1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Dates of Premier's Japan trip. Mr. Curtis — 1633

"Weekly

Summary" from Premier's office. Mr. Gardom — 1633

BCR-CNR negotiations. Mr. Fraser — 1635

Owner-operator status under Fair Employment Act. (answer by Hon. Mr. Lea) — 1635

Self-government in Queen Charlottes. Mr. Curtis — 1635

Government help for community amalgamations. Mrs. Jordan — 1635

Gas price reduction to consumers in B.C. Mr. Gibson — 1636

Shares in B.C. Industrial Development Corp. Mr. Chabot — 1636

Suspension of Western Pacific Truck Company. Mr. Gardom — 1636

Purchase of buses. Mr. McClelland — 1636

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 75.

Mr. Fraser — 1637

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1648

Mr. Fraser — 1650

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1652

Mr. Fraser — 1653

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1653

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

DATES OF PREMIER'S JAPAN TRIP

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Premier: inasmuch as it appears that his forthcoming tour

to Japan is partially on government business, could he indicate

the dates of his departure and his return?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Member, two out of a total of

12 days are taken on my interests in terms of rugby. The rest

are scheduled. We'll have a detailed press release, I hope by

Friday, indicating what corporations I'll be meeting with and

what day I will be meeting them on.

MR. CURTIS: What is the date of departure?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The date of departure is on Saturday,

April 13, I think it is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Saturday the 13th; Friday is the 12th — Good Friday.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Premier could also give us the names of the party that will be

travelling with him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly, Mr. Member, I will release the

itinerary. The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) will be travelling as well.

MR. MORRISON: Others as well?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, there will be others as well. We have

a steel committee that will be travelling with us. One of the

items on the agenda is discussing the possibility of a steel

mill in conjunction with the Japanese and other interests.

MR. MORRISON: Could I also ask a supplemental? Is there

someone from the government now in Japan preparing the

itinerary or...?

RON. MR. BARRETT: No, the negotiations have been going on for the last

number of weeks between the Canadian External Affairs department and the Japanese

consul, directly with my office and the Minister of Trade and Industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Saanich and Islands on the

same.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sorry; you have really taken the

question away from the Member who started it. He has priority,

in my view, since he started this line of questioning.

MR. CURTIS: Will the Premier indicate if he intends to meet

with the Datsun Corporation representatives in Japan?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The complete list of meetings will be

released later this week, Mr. Member.

MR. CURTIS: With respect, the Premier must know if he is

going to meet....

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're going to do them one at a time.

MR. CURTIS: I am particularly interested in view of

statements the Premier made about Datsun when he was Leader of

the Opposition. Is he going to meet with Datsun?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is no obligation to answer

at this time if the Member does not wish to do so.

WRITER OF "WEEKLY

SUMMARY"

ISSUED FROM PREMIER'S OFFICE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask a

question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask him who

writes this propaganda sheet out of the Premier's office which

is called the "Weekly

Summary." Who's responsible for turning

out this piece of political propaganda? Who writes it?

Who is the author of this British Columbia government news

release issued by the Premier's office? Who writes this

thing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hand it over and I'll find out.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: It's 13 pages long and it's issued

[ Page 1634 ]

every week out of his office. It's the rankest kind of

political propaganda, and you don't know who writes it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You send me the document and I'll tell you

who writes it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Not only does the Premier not

know what goes on in the House here, he doesn't know what goes

on in his office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I asked the Minister of Highways the

other day about owner operators being bound by the provisions

of the fair employment practices Act....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I know what this is. You've described

it incorrectly, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

This is a matter of public information prepared by my

competent press secretary, Mr. John Twigg. Absolutely

shocking!

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member there is no.... Order please! There is no sense asking questions until the

first answer's been given. Will you proceed, Hon. Member?

MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much. Is it going to be the policy

of your office, Mr. Premier, that public funds are going to be

utilized for socialistic propaganda?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, the government will

release its policies the best way possible so all the people

can know the truth in British Columbia.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

Premier to tell us the distribution of that propaganda rag — where it's sent and how often.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask the Member to withdraw his

description as a propaganda rag, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I have documents distributed from

the Social Credit caucus that have misinformation. They are putting it out on

their plank every single week. Mr. Speaker, this is a news release from the

Premier's office, and I'm proud of this news release.

AN HON. MEMBER: That just shows what type of a man you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary. Is the Premier paying for this,

or is the public of B.C. paying for it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is a 13-page release, released from

my office every week. Your opinion and my opinion of it are two

different things. You're biased, I'm not.

MR. GARDOM: Who pays for it?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! At least it is not on my Xerox

account, I hope.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It comes out of my office.

MR. GARDOM: Who pays for it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm certainly not charging it to the

Liberal account. It comes out of public accounts of this

province.

MR. GARDOM: Ohhh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: The same as yours!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same subject, I wonder whether the

Premier would look into the fact that some editors of weekly

newspapers are complaining. They feel their government

advertising account will be jeopardized unless this material is

published.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if you have any proof of

that statement, it is your responsibility to bring written

evidence to this House, rather than attempting to smear

someone.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to.... I do

not have written evidence.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just make it up. Make it up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What I would like to

[ Page

1635 ]

know is whether there is a connection between the immense

amount of government advertising, particularly for ICBC, and

the printing of government propaganda.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that question should be backed

by evidence; otherwise it is a straight political smear with no

facts whatsoever.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

I want that Member to go into the library and check every weekly paper. There's

not one condition tied, not even to that Member's paper, to ICBC advertising.

For you to stand up and make that accusation...!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You should be thoroughly ashamed of

yourself for what you are trying to do to this House. I must

object.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. Members, please be seated.

Please be seated. Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop putting out propaganda.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: May we now proceed more harmoniously with

question period?

BCR-CNR NEGOTIATIONS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Premier as

president of the railroad: what is the current situation in the

negotiations with the CNR and the BCR? I understand they were

going on last week.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I spoke to the vice-president

yesterday — Mr. Norris. He had hoped to meet with the CNR

yesterday. Unfortunately the meeting was not arranged, and I

think the meeting will go on today.

OWNER-OPERATOR STATUS

UNDER FAIR EMPLOYMENT ACT

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I was

asked a question before, and it was referred to again by the

Hon. Liberal leader. The answer to the question asked in regard

to whether we make sure the Public Works Fair Employment Act

is followed in dealing with owner-operators: Well, the fact

of the matter is that the provisions of the Act do exclude a

number of operations such as family business, day labour,

rental equipment, contractors providing materials, or auxiliary

services. So they do not come under the Act.

SELF-GOVERNMENT

IN QUEEN CHARLOTTES

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Is his

department actively studying some form of local self-government

for the Queen Charlotte Islands in response to initiatives

which originated in the Queen Charlottes?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): At this

time we are not. I'm going to be visiting the Queen Charlotte

Islands later this year and have a first-hand view of what is

going on. Then I'll be looking at possible changes in

structure, or possibly leaving them the way they are.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister,

or his department, received a request for a study into local

self-government status in that area?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't believe so. I don't believe we

have. We've had visits from some of the regional district

representatives. I don't think there has been any official

request for a study.

GOVERNMENT HELP FOR

COMMUNITY AMALGAMATIONS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A supplementary to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs: Are you prepared to make expertise available to various smaller

communities or unorganized areas in order that they can examine on a factual

basis the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating with neighbouring communities,

or in fact forming a municipality of their own, or a village?

HON. MR. LORIMER: We have been doing this, supplying some

expertise. We have limited staff and there are a number of

requests that have come in that we haven't been able to look

after at this time. But we expect that we will look after all

the requests over a period of time.

[ Page 1636 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Further to the supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

would the Minister be prepared to make a small amount of funds

available to cover these travel expenses, providing they are

properly submitted, for these community associations? They have

no avenue through which they can generate any revenue, and

those sincere citizens who are trying to look at the best for

the province and their community have to pay this out of their

own pockets.

So would you form a cost-sharing pool...?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Where do they want to travel?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, they have to come to Victoria in order to

discuss this matter with your experts who can't get out to the

field where they belong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I see. No, when our experts are ready to

discuss the matter with them, when they have the available

time, they will go to the site. It will not be necessary for

....

GAS PRICE REDUCTION

TO CONSUMERS IN B.C.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question for

the Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of

the Premier's remarks on a recorded television programme that

the consumers should be subsidized in respect to rising oil

prices, is this an indication that he's thinking of following

the lead of Alberta in reducing the impact of higher oil prices

on the gasoline pumps?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I will be going to Ottawa

today for a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Madam Member, it's not a holiday. We

do not believe in the empty chair policy in Ottawa. We're part

of Canada since this government's been in office.

I will be raising again, as I've suggested before, that with

the federal surcharge on oil being exported from Canada, the

increased revenue by the federal administration should be used

as a means for tax reductions for Canadian families by way of

greater exemptions on the income tax.

But I will say this, Mr. Member: it is of grave concern to this government

that increased fuel costs will hit British Columbia. Therefore, we will consider

policies that in some way will directly affect the motoring public of British

Columbia in terms of reducing the overall costs of driving their vehicles.

AVAILABILITY OF SHARES IN B.C.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. It has been

indicated in government policies that the public will have an

opportunity to purchase shares in the B.C. Industrial

Development Corporation. I was wondering if the Minister could

tell me how many shares will be available to the public, when,

and at what price.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

The statute of the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act does not

permit a public issue. I would think that we should let the corporation operate

for a year or two and then a decision could be made about a public issue. But

it is premature at this stage.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the

provincial government purchased shares in the Industrial

Development Corporation? How many, and at what price?

