. The question is this: what is the end product? How cheap can you produce power for? Can you continue to produce seven and eight mill power. If you can do that, there's no harm in borrowing. If we were in a position where we didn't have to borrow, which is almost an impossibility, we would be buying manufacturing power today for three and four mills. But that is not feasible. As long as we continue to grow and the public continues to demand, Hydro must borrow and must produce electricity.

All we can hope for is that they produce it efficiently. It's not whether they borrow or not. That is the wrong track, I say to my hon. friend in the opposition.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be appropriate at this time to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper to amend this section. of the bill? I've been advised that it's intelligible.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It would be the correct time to move the motion, and today's motion is considerably different from yesterday's. However, it involves the expenditure of funds, contrary to standing order 67, which applies to Crown corporations, and it's beyond the scope of the bill. It now imports a new principle to the bill and it tends to dictate government policy. So for all those particular reasons, your amendment is out of order. Since we had advance copy, we could do a little research and find out. Your motion is out of order but you may wish to speak to this

section of the bill.

MR. SKELLY : On this section, Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister at least has the intent of the motion. In a number of proceedings now that have been brought before, for example, the comptroller of water rights, it is extremely difficult for intervenors in an informed way to present statements in opposition to some of the generating projects.

it has been discussed in the United States and, in fact, the Office of Management and Budget has looked into environmental assessment and review procedures and found out that in many cases these procedures save utilities money. In fact, it's worthwhile to allocate some of the project funding or borrowing, as the resolution would have done. It is worthwhile to allocate a part of that money, or a very small percentage of that money in this case, to intervening groups or to an environmental assessment and review procedure that somewhere down the line will save the Authority money.

We've seen some of the studies that came out in the Revelstoke Dam cabinet appeal. The study that the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) read out, for example, by a UBC economist showed how money could be saved somewhere down the line in Hydro's borrowing by providing a small amount of funding to these intervening groups.

I believe that in the water rights hearing that was held on the Revelstoke Dam Hydro did provide money and, in fact, on the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power project Hydro has assisted in purchasing transcripts of public hearings and public information meetings that they've held. It has helped Hydro in those cases to either smooth over some of the misinformation that's current in the community or else to improve the process and thereby save the public money.

I think the minister has the intent of the amendment, even though it is out of order on the grounds that it binds the government to spend money in a certain way. But I would hope that a trust fund like this would be set up to fund intervening groups in an independent way and that a percentage of moneys allocated to Hydro generating projects would be allocated to an independent trust fund, much along the lines of the trust funds that are established for legal aid in British Columbia, so that proceedings can be funded and intervenors can be funded.

I would hope the minister would respond to that suggestion, at least.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, I'll not dwell on the matter, but I have examined the proposal and it would appear that the provision of funds to pay for intervenors would add considerable cost. At the level of I per cent, for instance, it would be $7.5 million.

I think it should be known that Hydro already has a substantial burden in terms of total taxes, grants and water rentals. For

[ Page 1799 ]

example, their share of their total revenues paid towards local taxation and

water rentals, grants, et cetera, which would include the proposal the member

is referring to, is 7.38 per cent. In Hydro Quebec, this same relation ship

is 3.59; in the case of Ontario Hydro, it's 2.32.

With relation to the suggestion that funds be set aside for research, technology, and so on, I think we should emphasize that many programmes are now being carried out on this directly by Hydro, such as studies on solar energy, geothermal energy, energy from wood waste, and Hydro is participating in the larger-scale programmes of the National Research Council, B.C. Research, Canadian Electrical Association, American Public Power Association, and so on, in order to avoid duplication of effort. Experiments by these parties on research to which B.C. Hydro has access amount to many tens of millions of dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, just before we continue, I've allowed discussion on the amendment although the amendment was out of order. It's very difficult, with a one-section bill that describes Hydro, to rule what is in and what is out of order. I hope that will terminate that discussion.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, just one more word. I thought it significant yesterday in the debate on second reading that the minister indicated that Hydro came in with a request for a billion dollars and came out with the resultant $750 million that we are talking about here. The minister held that as being the way to deal with Hydro. He didn't indicate to us the reasons. It strikes me that what Hydro has to do with this government is come along and ask for considerably more than they need, knowing that they will be cut back down to a sum probably in excess of what they need, but in any event getting $750 million.

It doesn't really do the job, as far as I'm concerned. There should be far more information for this Legislative Assembly.

You see, Mr. Chairman, not all of us are like the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . The member for Dewdney told me one day: "You know, I'm not an apologist for Hydro." I've never heard, however, a person with the kind of fondness that he has for Hydro, neither in this House or on the Crown corporations committee.

He's continually defending his old friend Bob Bonner. I really don't think that Bob needs any help. He has an awful lot of power. He was vested with the power of the Grown and corporate power by a previous Social Credit government, which the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) knows all about. So I don't think we need to be apologists here. We should be asking questions and asking for details from Hydro which so far have been found wanting.

MRS. WALLACE : I think that one of the problems we are facing in this bill is that the terms of reference that Hydro has relate specifically to providing an adequate source of power. There is nothing in their terms of reference that really specifically points them in the direction of conservation or alternate uses. The minister has indicated that they are doing some of those things. That is probably very commendable. But I think that until such time as we have a closer relationship between the activities of the Energy Commission and the Hydro authority, we are going to be faced with this kind of bill every year.

The minister has indicated that maybe that is not going to be the case, but he certainly hasn't said that we are not going to have another borrowing bill next year. Every year they come along and every year they get bigger and bigger. As long as Hydro is charged strictly with the responsibility of assuring an adequate energy supply for the province, we are going to be faced with these increasing amounts of dollars coming before us.

I think the time has long passed when we should be looking at the direction we are giving to Hydro. We should look at changing some of their responsibilities and perhaps adding to the area of concern that they must consider. Hydro cannot move independently, forever going on building dams and undertaking these high-cost projects, installing more and more of this land-consuming and resource consuming type of venture without having to face up to some of the social consequences. That is what is happening when they are looking at an isolated direction with no broad, overall picture being encompassed by Hydro.

I would suggest that the minister should be looking at some change of terms of reference for Hydro so we will not be faced with these large amounts coming in all the time. We should look at some other types of things that Hydro can be doing which won't be so expensive, and look at those alternative sources that I know I can't talk about because the amendment is ruled out of order.

As long as we limit it to the one thing and the one thing only that we charge Hydro with doing, we are going to be faced with this kind of bill all the time.

What I really wanted to ask the minister

[ Page 1800 ]

about specifically was when he talked about this money being long-term, 25 or 35 years.... I assume he's talking about Canadian dollars here that we are going to be borrowing. I'm wondering if he has any idea about where he is going to look for this money. Is Hydro going to float loans here within the province or is he going outside of the country? What sort of interest rate is he anticipating that we are going to be faced with in the annual charges over that 25- or 35-year period in order to borrow this kind of money? Apart from paying the money back, what is the annual cost in interest charges alone on those long-term borrowings?

MR. CHAIRMAN : These questions might better have been asked during the second reading of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, the interest rate is whatever the market rate is from time to time. I think one of the more recent borrowings we made in New York a year ago last December was 8 5/8 per cent.

You asked where these borrowings would be made. If you are borrowing in the marketplace, it would be probably in the Canadian market, which has lesser availability of the quantity of funds than in the U.S. in the New York market. Within the past year we made a borrowing in U.S. dollars in Europe. Those are the three possibilities that would exist. Naturally we would favour Canadian borrowing to the extent that funds would be available and the interest rate was competitive.

MR. COCKE : The Finance Minister just brought up a situation that would seem to me to be a real problem around Hydro at the present time. Probably a great portion of the money that has been borrowed has been borrowed in U.S. funds. If we borrowed it in U.S. funds at 8 5/8 per cent U.S. and we pay in Canadian funds, just think of the huge amount we are paying in excess of the 8 5/8 per cent; it must be phenomenal. I would like the minister to tell us just how they are handling that.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Chairman, that's the very reason why Hydro normally seeks long-term borrowings. With the the year-to-year fluctuations in the dollar you couldn't anticipate what the dollar would be in 25 years. The recent drop in the dollar has certainly cost some money and the semi-annual interest payment is costing a little more than it did.

MR. COCKE : A little more? That's 10 per cent more.

HON. MR. WOLFE : But on the total picture of U.S. borrowings to date, they're still far ahead by having done so.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH : 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 4, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 31

Waterland

Hewitt

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Smith

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Strongman

Stephens

Gibson

NAYS - 12

Lauk

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 125: minister's office, $139,851 -continued.

MRS. WALLACE : I have just a couple of minor items I would like to raise with the Minister of Health. I'm wondering whether or not he is aware of a leaflet that was circulated by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , in

[ Page 1801 ]

which he said: "Long-term care covers both home care nursing and homemaker service at no charge." My understanding of the programme is somewhat different than that. I understand that there is a charge and that there is in fact a means test, or certainly a statement of income, and I'm wondering whether or not the first member for Victoria is aware of this, and whether or not the Minister of Health is aware that the first member for Victoria has been circulating this kind of information to his constituents.

I would like the minister to comment on that particular situation, because I feel that if it was true that this kind of care is free in Victoria ' then there is great discrimination against people who live outside of Victoria, because certainly in my constituency the people who are in receipt of this homemaker service are having to pay and are being assessed. I would like the minister to advise us just what the programme is and whether it is free in some areas or whether the Minister of Recreation and Conservation was misinformed. That's the one question.

The other question I wanted to raise with the minister has to do with health insurance premiums. It's interesting to note that in B.C. we are third highest in our rate of charge for health coverage. Only Ontario and Quebec are ahead of us. We are third, then Alberta, and the other six provinces make no charge - none whatsoever. Now in a province as relatively well-off as is British Columbia, it seems strange to me that we are assessing people at such a high rate in proportion to what they're charged in other provinces.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister is looking at this particular issue, and whether or not he is prepared to make any reduction in the health insurance premiums here in British Columbia. Those are the two questions I would like to hear the minister comment on.

MR. SKELLY : I'd just like to ask the indulgence of the committee to introduce a group of students from St. Mary's School in Calgary. They call themselves the St. Mary's Saints, I'm told. They've travelled to British Columbia on an exchange visit with Ballenas Junior Secondary School, which is in Parksville in Alberni constituency. They're here under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Peter McWhirr.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I think the member who spoke earlier should be speaking to the first member for Victoria about what he has in the leaflet. I haven't seen the leaflet. I'm not one of his constituents so I guess I don't get it. It has been made very clear what the long-term care programme costs are. The basic charge for institutional care is $6.50 per day. There is no means test for homemaker services. There is an income test. Assets are not included and the vast majority of the people getting homemaker services do get it for free all over British Columbia. But for those people who have incomes, they pay on a graduated scale for the services they get.

In terms of the medicare costs, we have no intention at this point of changing the premium situation again. While there are some provinces that have elected not to charge premium , the public pays for the services in one way or another through other kinds of taxes. The programme is not free and we all should know that; it costs us one %, buy or another.

But I can tell you that more important than what the charges are for the premiums is what the people of British Columbia get for those premiums. In this province, the cost that goes to each person in this province for healthcare costs runs around $281.80 per year per person. That's $9 above the national average.

At the same time, however, the cost of average income for health-care services in this province is well below the national average and it is only 4.5 per cent of average income that goes for medical costs in the province of British Columbia. The per capita cost in Prince Edward Island is only $197 compared to our $280, almost $100 per capita difference. In Nova Scotia, it's $50 per capita difference; in Saskatchewan, $60 per capita difference. Even Alberta is less per capita but only by a couple of dollars. I think those are the more important things.

We're not contemplating any changes in the medical premium .

MRS. WALLACE : I have just an interesting comment on that, Mr. Chairman. The minister says it costs us $281 and we're paying $225.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : No, no, no, no. The per capita cost of health care in British Columbia is $281.80 per person. That's $9 above the national average. That's how much we spend on health care per person. We don't collect from everybody that kind of money. That's for every person - man, woman and child - in the province.

I'm sorry I confused you.

MRS. WALLACE : Yes, because I understand our premium is $225 in B.C., so there's a very small overall average.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I'm sorry I said that.

[ Page

1802 ]

MRS. WALLACE. : Anyway, j just one comment on the situation of the first

member for Victoria. I think this should be drawn to the minister's attention.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Well, draw it to his attention.

MRS. WALLACE : Well, I'm drawing it to your attention, Mr. Minister, because I think it is very unfortunate when we have one of the members of the cabinet disseminating information which you indicate is not correct. It's not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia to have this kind of information going out that says this is an absolutely free service when in fact it is not so. Sure, some people get it free but there is an incomes test and people are paying for this. It is not a free service. I am concerned that this kind of information is going out, particularly when it comes from. a member of the cabinet who should be aware of the kind of things the government is doing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, that member lives closer to the first member for Victoria than I do. I'm sure she will bring it to his attention.

I wish the member would learn what the premiums for health care are in British Columbia. For her information, I can tell her that the single premium in this province is $7.50 per month. For couples it is $15 per month and families are $18.75 per month. There is a 90 per cent premium subsidy for either singles or families with taxable income of under $1,700 approximately.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk now a little bit about the long-term care and the shortage of beds in British Columbia. I would like the minister to satisfy me on some of these particular problems.

This government and this minister have told us that they have instituted a long-term care programme in this province that is going to greatly assist in the reduction of demand for hospital beds and acute-care beds, particularly in the greater Victoria area.

It's my charge that this minister is, perhaps unwittingly, perpetrating a very cruel hoax on the people of this province. He is advertising in the daily newspapers this programme that he has instituted, while all the time he should know that the demand for acute-care beds in this province has not been alleviated and that the $6.50-a-day limit that he has now brought into effect in the longterm care hospitals has in fact had the reverse effect. It has created a bottleneck in our hospitals. It has made a far greater demand on the acute-care beds than previously existed.

And that has happened in this way. Prior to the instituting of this programme, people were going from acute-care beds into intermediate and longer-term care beds. But because the minister has brought this plan into effect without gaining 100 per cent co-operation from the private hospital owners, he has now created a situation in which people refuse to go into any of the private hospitals or longer-tem care beds unless they can get the benefit of the government plan. That has had the reverse effect to what the minister desired. I commend the minister for the programme; but the manner in which it has been implemented has caused very serious problems with the acute-care centres.

When I sit down, I would like him to first address his mind to that particular matter. I would like him to show me-, if he can, that the beds in the greater Victoria area acute-care hospitals are much more readily available now than they were when the plan was instituted. In fact, before I go any further, I would like the minister to direct his attention to that particular question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Oak Bay continues.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. STEPHENS : I think the record should show that the minister did not get on his feet to answer that question. Am I to interpret it that he cannot answer or that he does not have the information? I would ask the minister to at least stand up and tell me whether he did not get up because he cannot answer it or because he doesn't want to answer it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I'm not ready.

MR. STEPHENS : Let me just pass on a little further on that, and perhaps give the minister a little time to think about it.

I'd like to give the House a shining example of the difficulties caused by the lack of attention to intermediate-care beds by this government. In the greater Victoria area the greatest problem in hospital care is the lack of beds. This government has continually refused to direct its attention to the building of sufficient intermediate-care beds to allow the use of acute-care beds by acute-care patients.