HON. MR. LAUK: The Minister of Finance, I understand, is

intending to subscribe for 150,000 shares at $100 per share,

which should be completed before the end of this month.

SUSPENSION OF WESTERN

PACIFIC TRUCK COMPANY

MR. GARDOM: A few weeks ago the Premier took as notice the

question as to the reasons why Western Pacific Truck Company

was suspended. He has not yet informed me of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I gave the report to the House

by way of a return.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll check that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you check that? I think that is what

happened, Mr. Member, the next day. I'll double-check that.

PURCHASE OF BUSES

MR. McCLELLAND: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Can the Minister advise the House whether or

not his department is in negotiation for any either long-haul

or short-haul buses at this time, either in Canada or

outside?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not at this time, but I

[ Page 1637 ]

expect to be shortly. The problem has been that the federal

government has refused us permission to buy buses from the

United States — second-hand buses — so at the present time we

have to go along with what can be produced in Canada; and that

is a total of 200 buses this year.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in any future....

MR. SPEAKER: You can save it for tomorrow, I hope. May I

speak on what I know you are rising on?

The orders of the day indicate that question period will be

in the afternoon sitting. We have a morning sitting, and we

considered this question. I didn't explain it first. Perhaps I

should have, and I apologize for that.

The resolution that was adopted in regard to question period

said that the reference in standing order 25 to questions put

by Members be interpreted by Mr. Speaker as permitting a

15-minute oral question period for urgent and important

questions without notice commencing at the opening of each

day's session, except Fridays.

The question we had to determine was whether that should be

interpreted as meaning the opening of the day. Since this is a

new day, and it is the first session of the day, we interpreted

it as meaning question period would be now.

Unfortunately that was not changed in the orders of the day

as it should properly have been, I think.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, after that

determination would it not have been possible to advise each

one of the caucuses of that particular decision so we would

have been aware of the fact that question period would come up

immediately after the House....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret and apologize for that. It was only at

the time of coming in that the question occurred to us that we

had to determine whether question period would be at 10 o'clock

or 2 p.m., and I apologize for that.

MR. SMITH: Are we to assume that question periods will

commence immediately after the House convenes at 10 o'clock on

every given day except Friday?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that that's a pretty fair determination

of what will happen. I would guess that to be so in view of the

fact that I have to make some

interpretation according to the

resolution passed by this House, and it is the first session of

the day.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 75: Minister's office, $82,898.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, before I get into

the remarks that I want to make, I would like to comment about

all the haste that the government wants — particularly the

Premier — under the Minister of Health. I can't understand it

because the Minister of Health is in charge of the second

largest department of this government, and by that I mean the

amount of expenditure. We're looking at $548 million, and there

is only one department of government that takes more funds from

the public and spends it than the Department of Health.

I'm not criticizing the fact at all, that that should be so.

It should have high priority in spending, but I can't

understand why all the haste of, particularly, the Premier.

He's been trying to get this vote since half-an-hour after it

was called in the first instance. So as far as this side is

concerned, we have lots of things to bring up in the Health

department for the simple reason that they're spending $548

million. It's just that simple. I think we should calm down and

analyse this thing a lot more than it's been analysed up to

now.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate the Minister of

Health and the government on the inauguration of a

province-wide ambulance service. This has been a real problem

in our province for a long time. As I represent a rural area, I

have first-hand knowledge of what that problem has been. It

certainly will help the smaller municipalities that are

struggling along with makeshift ambulance services and, of

course, it will help the larger ones by relieving them.

I have a few comments to make regarding that which I'd like

the Minister of Health to entertain. I'll give as an example my

riding of Cariboo: We have excellent medical facilities in, as

we call it, on the black-top — Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile

House; but from Williams Lake to Bella Coola is a distance of

300 miles on a gravel road. And thanks to the Minister of

Highways, it looks like it's going to stay that way. But if

something happens out in this area, the obvious way to get fast

medical attention is by plane, and take them to, say, Williams

Lake or even Vancouver, depending on the medical condition.

As I understand it, the government is going to use the

airplanes they've bought. They're going to use them somewhat

for ambulance service as well as tooting cabinet Ministers

around the country, and there are not adequate airports in

these rural, remote areas for that kind of aircraft.

I wonder if the government, through the Minister

[ Page 1638 ]

of Health, Mr. Chairman, would entertain the idea of

improving the airports in the remote areas. I refer

specifically to the area from Williams Lake to Bella Coola

which covers the whole Chilcotin plateau and the Coast Range.

If they would put even two airports in there, the cost of them...The airports exist now but your aircraft can't land because

of the gravel condition. They are community airports, that's

what they are.

You could in a pinch get your aircraft in there, but I think

it would be with some danger. The way to eliminate that is to

improve that community airstrip to the point of blacktopping

it, and the cost would be the equivalent of one mile of

blacktop. Now, that varies in cost, but I can't see that it's a

big item. Then I think you would be really doing something

about bringing ambulance service to the remote areas.

Another place I can mention is Wells-Barkerville in my

riding where there are very little medical facilities. There is

a good road, but it takes an hour or so to get to a medical

facility which is Quesnel. They have a gravel strip there, but

it is a dangerous strip for the kind of aircraft you have. I'm

going on the basis that you are going to use government

aircraft to some degree. I think their usefulness as air

ambulances would improve immensely if you looked at that, and I

don't think it is beyond the reach or bounds of the government

to spend the money.

As far as the land is concerned, I'm not aware of the

ownership of the land. I think in most all cases these gravel

strips are probably on provincial Crown lands with a lease, so

you have no problem with purchasing land as far as strips are

concerned in the more remote areas. I think it's a dandy chance

to improve this service that you intend to inaugurate.

While we're on the Minister's salary, Mr. Chairman, there's

something that has bugged against smaller municipalities a lot

regarding the public health service. I refer to the maintenance

of the buildings in these communities.

Recently one of the communities in my riding has absolutely

refused to pick up the bill any longer for the maintenance of

these buildings. Now, it varies from $1,000 to $3,000 a year. I

was in municipal affairs at the time these buildings were set

up. As you know, a service club sponsored the thing and there

were some government grants. But once they were established,

and I'm referring to the public health units in the

communities, the maintenance was hung onto the municipality

concerned, and as far as I know it still is.

This is an unfair tax burden on the municipal taxpayer in these areas because

actually that health unit is servicing the entire area. I would suggest the

solution to this small but vexing problem would be for the government to consider

picking up these costs onto the municipality concerned, and as far as I know

they wished to have a local level on it, put their grants for that through the

regional district. But there's an unfair costing there now and I think the Minister

should have a look at that.

I want to say a few things about extended care. In the

Cariboo we opened an extended-care hospital last year. In fact,

I think the Minister opened it — a 40-bed extended care unit,

and we're quite happy with that. It's in conjunction with the

100-bed acute hospital next door, and it's operating very well.

But I feel we've got some problems there in public relations. I

think the first patients were put in this hospital in October

or November. Then we had a Dr. McKay come along on January 7

this year and pitch out about half the patients who were in

there. I realize there are guidelines on extended care, but the

point....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Let's change the guidelines.

MR. FRASER: Well maybe that's the answer, Mr. Member, to

change the guidelines, but I want to assure the Minister that

the public does not understand this at all. The good work that

is being done with extended care is being ruined by this

approach.

What is actually happening here is that they are, first of

all, admitted 60 days prior to their discharge by a competent

family physician and with the approval of Victoria. It seems

that as soon as the admission takes place — in the case of the

one that I'm dealing with, the extended care unit at Quesnel — they are not there very long. They are settled in and their

condition, I assume, improves; I suppose that's what medical

care is all about. But where the problem comes is that it is

not improved to the degree where this patient can be sent home.

That's where all the difficulty is.

I don't want to go into any medical terms because I don't

understand them. But I have cases now...I've just had

correspondence with Dr. Longridge, I think it is, appealing an

eviction from the hospital. He admits right in the letter that

this person certainly is not in good medical condition, but he

isn't in bad enough shape to remain in the extended care.

I don't know how we get the message across to the public but

it's causing trouble now and lots of it. It's my opinion

that the public says once they're in there that's where they

stay until they're completely better or they pass on. Of

course, that isn't happening. As they improve slightly and they

can look after themselves, they don't need a wheelchair but

they're still sick. Dr. McKay comes along with her big club and

wham! — out they go.

Now, Dr. McKay writes the family physician, giving her

diagnosis of the case, and gives him 48 hours to decide whether

he agrees with her diagnosis

[ Page 1639 ]

of the case or whether he doesn't. I'm sure, speaking for

the general practitioner, he takes the attitude, "Well, if

that's what the boss says, what's the use of arguing about it?"

So the patient gets put out. Well, I might be wrong in that....

MR. WALLACE: You're wrong there.

MR. FRASER: Well, might be, but....

MR. WALLACE: You're doing a great job; keep talking.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. In the few cases I am referring to,

the general practitioner has argued but it's been futile; the

patient must still leave the institution. I don't think that

should be. Surely there must be a better answer. Inform the

public of extended care and the guidelines in more layman's

language than medical language, and that extended care is not a

nursing home. That's what it's all about. The general public

certainly think that's what extended care is.

I just want to comment about the general health care that we

have in the Cariboo. We're quite proud of all the health

facilities we have there; acute care in the three larger

locations and the extended care in Quesnel, which is a regional

facility, and so on and so forth.

But now I want to get into what really I'm up here for: the

public health service. I want to say here and now that the

public nursing service is probably the most popular service of

a rural area that we have in the health field. I realize the

Minister has had some difficulties. I'm going to remind him of

them this morning here in this field.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that there is a vote for public health services on

general detailed consideration of this area. If it is a

specific matter that he wishes to take up generally, he may

proceed.