[ Page 1803 ]

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS : The member for North Okanagan is suggesting that no such problem exists. Let me give you an example. Let's see the members of the government turn their backs on this problem.

Interjections.

MR. STEPHENS : You listen to what I've got to say and then you tell me if you can turn your back on this problem.

MRS. JORDAN : Did it happen in Victoria?

MR. STEPHENS : Obviously the member for North Okanagan is not interested in anything that happens outside of her riding.

Not too long ago a 52-year-old man, a constituent of mine, required a very serious operation to unclog - an unmedical term - the carotid artery in the right side of his neck, which I understand is the main artery that carries blood to the brain. This man was suffering the early symptoms of a stroke; he was suffering temporary blindness. His doctors ordered him into the Royal Jubilee Hospital for this very serious surgery. He was booked to go into that hospital on January 29 of this year.

One or two days prior to that operation he was informed that he could not go into the hospital because there was not a bed for him. This man was then rescheduled for surgery on February 16. He could not be put back on an anti-coagulant drug because, as I understand it, patients mu t come off of that drug well prior to the operation. A day or two prior to his second date for surgery he suffered a stroke.

This man is now permanently disabled. He has lost his speech. He is paralyzed down one side of his body and at the age of 52 can no longer earn a living. This man has a wife to support and he has four children in university. This problem arose directly, Mr. Chairman, because that man could not get a bed in the Royal Jubilee Hospital, and he could not get a bed in that hospital because literally dozens and dozens of patients who were occupying beds in that hospital have no intermediate-care facilities where they could be better treated. He's standing in line.

I notice the silence of the member for North Okanagan now. She seems to have recognized the importance of this statement.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to stand up and I'd like him to recognize what might happen here. The minister should understand that there's a very strong possibility that doctors and nurses and hospital administrators may find themselves facing a lawsuit as a result of what happened to this man. I'd like you to stand up now and tell this House whether you are prepared to accept any responsibility for the problems of this man and for the problems of the people who may find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

I think that we should make it very clear again, Mr. Chairman, that the minister refuses once again to face this problem. I'm not surprised. This government has refused to face the problem of the need for intermediate-care beds in this province for years.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : How many years have we been government? Tell us how many years.

MR. STEPHENS : Well, this is your second time up to bat.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Not mine.

MR. STEPHENS : I'm just delighted that the minister can escape his responsibilities just by saying: "Well, I haven't been here long enough." The minister doesn't only attempt to escape his responsibilities; he refuses to answer the questions that he's being asked.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Keep going.

MR. STEPHENS : I can see that we've got the members upset; that's a start in the right direction. At least we've got their hearts started, Mr. Chairman. At least they're beginning to take notice.

Mr. Chairman, I have had a little chit-chat here with the other members of the government. The minister has had a little time to think about those two questions. Is he now prepared to stand up and answer them? Evidently he's still not ready. Let's shift ground and give him a little more time.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I went to the minister and I delivered to him a copy of a letter which was addressed to him and which he had not seen before. But that's not surprising; it wasn't dated too long ago. It was dated May 9, and this letter was from Donna Pistell. This girl, as the minister knows, wrote to him and sent him a complete statement of the difficulties that she has had in getting assistance from this government. This girl is 38 years old. She's a quadraplegic and she has cerebral palsy.

I asked the minister if he would read this horror story of the difficulties that she's had and asked him if by today he could satisfy me that he has been in touch with the people that this girl needs help from, and if

[ Page 1804 ]

he is now able to tell this House that she has achieved the simple task of getting herself a place to live. I'd like to ask the minister if he can answer that particular question for us.

Well the minister won't answer again, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I'll answer when we get a few questions going. Don't get all excited. We have until 11 o'clock tonight.

MR. STEPHENS : If you're collecting questions, let's try this: some time ago, your colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , made two conflicting statements, and I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, which of these two conflicting statements made by the Minister of Education is accurate. With reference to the hospital at UBC, he said firstly: "This is not an ordinary extendedcare hospital.

This is where the young people will be coming to learn the problems of the infirm." Subsequently he said: "The extendedcare hospital was never built as a teaching hospital; it was built as an extended-care hospital." I would like the minister to tell us which of those two statements of the Minister of Education is accurate - whether it is or is not to be used as a teaching institution. If it is to be used as a teaching institution, when can we expect that to commence?

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take the floor if the minister is ready to answer the previous member's questions.

Mr. Chairman, under this vote we always discuss preventive medicine, and that's a good and useful thing to do. The minister said last night - and I studied the Blues carefully -that, ironically, there was too much of his budget required for sickness and therefore not really enough left for health. I understand that, but I also understand the real cost benefit to our society of spending more on the preventive side. And I wonder if the minister, before this vote passes, could give us a little review of spending in this area. I wonder how long the minister is going to be gone.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON : Just one minute. I guess I could sing a song for the next minute.

MR. KAHL : Please, don't.

MR. GIBSON : No. with my hayfever, I won't do that today. I could recite

a verse from "The Walrus and the Carpenter, " which is as relevant

to this debate as....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Tell us where you're going in the future.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Minister, if you would tell us what "in due course" means for the release of all reports you have, I'd be much happier.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Back to vote 125.

MR. GIBSON : I didn't think I'd gotten that far away; I just wanted to keep a healthy debate going.

Perhaps one of the minister's officials will take note: I would like the minister to describe to this chamber before the vote passes -given the emphasis that he in recent years has put on this field of preventive medicine -exactly what he has done about it in programme terms to really give some meaning to and put some flesh on these fine words about preventive medicine.

In particular, I want to get details in one specified area and that is his plans for preventive medicine on the alcohol and drug abuse side - and I'm talking here particularly of advertising. Treatment programmes are one thing. But by the time you get to the treatment programme area - and we cannot, because of the tabled legislation, discuss the heroin treatment area in any event - you've already got the problem. What we want to do in our society, I think, is to avoid those problems insofar as it is possible. It is very questionable to what extent the treatment programmes have worked or are going to work in any case. We want to be optimistic on it. But the other day I was looking at

section 64 (

a) of the

Summary Convictions Act - which, I assume, is the responsibility of the Alcohol and Drug Commission - which provides a compulsory treatment plan for chronic alcoholics. I see the minister is shaking his head.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : it's under the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom.) I don't have anything to do with the

Summary Convictions Act.

MR. GIBSON : No, this is the treatment programme for compulsory alcoholics, Mr. Minister, which would certainly fall under the...

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Compulsory treatment for alcoholics, not treatment for compulsory alcoholics.

MR. GIBSON : ... compulsory treatment for

[ Page 1805 ]

chronic alcoholics, right. I'd like to ask the minister - given that this compulsory treatment legislation does exist for alcoholics -if it has been used and to what extent it's used in any given year. That might give us some measure as to the success of compulsory treatment programmes in other areas. But really that's a diversion of the argument I'm making. The treatment programmes are of whatever usefulness they may be only after other things have failed, and what has failed is that the abuse of the drug - the chemical or whatever it is - has taken place.

Something that has worked is the attempt to convince people that they should stay away from these substances; it has worked very definitely in the field of tobacco use. As the statistics are coming out now....

AN HON. MEMBER : Sorry I can't stay.

MR. GIBSON : It's all right, I'll send you a copy of Hansard, Mr. Member, for your edification. You can go to sleep at night with it. He reads till his lips get tired.

Mr. Chairman, advertising has worked in the field of smoking. It hasn't worked as well, according to the statistics, with smoking by young people, but it very definitely has with older people the longer they've been exposed to advertising. And tobacco use statistics are either stabilizing or, in some cases, falling - it's been quite encouraging.

Now to some extent this is being done in the field of alcohol - advertising against alcohol use. I would like to see much, much more. The minister told us in the House last year that a major programme was being put together. I'd like to know details of what's been done to date and what the plans for the coming year are. Mr.

Chairman, I cannot help but contrast the amount of advertising concerning alcohol abuse - related to the huge revenues of alcohol for the government - with the amount of advertising which is done on lotteries, which, frankly, I think is a little disgraceful - the amount of advertising that's done on lotteries to invite people to put their money into what is, in effect, a gamble and a regressive form of taxation. There is a tremendous amount of advertising on that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Did you vote for that legislation?

MR. GIBSON : If memory serves me, Mr. Minister, I think I voted against it. I'd have to go back and check the Journals. But I'm against lotteries and I'm very clear about it.

I don't think I would pass a law against them generally; but I'm certainly against government lotteries. I don't think the government should be aiding and abetting that kind of thing.

But, again, that's a diversion. I'm just contrasting the amount of advertising that goes into government lotteries with the amount of advertising that goes into the anti-alcohol field. And, of course, there is very little of an advertising nature done with respect to drug abuse - though I know there is a considerable educational programme in the school system, which is good.

What I want to know from the minister is: what are the details of plans for anti-alcohol advertising in the coming year? I would like to see excruciatingly realistic scenarios in those advertising programmes having to do with the impact on an individual's health, the impact on family life, the impact on mental ability, the impact on society in terms of injury to others, the impact on the accident statistics, and the impact on work and productivity, because alcohol abuse has a tremendous effect in all of these fields.

I would be grateful if the minister could give some response to that generalized question about preventive medicine and the specific preventive medicine of drug and alcohol abuse advertising.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the last two speakers. First of all, for the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, I think the same kind of comparison that I made last night could stand true with the problems of alcoholism as well as just a general preventive medicine theme that faces the government at the present time. There's a breaking point there somewhere, where you have to start coaxing money away from the active treatment side to get it into that prevention.

The demands on the money that is available for us to spend for people services is so great on the treatment side that it's difficult to get over that breaking point and start getting money into where it can do some of the good that you're talking about. The alcohol programme is no different from the general health programme in the province.

When we talk about the relationship of the huge amounts of money - and I agree they are huge amounts - that come in from the sale of alcohol to government, then we must also recognize that that money doesn't simply go and get squirreled away in some way by government. That money goes back out for programmes and services, and many of those programmes and services are health programmes that are caused by the debilitating effects of the abuse of

[ Page 1806 ]

alcohol.

I would venture to say - and I doubt that anybody has ever done a real study on this, Mr. Chairman - that the total amount of money taken in by the taxation of alcohol sold in this province doesn't come anywhere near providing the needs through Human Resources, Attorney-General, Health and all of the other agencies that are required to expend resources of all kinds to deal with the alcohol problem. We don't look at it in that light, then, from the point of view of what money actually comes in.

Let me tell you of a couple of programmes that have already been done in terms of advertising. But before I do that, I think, regardless of the fact that we recognize that we're picking up the pieces in lots of cases with our treatment programmes, it's important that we have those treatment programmes and that they become most sophisticated in terms of the kinds of treatment they provide. I can say that I am very proud of what's happened in about two and a half years in terms of delivering services for alcoholics and persons who are abusing alcohol in this province.

There has now been a strategy formulated and put forward to the regions of the province through the Alcohol and Drug Commission. There are now four regions. In each of those regions now is a major, long-term treatment centre sponsored by the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Since February, 1976, 14 new services have been brought into operation in the province. Those include some out-patient counselling units at Terrace, Chilliwack, Richmond and Nelson;.detox centres at Merritt ' New Westminster and Vancouver; Outreach workers in Courtenay, Duncan, Trail and Kitimat, and residential treatment centres in Kelowna, Prince George, and the latest one in New Westminster.

We have more than doubled the amount of detoxification beds that are available now. We've quadrupled the number of residential treatment beds available for the long-term programmes, and the number of communities with out-patient counselling in just over two years has increased from 17 to 29.

We still have a number of plans for this fiscal year, and perhaps the most important of those, at least to a commitment that I think all of us should honour, is the 48-bed compulsory detox centre in Vancouver, which will finally replace the absolutely horrendous drunk tank in the Vancouver city jail.

There will also be out-patient counselling units in Cranbrook and Vancouver, a special residential service for the Queen Charlottes, and a native Indian residential treatment unit in the interior of the province.

Besides that, of course, there Will be a number of societies receiving special grants, including the Elizabeth Fry Society, the Salvation Army Anchorage, St. James Social Services. One other society that I should mention - and I will in a minute - is called Interlock.

But first, there have been some advertising programmes already developed. Counterattack is one through the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) ministry, and it's been most effective in terms of drinking and driving, and the BATmobile programmes.

The dialogue on drinking programme is a programme which was developed through Health Ministers' conferences on a national scale. The federal government and the provinces share in the costs of that programme. I don't know if it's as graphic as you would like to see it. Certainly, it's not as strong as I would like to see it. But it's been a good programme and it's one that we hope to continue participating in with the federal government.

MR. GIBSON : How much are you spending on that, Bob?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I'm not sure what the total budget is, but I can find out for you and I'll make sure you get it.

The other programme which has now been announced and has just recently received approval from cabinet is a $2 million programme for advertising only. It will be based somewhat on the very successful Saskatchewan programme called AWARE. It's been most successful in that province and it's well done. I think we can adapt it quite well to the provincial scene. It's not going to be under the Ministry of Health. Rather, it will be under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because that's where the alcohol is and we felt that it might as well go there.

It will be directly tied exactly to the revenue taken in from alcohol. So I think the proposal is that there be a few cents put on a bottle of whiskey that will be directly directed to the alcohol advertising programme . It will be a very strong programme. I don't know when the start of that is. I would expect this summer, but the consumer services minister will be up for estimates soon and I think he can give us more details on that.

Now in terms of prevention with alcohol treatment programmes, I'm proud as well of what's been happening, in the past few months particularly, in Expansion of programmes in industry. Industry and labour are finally beginning to see the light and beginning to recognize that if both of them have the best

[ Page 1807 ]

interests of their Employees and the people they represent at heart, then they have nothing to lose if they get together, management and union, and develop programmes at the working-place level to help identify people with alcohol problems and to get at them for treatment early. By early I mean before they've lost everything - while they still have a job to lose, a family to lose, some dignity to lose.

We're having tremendous success there. We've recently held a series of seminars around the province and I had the privilege of attending one of them in Kelowna last Thursday, I believe, at which we called in both management and union from a number of interior points and from the Kootenays and just sat them down and asked them to tell us what they had been encountering in their own business.

We found a tremendous reluctance on both sides to take that first step. The unions, I guess, think that in some way they are intruding on their workers' rights and the management is afraid they may be intruding on union rights. But finally they are starting to see that they're not intruding on anybody's rights. What they're doing is making a possibility available for a person to get some treatment at a time when he or she can still accept that treatment.

It's starting to work. Some of our better companies now - Finning Tractor is one that comes to mind; some of the major lumber companies; Weyerhaeuser in the interior has a tremendously good programme starting now.... It's made very clear to the employee that help is available and if you wish that help, come on forward. It will be kept in confidence and we'll make the help available for you. Secondly, if the situation doesn't improve, there comes a time when the crunch comes and both with the concurrence of union and management, the employee is told this problem is getting out of hand. "Your work is suffering.

You used to be a great worker but now we're not getting the production out of you. The help is available. Take it or else I'm afraid you will have to lose your job."