MR. FRASER: All right, Mr. Chairman, I have letters from the

Minister on these subjects and I can't see how you can rule

that I can't discuss it when the Minister has been right on

these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I haven't ruled the Hon. Member out of

order, I'm merely cautioning....

MR. FRASER: Thank you. I appreciate that.

I want to refer to an experiment by the local people in

conjunction with the prior government and this administration.

The nursing station, I'll call it, at Tatla Lake in the

Chilcotin. I want to emphasize, I appreciate what the problem

is here and the fact is I would like to first of all tell this

House where Tatla Lake is. It's mid-way between Williams Lake and Bella Coola,

which makes it 150 miles from Williams Lake and 150 miles from

Bella Coola.

Each of those points, Williams Lake and Bella Coola, have

acute hospitals. But in between we have 300 miles of gravel

road and boulders and in the centre is Tatla Lake and the local

people decided some two years ago that they would put a health

unit in there. There was a lot of discussion and so on and

finally they got the structure going in 1972. But something

happened while all the negotiations were going on and a very

fine doctor moved into the bush at Tatla Lake.

He moved from Haney to get away from all the terrible living

conditions you people are accustomed to on the lower mainland.

He saw the light and got out. He had a young family and he

didn't want his young family raised in that sort of atmosphere

so he really went out into the boondocks near Tatla Lake at

Kleena Kleene. This was in 1971.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

For some reason or other there has never been any cooperation...I don't

know, I'm not going to blame anybody for it. But the doctor, when he arrived,

didn't seem to think that this health unit would be a good idea. But anyway,

that is the background and we get up to where we are, say, in 1973. Through

the Minister the health services got a nurse and they, I believe, gave her some

special training because she was going out into this remote area and a health

unit was opened at Tatla Lake with this competent person there.

At this stage the government and the local taxpayers, I

believe, had invested $75,000 on the facilities without the

full equipment. Then the nurse arrived and then next thing that

happened...everybody is happy in this remote area...admittedly it hasn't a lot of population, but the doctor by

this time has been put on the payroll of the provincial

government at, I believe, $40,000-odd a year. This Minister put

him on the payroll and I thank him for that.

I'm not saying that critically. I think those people, even

if they do decide to live in a remote area, are deserving of

care. So we have this doctor there and we have the health unit

and everything is rosy. This is the start of about October,

Then the next thing, rumbles come along that the public

health nurse is not happy at Tatla Lake and it's my

understanding that she decides that she's not going to stay at

Tatla Lake any longer. She is either going to leave the public

health service or she wants a transfer. I understand this is

caused by the non-cooperation of that doctor who is on the

provincial public payroll.

Mr. Chairman, it's a sad deal. I know the Minister

[ Page 1640 ]

has done all he could to salvage the deal, but I'm not so

sure that we're going the right course because now, because of

a letter written — not because of the letter but all the

controversy — the health unit is closed up, or will be.

I think it's actually closed up now, sitting there idle,

except for intermittent visits of public health nurses who

travel from Williams Lake to Anahim Lake particularly, a

distance of 200 miles.

I think prior to Tatla Lake — I don't think, I know — they

made that trip once a month and God bless them for doing that.

There's not very many men sitting in this room that will make

that trip on glare ice to 200 Mile House, but they make it once

a month to 200 Mile and stop at the smaller communities and see

if they can administer any public health care.

So, really with the unit at Tatla Lake, that's the only use

now that's going to be made of it. I want to say for the

community of Tatla Lake and the general Chilcotin area, what

they want, Mr. Chairman, is they want both, the doctor and a

public health nurse on a full-time basis at Tatla Lake.

This is the crux of our problem. We have the facility and we

have the doctor, but because of friction somehow we have this

place either padlocked now or soon to be padlocked in the next

few days.

I don't think that that's the answer. I want to now, Mr.

Chairman, read to you a letter that the Minister — and it seems

to be the Minister's position, that's the reason I want to read

it — that the Minister wrote to the chairman of the Cariboo

Regional District on this facility. It's dated March 7.

"Dear Mr. Moffat:

Further to the recent visit of senior officials of the health

department to Tatla Lake..."

And that's correct, I know that you officials went up there.

"...and discussions held by them there and subsequently in

Williams Lake with hospital staff, this is to confirm that action has been taken

to transfer Miss Freda Easy..."

That was the public health nurse.

"... to another area in the province. It is my

understanding that in agreement with the advisory committee to

the Tatla Lake health facility, steps will be taken by you and

your board to locate a suitable lessee to occupy the

housekeeping quarters in the faculty on a month-to-month rental

basis, the lessee to be approved by the advisory committee.

"The clinic will continue to be utilized by various professionals

on an intermittent visiting basis when giving service to the people of the area.

This will include a public health nurse, visiting dentists and perhaps a social

worker, as subject to further discussion with Human Resources.

"Dr. Vandermann has indicated that he will continue to

practise in the area and whether or not he makes use of the

clinic space is a matter for him to discuss and decide with the

advisory committee. When the public health nurse visits the

area it is not our intention that Dr. Vandermann should

ordinarily accompany her on home visits but I would hope that

he would make himself available at her request.

"It is understood that Dr. Vandermann will make all necessary

arrangements to obtain the services of a locum to cover for any

lengthy period of absence on holiday or otherwise from the area

and that his services will be available on request to the

Director of the Cariboo Health Unit for emergency public health

duties.

"It is perhaps unfortunate that the population base for the

area is too small to warrant the services of both a physician

and a nurse in the extended role. However, I do feel that even

this limited experience has been of considerable value.

"In the meantime, the residents of the area have the

comforting knowledge that should a physician's services at any

time in the future no longer be immediately available to them,

then this facility harbours a potential and most valuable

resource.

"Kindest regards, Dennis Cocke, Minister."

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should

accept this and I think through the Minister we should get into

some tougher negotiations with this doctor and find out what is

really bothering him. I have never been quite clear what is

bothering him, and I am not too sure that the Minister is quite

clear. I don't think that facility should be closed; I don't

think it has to be closed. I would be happy to hear from you,

but this looks like the end of the Tatla Lake health unit.

I'm sure — I repeat — speaking for the people of the

Chilcotin, they definitely want both. You're prepared to give

both — you, the Minister — but because of some friction through

personalities, the whole Chilcotin suffers because of the lack

of a full-time health unit. I don't think that's the way it

should go. I am sure that something should be worked out with

the doctor so that he will stay there and have that health

facility open on a full-time basis. I agree with you, Mr.

Minister, that facility will be open, but I can assure you only

probably one day a month unless they step up their trips out of

Williams Lake and I don't think they can because they have such

a large rural area. Unless you give them more nurses, they just

can't make the trip any more frequently than once a month.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring up another item that really

vexes me, and the Minister knows what it

[ Page 1641 ]

is. I refer to the dismissal of Mrs. Freda Vaness from the

public health service at 100 Mile House. She is a member of the

Cariboo nursing service, and as I understand it, she has been

there since 1969. Last year a charge was made by a citizen that

this public health nurse misused a government car; that is, she

used it for her personal use.

I don't think the Minister really looked into the details of

this. I want to emphasize this point: there is no written

charge against this lady; it's strictly verbal. But when your

department dealt with her, you bet your life you put it in

writing. That is the first thing wrong.

You accepted a verbal charge against her from a member of

the staff. When she requested in the original interview that

she would like to have her accuser there, it was denied. There

is definitely something wrong in this case, very radically

wrong.

I have to go into some detail here to convince the Minister,

and what I am doing this for, Mr. Chairman.

I have a letter from the Minister — as you know I brought

this up on the floor of the House before, and it greatly

incensed the Minister. Immediately I wrote the Minister a

letter about this case. The Minister certainly has replied to

me, refusing to reopen this case. There is a miscarriage of

justice here — there is no question in my mind, and that's the

reason I want to make the points here quite strongly today to

convince the Minister of that.

All I am asking is for you to reopen and look at the case.

I'm sure if you looked at it in detail, as I have done, you

will arrive at a different decision than you have done so

far.

This lady had a verbal complaint made against her by a

member of the very office staff that she worked with at 100

Mile House. This lady made it her business to drive to Williams

Lake where the head nurse is, and made the verbal complaint

that this lady used the government car for private use.

Then Mrs. Vaness was called into the health office at

Williams Lake. She was questioned by the director of the

Cariboo health unit, Dr. Meekison with the senior health nurse,

Ardice Buchanan, and one or two staff members. I have right

here, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the transcript of what happened

there. I don't think it will serve any purpose to read it, but

that transcript was sent down to the senior people in Victoria,

somewhere between November 6 and 22.

On reading the transcript, this lady was dismissed from the

public health service for telling the truth. That is not

justice, in my opinion. She never denied that she used the

government car, but at such small intervals...I don't think

we are talking about more than 500 miles. Is she to be the

scapegoat for all the public servants in this province who are

definitely using government vehicles? And we all know that.

I asked the Premier the other day what the policy was. He said that the policy

was to only use government vehicles during business. Well, it doesn't in fact

work out that way.

In the case of the public health nurse, she went out to work

on Saturdays. In one case on this tape, she actually went to

Canoe Creek to see some sick native people. For your

information, this is 50 miles in the bush, west of 70 Mile

House. That's one of the times she is accused of using the

government car. It was a Saturday and that was fine, but the

other accusation is that she had a friend with her. I'll bet

you, Mr. Minister, if you went to Canoe Creek, you would have

three or four friends with you.

In fact you wouldn't go at all because the road is full of

potholes and rocks and snow and ice. That's the Minister of

Highways' (Hon. Mr. Lea'

s) fault, and I don't expect it will

ever get any better.

Why should a public health nurse not take somebody with her?

But to be accused and then dismissed from the service is.... I

just use that as one example. There are other examples used:

that she use the car on Saturdays for shopping in the community

of 100 Mile House, and so on. But I think that Canoe Creek one

has got to be the great one.

I am sure the senior people from Victoria, when they read

the transcript, thought Canoe Creek was on a gold-plated paved

road somewhere. I suggest they need a little more education

about what these public health nurses have to put up with and

where they have to go to bring the very much needed public

health service to these communities.

I want to dwell on the three senior people. I have nothing

to hide; the Minister seems to get upset when I name them. I'm

not accusing them. I'm just telling facts. It was the Assistant

Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Benson, and one of his

assistants — I forget what his name was — and, I believe, a

Mrs. Green, the head of the public nursing service.

After Mrs. Vaness goes to this inquisition with Dr.

Meekison, the transcript set down here. And reading between the

lines, these wheels from Victoria jumped in an airplane and

flew to Williams Lake.

At this point, two weeks later after the interview with Dr.

Meekison and Mrs. Vaness, Mrs. Vaness was back at work and she

gets a call, "You are wanted in Williams Lake right away." — 60 miles away. She wasn't sure what it was all about. When she

arrived in Williams Lake after driving the 60 miles, she walks

into all this high-priced help — the three high-priced help

from Victoria.

I might say that where public funds are concerned, I feel

that high-priced help going from Victoria to Williams Lake to

fire her cost more than she ever spent using the government car

on weekends.

Anyway, Mrs. Vaness arrived, and much to her dismay here is

all this brass and she was confronted with this: "Mrs. Vaness,

we have seen the transcript," and so on. "You know this

is wrong, what you have done" — she never denied it; she said

she did it —

[ Page 1642 ]

"and we are going to dismiss you here and now or you can sign a resignation."

A real shotgun affair, that's all it was, Mr. Chairman, over an innocent person.

I say to anybody in this room, when you are confronted with

that what are you going to do? The first thing Mrs. Vaness said

was, "I don't feel like writing a written resignation because I

am upset." So one of the senior officials said, "Well, we will

accommodate you on that. We'll type it out and you will sign

it."

That's what happened to this 49-year old lady, who is a

registered nurse and a responsible person. Under duress of the

charge I'm making, she signs the forced resignation, and our

senior people from Victoria fly back, mission completed, happy

as can be. The resignation was received and I believe they gave

her a stay of execution until June 30, 1974 — that was the

arrangement made.

I want to read the letter from the Minister now. I entered

the case only in January, just about the time of coming down

for the session, and then brought it up on the floor of this

House in February. Then I wrote the Minister and this is the

reply I got and this is why I feel the Minister has been

misinformed. The letter is addressed to myself, dated February

20, from the Minister of Health:

"With reference to your letter of February 11, 1974, it is

not my intention to reopen the case of Mrs. Freda Vaness, since

Mrs. Vaness of her own volition terminated her employment with

the Health Branch on January 18, 1974, by advising the public

health nursing supervisor that she had another position at the

Williams Lake Hospital..."

— and by the way, Mr. Minister, you're a little wrong there,

she had another position at the 100 Mile Hospital —

"... and that she was completing her last day of work.

"Further, it must be pointed out that if Mrs. Vaness felt

she had a grievance, she could have applied for a hearing

through the usual public service commission channels set up for

that purpose. Furthermore, she did not ask for special

consideration by either writing or contacting the director of

public health nursing of the Health Branch in Victoria.

"In terminating her employment with no notice, Mrs. Vaness

left the Health Branch in an awkward situation and it was most

fortunate that they were able to obtain the services of another

public health nurse who had the necessary experience and

qualifications. In this way, nursing care to the community has

been continued without interruption.

"I trust that you will agree with me that under these circumstances

there can be no question of reopening the case. For your information, I have

also received many letters from the community and will be replying along similar

lines.

"With kindest regards, yours truly, Dennis Cocke, Minister."

Now I want to deal with points that the Minister makes here.

I say to you that if you had had the pressure applied to you

and you had signed a forced resignation in November, surely

somebody in the public health service must have known that that

lady wasn't going to stay around to June if she could find

something else. Therefore that's bunkum in the first paragraph

of your letter where you're saying she left on her own

volition, when in fact the story goes back to November of

The second paragraph, though, is the one that I want to

really point out to the Minister:

"Further it must be pointed out that if Mrs. Vaness felt she

had a grievance, she could have applied for a hearing through

the usual Public Service Commission channels set up for

that purpose."

I've got a question to you, Mr. Minister. Did any of your

senior officials tell this lady she had those rights? She

didn't know she had those rights, and none of them told her.

And that's a dirty deal.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Sure, we know that, but this lady didn't know

that and none of your senior people told her that she had those

rights. Believe me, under the conditions in which she was

forced to resign, she wouldn't have signed if she'd known about

those. So that's what I've got to say about this. If she had

any other courses open to her.... But I tell you, sir, she was

not advised of her rights, and she should have been!

"In terminating her employment with no notice, Mrs. Vaness

left the Health Branch in an awkward situation." Well, I

dwelled on that. That's a bunch of bunkum. You knew very well

that Mrs. Vaness wasn't going to be around.

Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister to reopen the case. I can

say, on behalf of Mrs. Vaness, that she doesn't want her job

back, but she wants her name cleared so she can go back to

public health nursing in the Province of Alberta. I ask you:

how can she get back in the public health nursing service with

this over her head? She can't! You've been sold a bill of

goods, Mr. Minister. I don't blame you for this. I'm trying to

impress on you that you listened to one side of the coin and

that's all you listened to. I'm not saying they lied to you,

but I told you here this morning Mrs. Vaness' side, and surely

with that, you will consider reopening this case.

Going back on the story, I ask you why you

[ Page 1643 ]

haven't got a written complaint from the complainant that

started all this trouble. I'll tell you why you haven't. It's

because when she was asked to put it in writing, she wouldn't

put it in writing — the original complaint back in November.

She wouldn't put it in writing, and I wonder why, Mr. Minister,

she wouldn't put it in writing. But your director of the

Cariboo health unit went ahead with the hearing anyway. So

what's going on here? Who's fooling whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the justice?

MR. FRASER: Yes, where's the justice in all this?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a kangaroo court.

MR. FRASER: I want to read a letter, Mr. Chairman, on this

same subject from the council of the Village of 100 Mile House.

Something else I didn't mention on this case is that there's

such a controversy in the community, because of the high regard

Mrs. Vaness was held in there, that the Minister and myself got

a petition with 1,550 names on it from the community of 100

Mile House. I'll bet you your staff in Victoria didn't know

there was that many people in the whole of Cariboo.

AN HON. MEMBER: They think it's some kind of an animal.

MR. FRASER: They got those from 100 Mile House. I want to

read a letter that the Minister got the other day, March 18,

from the Village of 100 Mile House, and I think that place is

well known. The mayor of that town is the president of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities of this whole province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he sign the petition?

MR. FRASER: Now I'll read the letter the Minister got about

the Vaness affair the other day. It's addressed to the

Minister.

"Your letter of February 13 concerning Mrs. Freda Vaness,

formerly public health nurse of the Cariboo health unit, has

been received and considered by my council."

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this council is comprised of

a mayor and four aldermen, and it's my information that they

sat up until 4 o'clock in the morning drafting this letter

themselves — the five elected people — to show how strong they

feel about it.

"My council was most disappointed with your letter as they

feel you've not given a satisfactory account of the situation and events leading

to Mrs. Vaness' forced resignation. In actual fact, it is my council's opinion

that you're misinformative letter concerning a local civil servant, particularly

at a time when there's such an air of displeasure and questions surrounding

your department's action, tends to severely discredit your department and your

office in particular.

"My council asks that I remind you that Mrs. Vaness is a

human being. If, in fact, your department has just cause to

request her resignation, it could have been handled on a more

humane basis rather than the sloppy unprofessional manner

displayed.

"Considering all the information provided by your

department, my council was unanimous in feeling that

considerable pressure had been brought to bear on Mrs. Vaness

in a most arbitrary and unfeeling manner in order to force her

resignation.

"My council strongly feel that you should personally

investigate this case further, with a view to providing

information to substantiate your department's actions. If you

are unable to substantiate such actions, extend some form of

compensation to Mrs. Vaness. It is sincerely hoped that you

will seriously consider the points raised in this letter and

advise my council of your intentions.

"Yours truly, Village of 100 Mile House."

I'm sure that the Minister, while he probably wouldn't

accept everything I had to say about it, will find that I'm not

the only one concerned about this miscarriage of justice. When

the most responsible body in her home town take the time to

write a letter about it, it is a serious....

I'd like to touch on something else on this subject, Mr.

Chairman, and I think the Minister should give it serious

thought. I suggest to you the morale of the public health

nursing service of this province has been affected by this

action. I certainly know it has been in the Cariboo.

I think that for that reason, and that reason alone, the

Minister should at least set up an inquiry of some type. Let's

have this lady who wouldn't sign — an employee of 100 Mile

House office health unit — come in and give her side and hear

Mrs. Vaness' side and any other people that are part of this

deal.

I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that you have only listened

to your staff. I am firmly of the opinion that you must look

into this thing further; and I certainly formally request you

to do so.

Do you want me to read the transcript? Or have you ever seen

it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it, Alex; I haven't heard it.