When an Employee is hit suddenly with that realization, generally they will accept the treatment at that point. The results of that kind of intervention at an early stage are tremendous. I'm told that it has 80, 85 and 90 per cent success rates. That's where our future hopes lie, I think, in that kind of treatment programme.

I wanted to mention Interlock because Interlock is a new agency which has now been set up in the province. It's a private society not directly connected with government, but we fund it through the Alcohol and Drug Commission, which is responsible for dealing with smaller companies. Weyerhaeuser or Finning Tractor or CP or Cominco, or any of those companies can usually find the resources within themselves. They have company nurses anyway -occupational nurses and those kind of things.

But the smaller companies may not have the expertise, first of all, to go into a programme like this, and secondly they probably don't have the expertise to know what to do once they do decide to get into a program and how to approach workers.

So Interlock was set up and deals with identifying those problem and telling those companies where they can go to get help. We are hopeful that that too will go a long way in helping us out in this regard. I think we are moving pretty well in terms of preventive programmes in the whole alcohol treatment scene.

Also, we are doing a fair amount of programming in terms of preventive themes right across the health spectrum. Action B.C., jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation and the Ministry of Health, is still very vigorous in the marketplace. It goes to schools and to shopping centres in communities all over British Columbia, taking the message of preventive health care and individual responsibility for health care - which is probably where we will make our greatest gains.

As a ministry, we, in our public health units and through our health education division, are also spreading that message in a number of ways. For instance, our smoking pamphlet, I believe, has now gone out to some 300,000 people; admittedly, not all of them are in British Columbia - we had some wide response from outside British Columbia as well. I could detail a number of other programmes that are being directly reflected in the cost, for instance, of acute-care provision.

I'd like to read a short paragraph from a letter that came from one of the people who is on the firing line in providing acute-care services, the administrator of the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital - this certainly wasn't planned, because this letter just came across my desk today. They are pointing out that in reviewing their year-end statistics for the utilization of their hospital, there has been quite a levelling of fin the growth of utilization in two important areas of the hospital: the X-ray department's treatments and the emergency department. The growth seems to have slowed down dramatically; but certainly Nanaimo itself is not an area that has

[ Page 1808 ]

slowed down. It is a major referral hospital for that north Island region. The administrator of the hospital says: "We attribute the levelling off, which we experienced this year, to measures" - he says some complimentary things, which I won't repeat - "to enhance the province's preventive health programmes." He makes the point that he thinks that the levelling off of these two departments in particular has a lot to do with the introduction of the seat-belt legislation, the lowering of the speed limit and the improvements of highways as well. Those are all preventive health programmes, if we really look at them in that way.

I think we are moving in quite responsible ways in terms of both prevention and convincing people that they have a tremendous responsibility themselves. It has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions that most of the killer diseases of 50 years ago are now eliminated. The only killers left are the ones we bring on ourselves: smoking, heart disease, cancer; they're all diseases which are in large part preventable, if only we would take the measures needed to prevent them - overeating and, of course, alcoholism, which you brought forward earlier. We are doing those kinds of things. If there are more specifics you would like, I could try to get them for you.

With regard to the questions raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , I will try to answer some of them. I would just remind the member that whenever we are dealing with health-care delivery, particularly diseases and tragedies in hospitals, I can pick out for you 20 stories of very tragic circumstances. I won't, though, because I don't think it serves any purpose to bring those kinds of stories into the Legislature unless there have been some abuses, and then it's the responsibility of members to bring those abuses forward.

Hopefully they would bring them forward before the Legislature has to sit on my estimates. They should bring them to my office, and we would try to deal with any abuses there.

I would remind the member that doctors still set the priorities for the use of hospital beds. That is a situation which has always existed and will continue to exist for all time, I imagine.

The long-term care programme only started on January 1,1978. While we had high hopes for that programme and while we expect it will carry with it a lot of solutions to many of the problems we now have in terms of delivery of health care, we never expected that it would do it in four months. It will take some time before the reduction of need in certain kinds of health-care delivery services is felt, because those problems have been building up for 20 or 25 years or longer perhaps.

Because of the 50-cent dollars that were for too many years dangled in front of the provinces by the federal government, the emphasis in this province and across Canada has been on the building of acute-care beds only. Too many provinces find themselves in most serious difficulty now because of that.

We are fortunate in many ways. We haven't been having to do the kinds of things, for instance, that Ontario has attempted to do, such as closing down hospitals with a tremendous disruption of services because of the way things developed over a long period of time. But we expect that these things will start to resolve themselves as quickly as possible.

We have a reasonably large construction programme underway in the Capital Regional District right now. I don't have the numbers of intermediate-care beds available but I think that, either in the planning stages or already approved, there'll be about 300 in the capital region and probably 1,500 around the province. There are a number of programmes available that you'll be familiar with. Both the Glengarry construction and The Priory construction are underway now and will hopefully be on stream without any problems as quickly as possible.

Also, when we recognized the problem that you raised just a short while ago in the House about the demand being created on acute-care beds because of people trying to get patients into the long-term care programme, we immediately called together all of the administrators in the capital region to talk to them about ways in which we could provide an interim solution to that dilemma. We found more than 60 beds for extended care in other facilities on an interim basis until these new beds come on stream in order to help relieve the immediate situation, particularly at Victoria General and Royal Jubilee.

We are certainly concentrating to a large degree as well on the homemaker services because they'll have an impact as well. We want to get those people who are not in appropriate care facilities out of those facilities. In every major hospital it has been identified that there are too many people in there who don't require that sophisticated level of active care. We want to get them out as quickly as possible.

I would just remind the member, Mr. Chairman, that prior to January 1,1978, about 6,000 people were receiving some type of government assistance in personal, intermediate and extended care and about 9,400 addi-

[ Page 1809 ]

tional people are now receiving financial benefit from this programme. So that's not a hoax; it's a real thing for those people. As well, we now have 78 homemaker agencies in the province who are providing services to longterm care recipients. Sixty-eight of them are non-profit agencies; the others are proprietary.

I can tell you the way that's growing. In January, some 5,500 clients received about 94,000 hours of care. In February, 5,800 clients received 108,000 hours of care, and in March it had jumped to almost 7,000 clients receiving about 150,000 hours of care. So that's a growing service and we hope that within a year, or perhaps two years at the most, we'll start to see a very significant impact on the use of active-care beds, certainly in the major metropolitan areas like the capital region and the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

On the other question about the handicapped lady who wrote with the terrible problems of attempting to provide services for herself, part of that problem is not to do with the Ministry of Health, because it was a problem of finding some accommodation through the Ministry of Housing. I understand that's been done. That person is now in receipt of a fulltime paid companion as an arrangement that we've come to with the family.

I can just say, though, that we have to be pretty careful here as well because there will come a time when persons will need, because of their degree of infirmity, some kind of institutionalized care. There will come a time when it will not be possible for the government, regardless of the programme it has in place, to provide services in the home. It will just become either medically impossible or financially impossible. At that point, given the medical assessment that's given to us, there will probably have to be a recognition that some kind of institutionalized care will be required at that point.

I think everyone would accept that. But the person you talked about now has a full-time companion paid for by the ministry through the long-term care programme.

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I have a little response to the minister, dealing immediately with the last matter you were discussing, I want to compliment you for having finalized something that's been going on for so long. I appreciate that you gave it your immediate attention yesterday when I asked you to do so.

I would just like, however, to say that the minister is concerned about tragedies

and some abuses. In most cases I would agree that those matters could be handled

on a one-on-one basis, but when the problem arises directly as a result of a

shortage of beds, then it's not a matter that can be solved by a discussion

in the minister's office. It is a matter which requires to be aired in this

House and to be aired in a more public fashion.