MR. FRASER: I think I'd better, because I don't think I have

convinced the Minister. This will take

[ Page 1644 ]

about an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's okay; we're not going anywhere.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, this is a copy of a transcript of a meeting held in the Williams Lake Health Office, November 6, 1963.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Why don't you file it?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): File it? Read it.

MR. FRASER: No, if I file it, it will get filed in the waste-paper basket.

MR. PHILLIPS: He wants you to sweep it under the rug. Read it into the record. I want to hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let the Member continue his speech.

MR. FRASER: This is a

transcript of a meeting held in Williams Lake Health Office, November

6, 1973, in the office of W.G. Meekison. Present: Dr. Meekison,

director of the Cariboo health unit; Miss S.A. Buchanan, supervisor of

public nealth nurses of the Cariboo health unit; and Mrs. Freda Vaness,

public health nurse of 100 Mile House. Dr. Meekison leads off:

"DR. MEEKISON: Now then, Freda, what I wanted to talk

to you about was some statements that Brenda made in the presence of

both Joan Scott and Ardice Buchanan" — Brenda is the plaintiff — "about

you and your use of a government car. What I would like to do would be

to quote you what Mrs. Scott and Ardice feel is an accurate

summary of

these allegations and ask you to comment on them. Okay? Now I'm just

going to read this.

"On Thursday afternoon, October 18, Mrs. Brenda Jones,

part-time clerk, 100 Mile House, visited the Cariboo health unit office

in Williams Lake, at my invitation because she had not been able to

attend the last general staff meeting for personal reasons, and there

were several items to be discussed.

"After discussing routine office matters, Mrs. Jones

stated that as a taxpayer she was concerned about the misuse of the

government vehicle assigned to Mrs. Freda Vaness, public health nurse

at 100 Mile House. Her objections were:

"1. The use of the vehicle for personal business both

in and out of office hours because Mrs. Vaness does not own her own

car, and in particular:

(

a) At weekends to do shopping, attend church,

visiting friends and attending social gatherings as well as week day

evening use for personal reasons.

(

b) During office hours, if Mrs. Vaness' daughter

phoned the health unit office and said she wanted a ride, Mrs. Vaness

would drop everything and go to pick up her daughter and drive her

wherever she wanted to go."

I just want to comment here that this lady is the sole wage earner of

that family and she has a teenage daughter. I refer to Mrs. Vaness.

"At this time I pointed out that it was now legal for

Mrs. Vaness to have a member of her immediate family with her in the

government vehicle, but she stated that these incidences occurred many

times prior to the new regulations, as well as since.

"(

c) That on a trip to Canoe Creek, when Mrs. Jones

accompanied Mrs. Vaness (as Unit Aide) there were also two personal

friends of Mrs. Vaness who accompanied them to Canoe Creek. Mrs. Vaness

drove Mrs. Jones home, arriving at a little after 6 p.m. Mr. Jones was

present when they arrived home and reacted strongly to the lateness of

their return and was annoyed that the other two people had obviously

been riding in the government vehicle and pointed out to Mrs. Jones

that there apparently was no reason for his wife to go to Canoe Creek

at all.

"(

d) That on one occasion Mrs. Vaness had mechanical

failure while driving H-693 on a Saturday: the drive shaft had fallen

out. Mrs. Vaness arranged with the garage that the bill for towing

would be dated for the following Monday morning. Mrs. Jones thought it

was about three years ago that this had happened." — Mind you, three

years ago. — "At this time I was not given the name of the garage but

in a subsequent conversation Mrs. Jones told me it was Hillcrest Auto

Body in 100 Mile House.

"We checked in the car file and it turned out that the garage was Fraser Brothers.

"(

e) On one occasion Mrs. Vaness had backed into Mrs.

Jones' vehicle when driving the government car in the parking lot at

the health unit at 100 Mile House, and had not reported it on an

Accident Report Form.

"Mrs. Jones kept hinting she could say more about

other incidents but she did not wish to say anything further at this

time, but did state they did not necessarily involve the use of the car

but could be even more serious.

"During this conversation Mrs. Jones kept saying she

was a friend of Mrs. Vaness' and did not like making these allegations,

but she explained that if ever a report was made by an

[ Page 1645 ]

outsider, she, Mrs. Jones that is, would be

asked if she had any knowledge of these matters and be asked why she

had said nothing.

"I reminded Mrs. Jones several times during her

statement that once before she had been warned that if she made any

further allegations concerning another staff member Dr. Meekison would

have to be informed. She stated she realized this.

"2. Mrs. Jones also alleged that Mrs. Vaness had used

the health unit building in 100 Mile House in the evenings for her own

personal meetings, without advising the janitor or Williams Lake

office, and that they were not health related."

I might just mention there — it's not in the transcript — that the

janitor there is Mrs. Jones' husband, Mr. Jones, or he was at that time.

"I suggested to Mrs. Jones that because these were

serious allegations, and because she had involved another staff member

and in particular a public health nurse, that she should discuss her

statements with Miss Ardice Buchanan, supervisor of public health

nurses. Mrs. Jones and I then joined Miss Buchanan in her office.

"There, Mrs. Jones repeated, to the best of my

recollection, items (a), (

c) and (d). I do not recall with any accuracy

whether she repeated the other items to Miss Buchanan. After Miss

Buchanan and I warned Mrs. Jones that these were serious allegations,

and that we would have to inform Dr. Meekison, Mrs. Jones left.

"Miss Buchanan and I then informed Dr. Meekison.

"Now then, Freda, after I was informed of these Brenda

was instructed to provide me a statement in writing stating in writing

what she had said in front of both Ardice and Joan. Brenda had refused

to do this. So, what I want to do at this point and I want to ask you

about these allegations that she has made against you because I assure

you she made them in the presence of both Ardice and Joan and so that

you have my word that she stated these things, and really what we

wanted to talk to you about this morning is to determine whether or not

there is any truth to these allegations that she's made against you.

"MRS. VANESS: Some of them yes, some of them no.

"DR. MEEKISON: Could you tell me what ones?

"MRS. VANESS: And I am really shocked at some of them that she's brought out.

"DR. MEEKISON: Uh, uh.

"MRS. VANESS: What's the first one, Dr. Meekison?

"DR. MEEKISON: Let's just go back — the use: '(1) the

use of the vehicle for personal business both in and out of office

hours because Mrs. Vaness does not own her own car, and in particular

at weekends to do shopping, attend church, visiting friends and

attending social gatherings as well as week day evening use for

personal reasons.'

"MRS. VANESS: Now this is wrong because my church

visits are made with friends who pick me up on their way to church.

Very, very occasionally, Dr. Meekison, in an emergency when neither of

them have been able...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want

to draw to the Member's attention that you offend the rules of the

House when you read a document of that nature. The rules of the House

suggest that you can read excerpts from documents. But you're reading

an entire document. I think you should get back to your speech and read

excerpts from it.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I would like to just complete where you interceded there.

This is important, Mr. Chairman, about this whole affair so that the

Minister will know.

"There's one further along about picking my daughter

up — this is not right, Dr. Meekison. If Freda phones this office and

says, 'Mom, are you in, are you going to be around 5 o'clock?' 'Yes',

she will come in and we'll maybe shop on the way home and I'll take her

home....

"DR. MEEKISON: So, Freda, you have used the car on the weekends to go to church on occasion."

Mrs Vaness replied that she had and I said earlier, Mr. Chairman,

that I feel this lady is a victim of telling the truth. She's been

victimized here with a wrong decision by a lot of people.

Then the doctor refers to the trip to Canoe Creek and she agreed there that she had these people in the car.

Dr. Meekison asked Mrs. Vaness if she knew she wasn't supposed to

have unauthorized people in a government vehicle and she replied that

she knew that was not according to the rules.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Yes, it would be

inclement conditions. The other thing here that looks bad is where they

charge the driveshaft fell out of the car on a Saturday and Mrs. Vaness

had the towing bill, as I understand it, put down to a Monday.

By the way, we're dealing with the fall of 1973, but when this

actually happened it was March 1970. They brought the red herrings from

way back to make sure that they could get anything they could on

[ Page 1646 ]

Mrs. Vaness. At that point, Mrs. Vaness had been on staff of

the Cariboo health unit at 100 Mile House about three months

when the driveshaft episode occurred.

There was a question of why she was using the car on a

Saturday. Mrs. Vaness replied to the doctor that she used the

car on a Saturday to go and pick up the mail. She was asked

what mail she was picking up. She said she picked up her own as

well as the health unit mail.

Then she was asked why she didn't report the accident that

she was accused of having. She replied, "Mainly because I had

already had an accident...." She didn't want to report it if it was too expensive.

She was asked who and why the passenger was in the car at

the time. "Mainly because I was going to Mahood Falls and we

had bad weather and I do not like driving over these bad roads

alone." For the Minister's information, Mahood Falls is east of

100 Mile House, 60 miles in the bush, in the boondocks. The

snow plow gets there every three weeks but this public health

nurse goes all the time as well as the other girls in the rural

area.

She tried to get permission for the party which went to

Mahood Falls with her from Miss Buchanan and she couldn't get

her on the telephone. That was her reply on that situation.

Another thing here is interesting about the use of

government vehicles.

"DR. MEEKISON: The government would be responsible, and the

personger (sic) in the event of injury or an accident of some,

you know, or death, the Government would be sued and be liable.

And there are very, very strict regulations governing the use

of the government car and unauthorized passengers. Now, I don't

know what Mrs. Jones — she goes on in this statement here that

we have says, she goes on hinting she could say more about

other incidents but she does not say, wish to say anything

further, but did not necessarily follow the — well I — so far

as I am concerned I am just going to ignore that because I feel

it's not fair to you...."