The minister said that it is the doctors who set priorities for the hospital beds, and that may be true. However, when the beds are not available it puts the doctors in a very, very difficult position that no doubt this doctor found himself in in the case I mentioned. There is no way to solve that problem unless this government provides the relief that is required. I understand that yesterday the latest count in the Royal Jubilee showed that of 560 acute-care beds, 120 were occupied by intermediate-care patients staying an average of three months.

I understand also that the average stay of an acute-care patient is about nine or 10 days, so there still is a very, very pressing problem in that hospital.

In the Victoria General, out of 385 acutecare beds 75 are occupied by intermediate- and extended-care patients, so that in the capital region there is a great amount of pressure that I think should get some special attention.

The minister %us talking about figures of 300 additional beds expected in the greater Victoria area over the next three years. I'd like to ask the minister to clarify whether all of those are intermediate-care and extended-care beds.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : No, the figure is a round one, you must understand. I don't have it right before me, but in the planning stage or already approved are non-profit facilities for intermediate- and personal-care beds totalling some 300 beds. That's in addition to the extended-care beds which are now under construction at the Priory and Glengarry - 150 at Glengarry and 75 at the Priory. Those 225 beds are under construction now, and will be on stream quite quickly and should take care of a number of the people to whom you've referred.

I recognize that that problem is there - I think I said that in my remarks to you - but again, we can only deal with it as quickly as we possibly can, and I feel we are.

MR. STEPHENS : I take it that the 225 beds will be in facilities now under construction, and that in addition to that there is a plan for an additional 300 nonprofit or government-owned extended-care hospitals.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Yes.

[ Page 1810 ]

MR. STEPHENS : Can the minister tell us when you expect the additional 300 to be completed, or are they just in the planning stage?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : I don't know how long my estimates are going to go on, but I've asked for the information on the specifics of the capital region. One of the facilities is the Salvation Army facility; it is, I think, under construction now. There's the Lutheran Court, which is in the final planning stages, I understand, but I shall get that information for you and give you the construction dates.

MR. STEPHENS : I thank the minister for that, and we'll look forward to getting that information. If you can get it during the estimates I'd appreciate it, but if not I'd still like to receive them.

I'd like to ask the minister some specific questions on vote 125. Just going down the list of projected expenses there is an item down there that has been added: administrative assistant to the minister, $19,500. 1 wonder if the minister could explain just what that position is for, what the necessity of creating it is for, and just what that particular assistant is doing or will do.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : That position was a position created by order-in-council in 1977. It's filled by Mr. Pat Rogers, who is the administrative assistant to the minister, and he does administrative work for the minister.

MR. STEPHENS : When I look at the estimates under vote 125, it seems to me that there was no expense laid forward for that position in the 1977-1978 estimates, but it now appears to be in the 1978-1979 estimates.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : That is correct.

MR. STEPHENS : Well, the minister said that this position has existed for some time. Is this the first year that...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Yes, it was created in 1977 by order-in-council.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I must ask the minister if he will refrain from speaking in his place until such time as the Chairman recognizes him, if only for the sake of Hansard, which is trying to transcribe this debate for future reference.

The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. STEPHENS : If we could get rid of the Chairman I think we could probably make a lot faster progress.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Do you want to come up to my office for coffee and we'll do the whole thing?

MR. STEPHENS : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister might then just go down the items of increase - the secretary to the minister and the subsequent three stenographer positions there - and just give me a brief explanation of the increases in the salaries, how they came about and what they stand for. Well, you may look worried, but you've been here a lot longer than I have, and I'd like to have that information.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Well, Mr. Chairman, these are all public servants who work in my office and they've had their negotiated increases over the past year through their bargaining groups. Ministers' secretaries all received increases by order-in-council and through negotiation at another level, and that's reflected in here.

MR. D'ARCY : Mr. Chairman, in listening to the previous debate on this, I find it hard to believe that a by-election took place in Oak Bay on March 21. However, the member's points were well taken.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister can now tell us, since he's had overnight to think about it and to consult with his able staff, exactly what the amount is in dollars of the borrowing authorization for capital improvements that have taken place in the 29 months that he has been minister. He's very fond of talking about the authorizations which are likely to take place over the next five to seven years. Specifically I asked last night if he could discuss with his officials or his comptroller exactly what authorizations had been made since December 22,1975, and as yet he has not produced that information.

I certainly believe, for a minister and a government who say that they know about where and how every dollar is spent, the people of B.C. and this House would be interested in knowing exactly the amount of the authorizations that have been allowed for regional district hospital capital expenses, since all those approvals must go through his ministry and receive order-in-council approval.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like the minister to perhaps expand on his comments about the study that he and his staff are taking of the bed needs and patient needs in small hospitals around the province. He indicated that due to a number of trends in health care in this

[ Page 1811 ]

province, including the lowering birth rate and the tendency of physicians not to admit patients quite so readily for minor illnesses they used to, there was a decrease in the amount of bed demand in many small hospitals. Everyone knows that to be true.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us to what end he is moving. Does he intend to arbitrarily close some of these small hospitals, as has happened in the province of Ontario, or does he merely intend to recommend perhaps the deletion or closure of a certain percentage of beds in these hospitals or possibly the conversion of certain acute-care beds in some of these units into extended- or intermediate-care beds that may be in greater demand in the community or region that these hospitals serve? Certainly reassurances of the intention here of the study that he is doing and the reasons for it would be of significant interest in many of the smaller communities of the province.

I'd like to say something nice about the minister for a moment. I'd like to compliment him and the Treasury Board for having increased the amount of the vote for the emergency programme in B.C. I note there is a real increase there, after taking account for inflation, of around 10 per cent. Since the training programmes have been essentially restored and there is not a totally adequate but certainly a much better supply of modern ambulances available to the various emergency services around the province, I'm making the assumption and perhaps the minister can confirm it that the primary increase of this 10 per cent real increase will be in staffing.

I would like to read into the record a statement which appeared in the media some months ago regarding the emergency health services criteria, based on the number of ambulance calls annually. Under this criteria, the ministers own criteria, they noted that Mission city should have five full-time employees, having none at the moment. Parksville should have five; it has two. Prince George should have 18; that area has nine. And out of 28 smaller communities that should have one full-time person working, presumably with volunteers on an on-call basis, only 10 of those 28 communities have that one person.

Mr. Chairman, what this means, of course, is that there will be a back-up and a delay in ambulance service calls. What it means is that individuals who suffer strokes or heart attacks may not get to intensive-care facilities in time to save their lives, or, if they do, they may find that due to brain damage they may be partly disabled for the rest of their lives. This represents not only a loss in human terms but a loss to the productive capacity of this province since many of the people so stricken are in their productive years and in fact take a significant business and professional role in their communities.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note that even though there has been a recent approval for expanded open-heart surgical facilities at St. Paul's, there is still a very significant backlog and will remain so even after that takes place. I would note that in the Jubilee Hospital here in Victoria, even after the extra post-op beds finally came onstream, we still have a four-month waiting period, which is a significant improvement over the nine-- or ten"month we had a year ago, but is still a waiting period. This important area of surgical care, albeit somewhat expensive, is something that I would hope the minister and his officials are looking at very closely.

Mr. Chairman, a final series of questions on this particular note is to ask the minister what actions he is taking regarding the allegations made in certain quarters of inadequate nursing services at the Vancouver General Hospital. Certainly it has been the position of some of the nursing staff that the services are inadequate. It has been the position of the administration and board of that hospital that there is a labour relations problem, and hence it is internal. I don't want to second-guess either of those agencies.

I would like to know, first of all: has the minister met with either the complainants or the board and the administration, or both? If so, is he satisfied that there is only a labour relations problem and there is no health care problem in that most important health care facility in the province of B.C.?

Certainly there is the ongoing question of permanent accreditation of that facility. We have seen that the hospital has been granted a two-year, apparently unconditional, accreditation but having been granted that accreditation, Vancouver General was then asked to submit a detailed report of ICCHA sometime late this year or early next year, which sounds to me like it is in fact a conditional accreditation only they haven't called it so.

I want to repeat that I certainly don't want to second-guess anything that is internal or administrative in that hospital. I would like to know, however, and I think many people in B.C. would like to know, whether or not the minister is satisfied that there is no problem with health care and staffing in that hospital. If he is not satisfied, what steps in consultation with both parties is he taking or does he intend to take?

[ Page 1812 ]

HON. M. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, regarding the situation at Vancouver General Hospital, I am satisfied and I have confidence in the administration at Vancouver General Hospital. I have asked that if the Registered Nurses' Association of British Columbia has grievances dealing with the nursing administration situation at Vancouver General they should deal with the administration of that hospital. I have been assured by the chairman of the board of the hospital that they are more than willing to meet with the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C.

If you were watching in the past week, you would have seen it announced that the medical staff at Vancouver General Hospital has urged the nurses to do the same thing, to meet with the administration and to solve their grievances at that point.

There is also a nursing advisory committee at Vancouver General Hospital which passed a motion unanimously approving the steps that the hospital has taken to improve the organization of that hospital in terms of the way it delivers its services. It's not unusual for the accreditation committee to ask for a further report, particularly when the accreditation committee did a second report at the direct request of the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C. They came up with a quite commendable report on the attitude and the changes that the administration of the hospital was making.

At the present time there is a survey consultation firm, Medicus by name, hired by the hospital, doing a total study of the nursing complement at Vancouver General, and I'm told that study is to be in the hands of the hospital administration at the end of this month. I'm sure that its recommendations will be.made available to me very shortly thereafter, with any requests that they may have for changes in the nursing staff at the hospital.

The accreditation, of course, was also predicated on a number of physical difficulties that Vancouver General has. That's a crumbling establishment and has been for a number of years. I rather think that the accreditation committee might not have given that two-year accreditation had it not been for the fact that we did announce a very major rebuilding programme at Vancouver General to cost in total probably $60 million. That was part of the reason that the accreditation committee was able to give its approval for accreditation for two years.

First of all, there's no question in our minds of closing any small hospitals in British Columbia; I just want to make that very clear. We recognize the problems that they are having and I said last night that we're attempting to develop small hospital policy which will allow us to deal with them in a more rational way than we have in the past. We are converting some beds as well in many of those where occupancy is way down to intermediate care and to extended care where it is possible.

Emergency services - yes, there is a real increase in that programme this year. We produced 56 new ambulances in the past fiscal year, replacing many of the older or high mileage units around the province. We also, incidentally, produced the BATmobiles for the Ministry of the Attorney-General. New stations were opened at Wells and Field, bringing the total number of ambulance operations now to just under 200. The provincial dispatch office has now been in operation for a full year. We made 4,600 long-distance transfers over the year; 1,400 of them were air transfers.

The training programmes were directed toward upgrading volunteer personnel. There are 396 students who have successfully completed the AMA-1 course; 62 in Vancouver completed the AMA-2; 29 in Vancouver and Victoria completed the paramedic course. Special courses were held for high risk infant transport and fulltime ambulance staff was increased from 413 to 433. We hope to continue to increase those numbers of full-time ambulance personnel. Provision has been made for the purchase now of 70 more units for conversion to ambulances and the purchase of some six additional window-vans.

Also we've purchased a couple of four-wheel drive vehicles for service in some of the hard-to-service areas. So yes, that program is being expanded, Mr. Chairman, and we will continue to pay attention to the needs of the emergency services programme in the province.

MR. D'ARCY : How many permanent positions this year?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : From 413 to 433 - 20 new permanent positions - and there are more coming.

Just in answer to the question asked by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) - I guess he'll read it in Hansard - the three units which are now approved for the capital region for intermediate care and personal care are the Salvation Army - 120 beds, completion date, July, 1979, construction start now; the B.C. Baptist Society - 150 beds, construction will start this year and will be completed December, 1979; and the other one is the Luther Court in Victoria - 60 beds, and construction has started on that one and is

[ Page

1813 ]

expected to be completed in February, 1979.

MS. BROWN : Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I wonder if the minister would tell us whether his ministry has made a decision or whether they're discussing the possibility of people receiving psychiatric care having to sign the forms before the psychiatrist can submit their bills to medical services. It is presently under discussion that patients who see a psychiatrist have to sign the form before the psychiatrists can submit their bills? Is that presently being discussed or has any decision been reached covering that matter? Would the minister say yes or no, because that will decide whether I say any more or not.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : It is being discussed.

MS. BROWN : Okay. I wonder whether in the discussion the minister is taking into account the impact, for example, of psychiatric patients having to see what their diagnosis is and the kind of comments being made about them by the doctor before signing the form,

The second thing I want to ask you is whether there has been any indication

of psychiatrists ripping off the system or abusing it in any way that would

give rise to this kind of decision, because in fact what it will result in is

setting up a situation of mistrust between doctor and patient. I want to know

if there are any reasons why the ministry has suddenly decided to embark on

that policy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, our ministry hasn't suddenly decided to embark on that policy; the government is considering the possibility of requiring patients' signatures in doctors' offices. It's not psychiatrists only. It would be for all office visits to all physicians and it would have no details about treatment or diagnosis, and no comments about patients. It would simply be a verification that a patient visit was received. It is as simple as that.

Now there has been extreme- pressure from the public on the ministry to have

some way of the person who gets the service being involved in the service, and

we've looked at a number of ways. At one time patients' bills used to all

be sent out to them. That was most unwieldy and most expensive and it was stopped.

This has been a proposal made for us as a very simple way in which the patient

can feel a part of the system. It can alleviate any fears the patient may have.

We don't have any evidence of anyone ripping off the system, and you can

rest assured that if this programme comes into place, and I expect it might,

there will be no requirement for patients to be giving the, kinds of information

that you're concerned about.

MS. BROWN : 1 anticipate then that there will be some discussion between BCMA and some input from....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : There already has.

MS. BROWN : Yes, there already has been.

My second question, very briefly, has to do with the Women's Health Collective [illegible] have not yet received any funding from the ministry. They have been operating on a loan from the bank, and they have been told by the bank that their credit will not be extended any further.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Sure, they were funded.

MS. BROWN : They've been approved, but they haven't received their cheque.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised if there haven't been cheques sent out. What happens, of course, is that this year we decided that we would, in advance of our estimates being approved, at least tell the people that we would approve them at the same level as last year and that we would provide them with interim funding on that basis. We don't have any opportunity to provide them with anything else until we have our estimates through this House, and that's what we're doing.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, first of all, just to give the minister a bit of history on the subject of lotteries, on May 1,1974, the minister made a very eloquent speech against them and voted against them. My party also voted against them. I was in agreement with that, but not in the House that day. So that's all the more reason for contrasting the enormous amount of money that's expended on lotteries, indeed, advertising of lotteries as compared ....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Peter Rolston.

MR. GIBSON : Yes, Peter Rolston voted against it as well.