I would say that the whole thing is unfair from the start

because the health unit at Williams Lake at that time accepted

a verbal complaint against this lady and that's the way it

still stands. The whole thing was most unfair. If that accuser

would not put it in writing, I suggest to you that that is

where the crux of this whole problem is. It should never have

got to this point at all.

She was questioned about the use of the car and meetings.

She points out that a lot of the time the car was used on

health-related subjects such as going to meetings in her

capacity as a public health nurse.

"DR. MEEKISON: Well, I'll tell you one thing, Freda, right

now. I admire you for being honest."

It's right in the transcript here.

"MRS. VANESS: Well, I can't be anything else, Dr.

Meekison."

Then Dr. Meekison goes on to tell her what is going to

happen to this document, and he says:

"...a violation of government policy and it's a serious

violation, and I haven't looked forward to this day any more

than you have. Now, what I'm going to do is, I was going to ask

you this and I was going to ask you actually to make a

statement of exactly what you did in your own words and we

would send it down to Victoria — we will have to advise

Victoria, as you are aware.

"MRS. VANESS: That's fine.

"DR. MEEKISON: If you wish you can have a transcript of the

tape...."

They go on here. One remark Mrs. Vaness makes here when it

is concluding: "I have nothing to say — it just shocks me that

this was brought out and I wonder why, at this late date."

(Some of the things brought out) "are almost four years

old."

I could have done this faster, Mr. Chairman, if you'd just

let me read it right through. I'm trying to pick out the

pertinent excerpts in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize that, but you're offending the

rules of the House by reading a full document and that has to

be brought to your attention.

There's also the question of taking this sort of action

against a public servant; it should be done by substantive

motion. But I'm of the view that you're going to soon wind up

what you're doing there.

MR. FRASER: Well, I'll wind up, Mr. Chairman, just as soon

as the Minister is convinced that it has to be reopened.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, on a point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order.

MR. SMITH: If you don't allow the Member who is speaking to

present the evidence that he has, and only highlight it, there

may be very important key statements that this Minister should

be aware of that will be left out. So for goodness' sakes, let

him use some discretion in using the information that he has in

front of him at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The rules of the House say that a

Member may read extracts from documents. He offends the rules

of the House by reading the whole document. That's what I

brought to his attention.

[ Page 1647 ]

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Summarizing here now,

the fact of the matter is that Brenda, the accuser, made this

statement to Ardice, the senior public health nurse at Williams

Lake, and Joan, one of the office members, and very important

she made it. We know that what she said earlier represents and

what I read to you represents a reasonably accurate

summary of

what she said — not what she said in writing but what she said

verbally. I think it is really a serious point in this case

that they would take that verbal evidence from one person.

I'm going to suggest here that there was some ganging up

going on against Mrs. Vaness. It's obvious to me that this is

what has happened. The accuser is set up and then they pick up

this item to get Mrs. Vaness. The accuser wasn't the only one

involved. I can't understand why, I don't know why, but I guess

they didn't want Mrs. Vaness and they used some of the people

involved here. I don't think this thing ever should have got to

his point on a verbal basis. There must have been somebody who

wanted to be sure that Mrs. Vaness was taken out of that health

unit one way or another.

"MRS. VANESS: Well, now, on Monday morning when we both came

into my office," (I believe her and Brenda) "I said to

her — well, it came out that I had to come up here today — and I

said, 'Ardice tells me you have laid some complaints about me.'

This is Mrs. Vaness talking to Mrs. Jones at 100 Mile

House.

"Well, of course, she then went into the spiel that she had

not made these statements — Joan had made the statements and

she had merely confirmed them."

So the lady there, when she was accosted there by Mrs.

Vaness, denied making the statements. This had deteriorated to

this point.

"DR. MEEKISON: I talked to Brenda myself on the phone and

there's no question in my mind whatsoever that should this come

to a court of law, as it just conceivably could, I don't know

whether Brenda's aware of what perjury is all about, but I

shall tell you this: she made those statements and her refusal

to put them in writing doesn't change the fact that she made

them. She made them in front of both Ardice and Joan, and,

frankly, I'd take their word over hers any day. She made these

statements and she is the only one who could have had knowledge

of many of the events...."

This transcript is signed by Dr. Meekison, Freda Vaness, Ardice Buchanan and

Joan Scott. To fill you in, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Meekison at that time was director

of the Cariboo health unit. He has since been transferred. Freda Vaness, as

we know, was the public health nurse on staff of the Cariboo health unit. Ardice

Buchanan is the senior public health nurse of the Cariboo health unit. Mrs.

Joan Scott is the senior clerk in the Williams Lake office of the Cariboo health

unit.

I assume this document went to Victoria. We had the brass

from the Minister's department — the Assistant Deputy

Minister of Health, his assistant and the senior public health

nurse of the province — go to Williams Lake. Before they left

there they confronted this unfortunate lady, or along these

lines, with the fact that they were going to fire her if she

didn't resign. I related that before, but I really don't think

that's the way to deal with an individual — a real gang-up of

the whole deal. She didn't feel like writing out a resignation

so the good doctor accommodated her by typing it for her.

But on the point the Minister makes in his letter of the

fact that Mrs. Vaness knew full well the courses open to her, I

say to the Minister that she did not. She says that and that's

where the whole thing went off the rail. She knows now. But her

whole future is ruined unless you open this case. This lady

right now is on general duty at the 100 Mile House hospital and

she is finding the work very, very difficult. She hasn't done

ward duty in a general hospital for a long time because, as far

as I know, she is a qualified public health nurse. She is also

an RN and she has a daughter.

She, as I said earlier, is the only breadwinner in that

family and she must work to educate her daughter and, of

course, feed and clothe themselves. She wants her name cleared.

She will not go back to work in the public health service, as I

understand, in the Province of British Columbia. But I believe

Mrs. Vaness, at a prior time, has worked in the public health

service of Alberta and I assume that's what she plans on doing.

But as I said earlier, with this unjust dismissal there is no

way she can get on the payroll.

I want to say to the Minister that I'd like to know now what

he's going to do about it. If he'll agree to reopen the case,

well, fine. I think that's what he should do; I think that's

what he thinks he should do. I realize you've made one decision

not to do it but I hope I've pointed out to you that I think a

wrong has been done, a real injustice has been done to an

innocent person. I really think you're a big enough Minister....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: You probably made a mistake to this point; you

only listened to one side of the coin, really, in my

opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stand up and admit it.

MR. FRASER: Are you prepared, Mr. Minister, to say that you

will reopen the case?

[ Page 1648 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I wish, Mr. Chairman, that the Speaker this

morning would have taken that. We're all getting up and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're in committee now dealing with vote

MR. FRASER: I realize that, but you're a way better

chairman, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I don't mind sitting down to get your answer, Mr.

Minister, but I'll assure you that I'll be right back up again

if you haven't.... Maybe you haven't had time to consider it,

but I would certainly like to hear what you have to say about

it. Hopefully you have had time to consider it and give me an

answer.

HON. MR. COCKE: An hour and 40 minutes later, reading

transcripts, et cetera. I'd like to deal with the questions as

I was asked them, but not in the same order of priority in

which the Member puts them.

First, the Williams Lake and Bella Coola claims that we've

bought and what the alternatives are to providing emergency

services in that area.

Our own aircraft are only for backup. What we've asked the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to

do is, where possible, where the government is purchasing

aircraft, to let those aircraft lend themselves to air

ambulances so that they can back up whatever ambulance service

we have in the province, just as we use the Department of

National Defence for backup. You might be interested in knowing

that they now charge us $950 an hour for one of their planes,

$850 an hour for another. It's a pretty expensive back-up

service and therefore I think it's important that we're able to

provide back-up where we can.

In areas such as our pilot project in Stewart, we are

providing a contract with Okanagan Helicopters. We also have a

contractual arrangement with other people in the flying

business where it's not right to use a helicopter but to use a

land, or a seaplane to go to those people. As we expand our

emergency service across the province, we will be making

contractual arrangements with those people in the areas who can

provide the kind of emergency service necessary.

Air evacuation is a very important aspect of emergency care, as our Members

and your Members have been indicating quite clearly over the last number of

years. This is all being taken into consideration. However, the emergency service

will do the advising; they will be looking, as they have done up until now and

as they expand their service, at each area and its needs. My suggestion is that

we keep on working in that direction. Certainly there will be, I think, an emergency

service in B.C. which will have no peer in Canada.

As far as the cost of maintenance of public health buildings

in Cariboo, I think it's the least that those municipalities

can do to apply themselves to the upkeep of those buildings to

the extent that is demanded. There is very little tax on the

rural areas compared to the urban areas. Where Vancouver, North

Vancouver, New Westminster or Victoria might be spending $2.50

to $4 per capita, it's 30 cents in areas like yours, Mr.

Member. We will be adjusting this as time goes by, as

regionalization takes place, as it has done in the capital

district. The capital district will be taking their full

responsibility as of the first of April and there will be

formulas brought about. But I don't really think there has been

any great hardship to those municipalities which have carried

that janitorial and wee bit of upkeep — "a shingle once in a

while" type of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: But that isn't the point.

HON. MR. COCKE: Anyhow, I understand your problem. Certainly

as regionalization and other aspects take place, these aspects

will be brought into the formula.

As far as the extended care, you were quite critical about

what we do with extended-care people. First, you said, "What

are the guidelines?" Extended-care guidelines are the most

easy-to-understand guidelines ever constructed. A person

requiring extended care is bedridden, period. That's all. Not

ambulatory. Except by your government when they were

government.

MR. FRASER: Why don't the doctors tell the public that?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Member, I think the doctors do tell the

public that, but why don't the politicians tell the public

that, instead of coming in here hammering away at something

that you already know?

The guidelines are clear. Extended care, non-ambulatory

care, is described by my predecessor as "bedridden." I'll

describe it so that it's more acceptable. We know, and you

know, that it must be backed up by intermediate care, and

that's exactly what we're working on now, trying to back it

up.

It took that government over there years and years and years

to do anything to even get started on chronic care and then it

was extended care. You know why? Because the federal government

were prepared to share the costs. They're not prepared to share

the costs on intermediate care or personal care or any other

level of care other than those that are now insured benefits.

But we are saying as policy that we're moving in that direction

and have done, and are moving quicker and quicker all the time.

But what we

[ Page 1649 ]

get from over there are sick kind of suggestions.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): They're your suggestions, not

ours.

HON. MR. COCKE: You have no suggestions, Mr. Member.

What do we do when we have a framework that's very difficult

to deal with? We have extended care only. We have one person

who has been rehabilitated to the point where they are now

mobile. We have somebody waiting in the wings that needs to be

in who is immobile.

Dr. McKay — again, we're talking about a civil servant, but

it's her job to assess who's an extended-care patient and who

isn't. If she says that a person is no longer qualified and

there's some person that is desperately in need out there, then

when we say that the person has to be kept in but no longer

qualifies, we're saying to that person on the waiting list that

it's not available to him. We know that the answer is not a

proliferation of extended-care beds from here to eternity. What

it is is a back-up of intermediate care and that's precisely

the direction we're taking. I will be taking it even faster.

We've had all sorts of planning done in this regard. You can't

just suddenly come up in 18 months with thousands of hospital

beds and thousands of institutions; it's impossible. Who would

know better than that opposition party who did so little in

that area?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You're doing less.

HON. MR. COCKE: Why don't you get in your own chair, Mr.

former Minister of Labour?

All right, then we move on into the Chilcotin. Dr.

Vandermann was there when I took office.

MR. FRASER: Right.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right, so don't give the impression

that he's suddenly jumped out of Haney and up there and got a

job. The fact of the matter is that poor Dr. Vandermann was up

there providing some service on a fee-for-service basis and

starving.

MR. FRASER: He was there since 1971.

HON. MR. COCKE: Hear, hear! Okay. So Dr. Vandermann was not appointed

until such time as it was obvious that he could not survive on a fee-for-service

basis in the Chilcotin. So we then said: "Do we go on giving medical service

to this area that badly needs it?" Under those circumstances we made the decisions

to do so. We went to the medical commission — not to Public Health — for his

salary so that he would be paid not on a fee-for-service basis but on a salary

through the Medical Services Commission, supervised to some extent naturally

by Health Services, but very light supervision, and asked to provide reports.

However, some people who are attracted to the rural areas,

the isolated areas, often times are somewhat intransigent in

their ways. They have very definite ideas and definite habits

and that's the way it's going to be, and the doctors and the

nurse whom we also provided under public health could not work

together because the nurse is a public health nurse who is an

extended role of the nurse.

For those of you who don't know what that is, they deliver

more of a service than just a nurse in a hospital. They can

prescribe, as an example, aspirins, and they can give service

because it's badly needed in many areas of the province. It is

the habit of the public health nurse to look after people up to

a certain level of care, so it's called "extended role."

They're well educated and well informed.

This nurse was no new nurse. This was one of our senior

nurses who has been well acquainted with isolated areas.

Unfortunately it did not work out. In my letter to you I

suggested that the region did not really qualify for both, but

we were prepared, even knowing that, to provide both.

Under the circumstances at the present time there's just

nothing we can do. The doctor is there providing his service.

We're going to keep the facility open on the basis that it's

there for visiting. We want to have a tenant in there to look

after it. It's there for visiting public health nurses,

dentists, whoever is going in to provide some service in the

area. Generally speaking, that's it. He was not paid $40,000.

This doctor was paid the normal pay, and that's $32,000 plus

expenses.

Mr. Member, you persist in doing a job in this House that

should never have been done publicly in the first place, and

that's the Vaness affair — the transcript and all of it. I just

don't quite understand your direction. She resigned.

Maybe she resigned under pressure, but let me tell you, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Mrs. Vaness in 1971 put

in a complaint to the public service, the Civil Service

Commission. She knew the direction. She was denied an appeal or

an application for leave of absence by the department. She was

a member of the B.C. Government Employees Union and she turned

to them and went to the Civil Service Commission at the time

and appealed and got what she wanted.

Now, do you mean to tell me that suddenly she was forgotten?

I'm sympathetic. I don't think that this was handled a hundred

per cent. Often human things are not, but I don't think it's

the business.... Condemn the Minister all you like, but quit

hacking away at the civil servants, virtually all of whom your

government appointed. What's going on? In that

[ Page 1650 ]

department it was all of them.

MR. FRASER: Reopen the case.

MR. PHILLIPS: Reopen it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Reopen. Yes, that's right. The fact of the

matter is the court was.... If this Member felt that that was

the way to go, or that he wanted to help this woman, then what

he would do would be quietly take her by the hand and help her

put in a complaint to the Public Service Commission. You don't

understand that, do you?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: You're going to hack away. You can't find

anything to beef about so you've got to get personal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you know I'm sympathetic. I

understand that, but as a Minister of Health with I don't know

how many thousand people working in my department, how can I

possibly get in and start making personnel decisions that

aren't mine to make? That's a grievance for the Public Service

Commission; it's not a grievance to the Minister of Health. You

know it and I know it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Poppycock back there, get in your own chair.

You guys don't know where you're sitting today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know where we're sitting.

HON. MR. COCKE: We'll write you a note. I think it's wrong.

1 think it's desperately wrong to make a political football out

of private affairs of this nature, if there is an alternative.

The alternative is well known to Mrs. Vaness, who made a

grievance in 197 1. She knows the route, and if she needs to be

reminded, Mr. Member, you remind her.

That's about the size of it, Mr. Chairman. I listened to the

transcript. I understand where the transcript is. I'll take a

look at the copy. But I just don't see when there are grievance

steps to follow, how I can possibly get involved.

Now, you want her name cleared.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, real clear. Reopen the case.

HON. MR. COCKE: You know the way the Socreds think that you can get

a name cleared? It's to smear it all over the newspaper. Her name will never

be forgotten. My heavenly days, it's been in the headlines for months and months

and months. Name cleared? Can't do it.

That's the picture as far as I'm concerned. I feel that the

Member will be doing a great service if he'll go back and give

some straightforward assistance in this matter.

MR. FRASER: I want to comment on the Minister's comments.

Some of them are satisfactory and some of them weren't.

First of all, on ambulances, I'll go the same route he did.

I'm glad to hear of what they're doing there and hopefully in a

while.... Why would those people in the rural areas who get

helicopters...?

You made one thing clear, that the government aircraft are

only for back-up for ambulance service. I thought maybe you

were going the other route — that they would be spending a lot

of their time on straight ambulance service. As a matter of

fact, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) told us that when he bought them. But I guess there

has been a change.

Although the Minister agreed that he knew about the small

item, and I agree that it's a small item — the maintenance of

the health units. But the rub is, Mr. Minister, and I think you

realize this, it is a municipal cost and it should be

regionalized. That's what it should be. I think a directive

from you or your department.... We have the regional hospital

districts, but the three municipalities in my riding — and I can

only talk from what I know — they are picking up the cost.

What about expansion, too? The one at Williams Lake right

now is in there, and everybody is jockeying around about the

expansion. I believe the community has to put something up on

that. So, you know, in any case you are getting a bigger place

than you.... A brand new health unit there had to replace a

roof — that was probably poor workmanship, but they couldn't

claim on the contractor. They had to replace it within a period

of three years.

But the point there is: it should be on a regional basis not

on just the municipality basis. There's one in each community,

100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel.

Now, getting on to the Dr. Vandermann deal, again I hope you

didn't misunderstand me, Mr. Minister — I related the dates

when I spoke. As a matter of fact my wife and I helped Dr.

Vandermann get to Kleena Kleene. He ran out of tires when he

was driving in there, and I drove him to get tires. It's the

first time I ever met the man in my life; he'd come from

Haney.

But I was well aware when he got there; it was July, 1971,

and he certainly was in there. It was his

[ Page 1651 ]

own idea to do this, as I said when I spoke earlier.

The point is here...and certainly you weren't the

Minister, and I congratulated you for making a deal with him

when I spoke earlier, so don't get incensed about that. There

is nothing to get incensed about there.

The problem is that you seem to be just throwing your hands

up. You can't make him work with that public health person, so

you padlocked the health unit. And I repeat: the citizens out

there want that open.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's not padlocked.

MR. FRASER: No, but it is rented or something, for some

other purpose, and it is not being used for the purpose for

which it was built. The local people want it. I could say all the way from Bella

Coola to Williams Lake they want this and they want it open.

You have no idea of the summer traffic and the tourism that is

going on out there, and you have your permanent residents as

well. It is not as isolated as you think.

I don't think you should take the attitude, Mr. Minister,

through the Chairman, that just because they can't get along

that maybe another party will go out there and they will get

along. I don't know. Why can't some senior person in your

department talk to Dr. Vandermann? I believe he's making some

kind of request, and I'm not clear what those requests are.

Maybe they should be considered. Then let's get the show on the

road the way it should be.

Now the Vaness affair: I'm sorry the Minister criticized me

for bringing it up here. I don't like doing these things

either, but I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, if you're

worrying about headlines, we never have to worry about

headlines on this side of the House. You can be sure of

that.

I want to tell you that I got into this act long after it

was in the headlines in the Cariboo papers, in every one of

them. It has been for a long time, and it's still there. I

never put it there. I never started this in the first place at

all. I was asked to help.