Mr. Chairman, the minister spoke of the difficulty of finding money for these purposes and I understand that, but the payout is huge. The payout, if we can reduce alcohol and drug abuse in our society, is in the multi-millions of dollars. It's an investment of $1 today that will pay back $10 in years to come that

[ Page 1814 ]

we don't need to spend in the Attorney General's ministry, or Human Resources, or the minister's own ministry. I think that what the minister had to say in the House half an hour or so ago, that all of the profits from the alcohol branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would not pay for the costs that alcohol causes us in this province in those three ministries, shows to me that this kind of advertising is something that should be done much more. I give the minister any support I can in arguing for those kinds of funds with his colleagues or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Services in his advertising programme.

Re preventive medicine and expenditures thereon, it is my understanding that at the moment the Medical Services Plan will not pay for annual checkups. It seems to me that this is one of the important components of preventive medicine, a person having the privilege of going to his physician and having an annual checkup in greater or lesser depth, depending upon the physician's general assessment of the state of health of the person. It seems to me that in many cases the Medical Services Plan is paying for this anyway because many annual checkups, I believe, are billed as actually other things but, in fact, they are annual checkups.

Why don't we put it up front? Why do not we say we are in favour of preventive medicine and this is tangible evidence of our intention? Now it may be that that policy has been changed, that annual checkups now are eligible. If so, I'd be very glad to hear it, but if not, I'd like to know why.

With reference to what the Medical Services Plan will or will not pay for,

the minister may be aware that medical examinations required by third parties

are normally not paid for by the Medical Services Plan. But it seems to me that

when that medical examination is required by a third party that happens to be

the government, it is only right, particularly when it relates to the problems

of senior citizens, that the Medical Services Plan should pick up the bill.

I've had some recent correspondence with both the Minister of Health and

the Ministry of Labour on the subject of what happens when a person over 70

is required to obtain a medical checkup as a condition of continuing to hold

their driver's licence. This causes difficulty in a lot of cases. People say:

"Well, this is an expense that I, as a person over 70, will have a little

trouble meting, yet I want to continue to hold my driver's licence."

I've had some correspondence with the Ministry of Labour on this, as I said,

in addition to the Ministry of Health. The director of the human rights branch

has advised me as follows:

"The director of plan operations, Medical Services Plan, advised that the basic philosophy of the plan is to provide coverage for medical care required by the individual and that medical examinations required by a third party are not covered. I can appreciate the basic philosophy of the plan. However, it seems to me that the situation raised by your correspondent is a very special one. The need for a driver's licence is not incidental or a minor matter.

It can be of crucial importance in terms of a person maintaining a job, fulfilling essential needs such as getting groceries, getting to the doctor, et cetera, and sometimes, particularly in the case of an older or handicapped person, in being able to maintain independence and staying out of an institution.

"The second point that I think is very special about this situation is that it puts a hardship on persons over 70 years of age and handicapped persons which is not put on people under 70 and those who are not handicapped. If two groups had to be selected who can least afford an extra economic hardship, I think it would be those over 70 years of age and the handicapped. These two groups represent, I would say, the most poverty, stricken in our society."

Mr. Chairman, those are the sentiments of the director of the human rights branch. I very much share them. I'm making a plea to the minister now that the Medical Services Plan should assume this cost, which is to say the cost of medical examination in connection with retaining your driver's licence when you are over age 70.

I'd like to ask the minister this specific question: of the alcoholism cases under care or treatment in one way or another by the Alcohol and Drug Commission at the moment, how many of them arise from diversion as a result of

section 64 (

a) of the

Summary Convictions Act, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a

section that provides for compulsory treatment of chronic alcoholics? What number of cases of the current caseload would arise from that

section 64 (a) ?

I note that the minister made an announcement recently - and the clipping I have was January 25,1978 - stating that "a special government committee to investigate British Columbia's present and future need for doctors will be appointed before the end of the month." Now that's a January clipping and I assume that committee has been appointed now.

[ Page

1815 ]

Dr. Norman Rigby of the BCMA was quoted at that time:

"'Remarkable as it may seem, we don't really know how many doctors there are in Canada or what they are doing, ' said Rigby. 'We have a feeling we're saturated with doctors in B.C., with some comparatively minor problems in distribution, ' he added."

What is of interest to me is how it was that the decision to expand the B.C. medical school by doubling it was made before this kind of basic medical manpower information was available. I wonder if the minister could give us some comment on that. It seems, on the face of it, to be very strange.

My final question at this time relates to the disclosure of the Greenburg report which, as the minister knows, was a report that was commissioned by the Universities Council in respect of audiologist training in the province of British Columbia. In responding to a question in the House on May 3, the minister agreed that he did have a copy of the report. He went on to say that it was, in his view, not his report to make public or not because it was a report commissioned by the Universities Council.

Well, that's as it may be. I would like him just to answer one question on that report, however. Would he confirm or deny the reports that I have that that Greenburg report was rather critical of his ministry and an individual in that ministry in terms of how this audiologist issue has been covered?

I'll tell you something that concerns me very much, Mr. Chairman. Even if this issue is resolved - and I gather the committee that is working on it has not met since April 24 -presumably some kind of face-saving agreement will be worked out between the ministry and the University of British Columbia. I'm concerned that that face-saving agreement will make the suggestion that audiologists and speech therapists trained at the University of British Columbia up until that time haven't been properly trained.

I would hope that any announcement that is made will make it very clear that the programme that has been followed at UBC up until the present has produced competent professionals. Or, if the ministry is not prepared to say that, then I think they should give

chapter and verse as to why not. I'm concerned with the shadow that this whole business has cast across those who have received, in my view, perfectly adequate training at the University of British Columbia.

Incidentally, I want to compliment the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) for his presentation on this matter last night.

Those are my- questions at this time for the minister, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Chairman, I answered a number of those questions last night regarding the audiology programme and where we're going and how we intend to go in the future, and I don't wish to repeat those.

MR. GIBSON : How about the Greenburg report?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : The Greenburg report was not commissioned by the Ministry of Health, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON : I know that, but did it criticize your department?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : On the question raised about the cases diverted into alcohol programmes of the Ministry of Health through the Alcohol and Drug Commission by way of

section 64 (

a) of the

Summary Convictions Act, I would expect none. Most of those people, if there had been diversions - and I don't know whether there have or not recently - would not be diverted directly into a programme operated by the ministry. At least, that was not the practice in the past. I think most of them went to Miracle Valley, operated by the Salvation Army, or one of those programmes. So I have no way of knowing where those people come from. I can only tell you that every facility we have, operated by anybody in British Columbia, is full and we could use lots more.

About the question regarding the manpower committee, that committee has been announced now. Its chairman is Wesley Black, and that's the committee that you're inquiring about. We have a very sophisticated manpower committee in British Columbia operated jointly between the ministry and the University of British Columbia. It knows how many doctors there are in British Columbia; it knows what they're doing and what specialties there are and what our problems are. I do not understand the comment made by Dr. Rigby, and perhaps I don't need to. But certainly we have lots of statistics on the way we're served by doctors in this province, and that's the reason we set up the committee.

One of its first assignments will be to study the ratio of physicians to population in our province, and it is much higher than the rest of Canada. We now have one physician for every 569 people, and the Canadian target for 1981 is 665, so we exceed that 1981 figure already in British Columbia. We exceed all of the national recommendations in practically

[ Page 1816 ]

every specialty as well. We projected, for instance, by 1981 that we should have an ophthalmologist for every 28,000 population. Just two years ago in 1975 we had one for every 20,000 already, with six years to go. So we're concerned about that. We're concerned that because we may be aver-doctored, maybe we're being over-serviced as well, and that's nobody's fault except that we have too many doctors.

We are also concerned that the doctors are not in some of the places where we really need the service, and that's in the hard-to-service areas of the province. We've seen a couple of attempts by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for instance, to attempt to relocate physicians. Those attempts were thwarted for one reason or another,