The first time, you probably had good reason to say that I

shouldn't have brought it up — when we had that non-confidence

motion. But I don't think you are fair when you say that I

shouldn't have brought it up now, because since then I went out

to my office and I wrote you a letter which I discussed before.

I made a formal request to you; you gave me a formal reply. And

I just don't accept that, that's all. So, don't lace me for

bringing up this affair on the floor of this House. What else

would I do?

You say advise her to go and get somebody to make a

complaint for her. Well, I don't know how you do that; she's

not a government employee any more.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, sure. She was a government employee then.

She isn't now. Maybe that's what you're setting it up for, so

that she makes the application to wherever this complaint

department is, and they'll rule it out because she's no longer

a government employee. I think that's treating this thing very

unfairly.

Mr. Minister, you almost said that you would do something

about it — that you'd read the transcript. Well, just go one

step further. Certainly you should be able to give some

instructions to somebody to pursue this matter in view of what

has been laid before you now.

I agree when you say you can't look into every individual

employee. I realize that. But when an item like this is all

over the province, surely you could take the time. You're going

to have lots of time to read, Mr. Minister, we're going to be

in this place for 15 hours a day. Once you get all your salary

vote and your department votes, you can just sit and sleep all

the rest of the time. You will have time to read this

stuff.

I'm not satisfied yet. I don't know what you mean by "send

you the transcript." Are you saying that after you read it

you'll decide what to do, or what? I don't know. Is that what

you said, to send the transcript to you?

MR. PHILLIPS: He said he read the transcript.

MR. FRASER: No he didn't. No he didn't. I don't think he

has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you continue? — if you've got

something else to enter into this debate.

MR. FRASER: I haven't much more to contribute. I'm not clear

where I am with the Minister, as related. Did you say you would

read the transcript?

HON. MR. COCKE: I will if you bring it over here.

MR. FRASER: And will you reopen the case?

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: You are not saying you will reopen it, and you

are not saying that....

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd just like to push it under the

carpet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! The Member for Cariboo has the

floor. Will you continue if you have something more to

contribute?

[ Page 1652 ]

MR. FRASER: Are you saying that after you have read the

transcript you will decide what to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are supposed to be addressing the

Chair, and I don't want to have the questions back and forth.

When you are completed....

MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll address them to

you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FRASER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, the Minister and I are

old friends, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is only place for one person to be

speaking on this floor at a time.

MR. FRASER: Yes. I have heard that said here before.

(Laughter.) I don't necessarily agree with that, of course. I

want to know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister: will

he read this transcript himself? That's what I want to know.

And will you reopen the case?

HON. MR. COCKE: In answer to the first question, if I can

get a little bit of help on the transcript, I'll have a look at

the transcript and I'll discuss the case with you in my

office.

MR. FRASER: I appreciate the Minister's answer that he'll

read the transcript. I've read part of it.

What I really want is a commitment to reopen this case.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! You may ask questions, but....

MR. FRASER: Bring this Minister to order there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed. I wasn't calling you to

order. I am saying, "Order. You may proceed."

MR. FRASER: This is quite important to a lot of people.

Certainly, I think, Mr. Chairman, that I am only doing my

public duty here.

I want justice for this individual and I want the commitment

from this Minister that he reopen this case.

If he decides to do that, it is really not too much for him

to say because the case can be reopened and he can come back to

the decision they made. But to be rigid and not say that he

will consider reopening the case, is not giving justice to a

public servant.

When this government campaigned in 1972, they said they were

a people's government. Here you are lowering the boom on a poor

little individual who is a public servant of the government.

What is going on here anyway? What kind of double-talk do you

call that?

It's right in your advertising and everything that you were

a people's government, and here you have an employee of that

party and you won't see that justice is carried out? I think

it's ridiculous.

I want the Minister to give a commitment to reopen this

case.

I appreciate the commitment he's given, that he will read

the transcript. That's fine, but that doesn't achieve a thing.

There is a wrong here, and I'm satisfied that something will

come out if it is fully reopened.

I ask again, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister will reconsider

reopening the case.

HON. MR. COCKE: What kind of response can I possibly give to

that kind of demand? I would be totally irresponsible, as some

of my hon. colleagues opposite, if I responded in the way you

are asking.

I said very clearly that I'd discuss the case with you and

my officials and I'll look at the transcript and I think that

that's a fair enough kind of response to the question that

you're asking, Mr. Member.

You have a great sense of responsibility to a greater extent

then some of your colleagues, so don't respond to that new

leader of yours over there, who comes into this House with no

experience and jumps around, from pillar to post, knocking so

many of the things that were done before him by his

predecessor, whoever that might have been.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this Member that he should follow

his own native wisdom. Let's do this in the cool of the

situation where we can discuss it intelligently.

MR. FRASER: The Minister is certainly getting more

cooperative each time we get him up, I'll agree there. As I

understand what he just said, now he wants me, after he's read

the transcript, to get ahold of him. Is that what I understood

the Minister to say?

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'll have to consider that because I consider

the Minister a fair man. I want to repeat there's something

wrong here. I'll probably accept the Minister on this deal, but

this is pretty nearly the same position that's happened here

before. I'm not the only one who has done this in the House to

try and get an individual some justice. The present Premier of

this province had to do this before, and I witnessed all that.

The only thing that made me mad about that is he got booted out

of the House and got

[ Page 1653 ]

a night's sleep when the rest of us were here all night and

all the next day.

I don't think this should be carried that way, but I'm going

to consider what the Minister said in here.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I realize that this is certainly out of the

public now. I would appreciate a commitment from the Minister

that he would reopen the case. I don't know what to think about

it, but I am very aware that there's a miscarriage of justice

here. I don't know why the Minister's hesitating. Quite

frankly, it is my information that if I didn't bring this up on

the floor of the House, an NDP MLA was going to bring it up in

the House. That's why it is here. In fact, I got it from the

MLA himself, who is well aware of the circumstances of this

case. Therefore it makes it all the more important. You know

when you were an MLA, Mr. Minister, what propelled you to do

these things. That would look really good, you know, to have an

MLA from your side bring this on the floor when all this

episode happened in my riding of Cariboo, and I'm fully

informed on it. So I still think this thing should be settled

on this floor by a commitment by you.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you can't get a commitment

from me. There's no way I can give a commitment of that sort,

because any commitment that I would make would be a definitive

commitment saying that she's reinstated or something along that

line, and I can't make that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Just a minute! That Member says reopen the

case. No case is closed. You people were in government, weren't

you? No case is ever closed until it's closed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There's always that access. You

know it. Maybe if that Member who has been advising you, the

Member for Peace River, where he should be at the present time,

would stop playing politics over there or giving bad advice,

Mr. Member, we could get on with the business of the people of

this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Fooling around with health care in this

province. Disgraceful!

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the last comments of the Minister were completely

irresponsible coming from a Minister of the Crown, to say that we're playing

politics with the health care. You bet your life there's something going on

here and the morale of the public health nursing services is being affected

throughout the whole province, and you know it. So where else are we going to

thrash this out and get it cleared up?

As far as you saying that you'd be irresponsible for not

reopening or reinstating, I didn't ask you to reinstate this

lady; I asked you to reopen the case. All you have to say is:

"I want to have another look at this case." Reopen the

case.

I also told you that you appoint anybody you want. I've got

enough faith in you to have the case reopened and reviewed, and

report back here. If you don't find some of the information in

that review that I've related here this morning over the last

two hours, there's something wrong with the person that did the

review because there's definitely something wrong in this case.

This lady has not been treated justly and fairly by this

people's government. They can't believe it up in the Interior.

Other governments, yes, maybe — but not this people's

government that campaigned they were for the little people and

everything, and then run roughshod over this.

Mr. Minister, if this ever comes up again, I would ask you

why did you send three senior people of your department up

there? I would think that we've all learned something from

this. Why not one — one to one? What did he need three for from

Victoria?

AN HON. MEMBER: Kangaroo court.

MR. FRASER: You talk about a stacked deck. That was sure

one! There was more money wasted with those three going up

there for that specific thing then back, than Mrs. Vaness ever

wasted on the few times she used the private car. That's the

information that I have.

I still want your commitment that you'll review and reopen

this case.

HON. MR. COCKE: Why don't you just discuss this question in

my office? You keep making statements that are incorrect. For

instance, "why did you send?" you say. I didn't even know at

that time the case was on. How could I be on top of what's

happening in the personnel business in this government?

As far as that case is concerned, you know perfectly well

that no case is closed. Anybody has the cabinet appeal. The

people's government — if she wants access to the people's

government, she's got it. You know it, I know it, and everybody

here knows it. Don't give us any more of that stuff. All you're

doing is just standing there, making a lot of noise about the

case where you know perfectly well there's access. No case is

ever closed until it's closed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 1654 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call motion

24. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member have a copy of the motion? Is there any debate on the motion?

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:19 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to above:

That this House hereby further empowers the Select Standing

Committee on Health, Education, and Human Resources during the

present Session, and after prorogation, thereafter to examine

into and study the subject-matter in item 4 of the White Paper

tabled in this House by the Minister of Education on the 20th

day of March, and to obtain and examine representations on the

said subject-matter from school trustees, teachers, and

interested citizens throughout the Province of British

Columbia, and elsewhere, if required by the said Committee; and

to report to the Legislative Assembly on the said

subject-matter at the next following Session and to file with

Mr. Speaker a monthly report setting forth particulars of the

meetings, proposals for agenda, and a general statement of

current activities and expenses of the Committee during the

preceding month.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada